Zerohedge

After Tucker Carlson Exposé, FBI Director Patel Says Trump Rally Shooter Thomas Crooks Acted Alone The same day that Tucker Carlson told America more than the FBI has about Donald Trump's attempted assassin, Thomas Crooks, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that Crooks 'acted alone' in planning and conducting the attack.  FBI director Kash Patel (L) and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt (R) speak during a press briefing at the White House in Washington on Nov. 12, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times Patel posted to X on Friday:  "Over 480 FBI employees were involved in the Thomas Crooks investigation. Employees conducted over 1,000 interviews, addressed over 2,000 public tips, analyzed data extracted from 13 seized digital devices, reviewed nearly 500,000 digital files, collected, processed, and synchronized hundreds of hours of video footage, analyzed financial activity from 10 different accounts, and examined data associated with 25 social media or online forum accounts. The FBI’s investigation into Thomas Crooks identified and examined over 20 online accounts, data extracted from over a dozen electronic devices, examination of numerous financial accounts, and over 1,000 interviews and 2000 public tips." While Patel was seemingly responding to Tucker's claim that the government originally said Crooks had virtually no online footprint, that's not the point. If all of what Patel says is true, why don't we know any of it? Why did it take an anonymous tip to Tucker Carlson to provide the public with Crooks' public shift from Trump supporter to Trump hater to failed assassin? The public has an interest in this and a right to know. In late September, Carlson's team received an anonymous tip from someone who said they had gained access to some of Crooks' online accounts, which he found using 'tools commonly used by private investigators' after obtaining Crooks' phone number and gmail address from public documents. He then traced that to two encrypted foreign email accounts (bcook[at]mailfence.com and americangamer[at]gmx.com). He also had a snapchat account, a Venmo, Zelle and PayPal account among several others.  "It turns out that Crooks was hardly an online ghost," Carlson reports. "And yet, federal investigators lied and told us there was no trace of him online." The source was able to obtain all materials from Crooks' deactivated YouTube account - which includes his search history, watch history, and 737 public comments.  When Carlson's team asked the FBI why they hadn't shared this information with the public, the agency replied by asking if they could verify the authenticity of the shooter's account.  Who is Thomas Crooks? pic.twitter.com/WwjvPGGRwS — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 14, 2025 As the Epoch Times notes further, in the July 13, 2024, attack in Butler, Pennsylvania, Crooks fired eight shots from a rooftop, grazing Trump’s ear, killing one attendee, and wounding two others before being fatally shot by Secret Service agents. Patel’s statement aligns with earlier FBI briefings, but also provides new details on the investigation’s depth. Little is known about Crooks, who lived in Bethel Park and was a registered Republican who donated $15 to a progressive group in 2021. Neighbors said they were shocked to learn that he was behind the assassination attempt, describing him as quiet and unassuming. FBI officials previously revealed that Crooks searched more than 60 topics related to Trump and President Joe Biden in the month before the attack, especially as they related to rally details and explosive devices. His digital activity included encrypted overseas accounts, prompting suspicions of foreign involvement, but Patel’s social media post dismissed these concerns. The deceased victim, Corey Comperatore, died shielding his family from gunfire, while Marine veteran David Dutch, 54, survived after being shot in the chest and liver. Another man, James Copenhaver, sustained life-altering injuries. David Dutch, 54, was also injured. Patel’s post is the first major update on the case since he assumed leadership of the FBI, and some lawmakers and critics are demanding more information, including access to Crooks’s online posts. In the weeks after the assassination attempt, congressional hearings criticized Secret Service protocols, resulting in the resignation of its director. A bipartisan task force is currently investigating systemic failures. A watchdog group is suing the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security for records regarding security lapses that allowed Crooks to climb onto the rooftop with a rifle after being seen by rallygoers and police. Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 07:35

The Foreign Worker Scam Exposes Trump's Economic Achilles Heel Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us, If you really want to counter the chaos grifters of the political left in the US, then you have to be willing to offer a coherent and consistent plan which dissolves the chaos they thrive on. Planning eases instability. Consistency defeats confusion. Clarity squashes disorder. The public needs to see a comprehensive list of standards, actions and goals and they don’t like it when their leaders suddenly derail the train. When it comes to economics, vision is meaningless. Every idiot out there has an economic “vision”, very few people have any idea how to get from Point A to Point Z. To be clear, Trump has limited political capacity to change the economy for the better. He has three years left on his second term and the fiscal problems he’s dealing with were created through decades of government and central bank mismanagement (or deliberate sabotage). Even if Trump had two more terms it would be difficult, and I’m setting aside the fact that the political left DOES NOT WANT the economy to be fixed and will do everything in their power to keep instability in place. Why? Because the worse things get the greater their election chances in 2026 and 2028. And, the more the system breaks the easier it is to convince the public that socialism is the ultimate solution. To bring our nation back to legitimate self reliance would require a total reformation of our society and the removal of the political left (including globalists) from the equation. Part of this long term reformation demands a reversal of open borders ideology and multiculturalism, which has ravaged the west. Migrants view our economy as a “global commons”, a wealth pool they are all entitled to access. They don’t see it is a privilege, they see it as a “right”. This is something that Trump does have the capacity to fix in the three years he has left in office, but he has a tendency to get sidetracked by minutia and bad advice. I have been warning since before Trump was re-elected that the economy was going to be his Achilles Heal. From past examples it seems that Trump delegates a lot of his policy ideas to advisers and among these advisers (he has dozens of them, official and unofficial) there are always people who give him suicidal arguments and terrible talking points. His lack of concrete planning for economic repair is putting conservatives on edge and handing immense social influence over to Democrats and woke activists. All they have to do is point at the lack of a clear strategy and suggest that they can do better (they can’t, but it won’t matter to voters living paycheck to paycheck). Trump has done some things right. His tariff policies are absolutely necessary to counter the wealth gap created by corporate globalism. The US has been turned into a consumer nation that continuously takes on debt in order to create ever depreciating wealth. That wealth is then siphoned from the public by international conglomerates, banks and foreign interests. We are being slowly drained of our lifeblood by a nest of vampires. Tariffs are one of the few measures at Trump’s disposal to unilaterally stop the bleeding and force corporations to bring the wealth and jobs back to the US. This is done through new domestic manufacturing and the end of general outsourcing using third world labor. Globalism is NOT the free market, it is the opposite. It is forced interdependency of nations and economies to the benefit of a tiny handful of ultra-wealthy elites. The tariff fight is direct and Trump’s reasons are evident. The average Joe wants more American jobs with higher salaries for the middle class instead of wallowing in low-wage retail and service sector hell. But Trump can’t say he’s fighting for this end result through tariffs and then turn around and let an army of migrants take middle class jobs. The President stumbled into multiple forehead slapping blunders this past week. He called for 600,000 Chinese students to prop up US colleges. He called for 50-year mortgages to offset plunging home ownership, and he argued that America doesn’t have the talent pool to fill jobs taken by H1B foreigners. I’ll focus on his flip-flop over H1B visas because it’s an obvious example of Trump trusting biased advisers when he should be following his campaign policies (The foreign student issue requires a separate article. The 50 year mortgage idea feels lazy and pro-banker, but no one is forced to take on a long term mortgage). The H1B issue reveals Trump’s great weakness: He doesn’t have a clear economic plan with rules and goals – Making him easily changeable and vulnerable to outside influence. He’s playing the situation by ear. That might work for some problems, but not for a financial system weakened by stagflation and mass immigration. I am, of course, also operating on the assumption that Trump WANTS to fix the economy and doesn’t want to be blamed for its downfall. There are approximately 730,000 foreign workers operating in the US today on H1B visas. Most of these workers come from third-world economies, 70% of them come from India. I’ve written about this in the past, but there is a hidden dynamic in play when it comes to third world countries and remittances. Remittances are cash transfers from illegal migrants and visa holders back to their home countries. These transfers represent a massive dollar-based wealth transfer to certain nations. India is the largest recipient of remittances from the US (Mexico is the second largest). Over $129 billion is transferred from foreign workers into India every year. To put this in perspective, this is nearly three times the amount that India spends annually on public welfare programs. It’s also almost twice the amount of the dollar value in goods that India exports to US markets. That is to say, remittances are far more important for cash flowing into India’s economy than manufacturing and agricultural exports to US consumers. It is possible that in order to cut deals with India on tariffs Trump is compelled to back off of his opposition to H1B. That said, I think that more pressure is coming from his associates at home than political leaders in India. Trump’s recent argument is, essentially, that America isn’t able to function without H1B workers and that Americans are not able to fill the jobs that these migrant do. This is utter nonsense. There are advisers from the corporate sector that are keen to keep the caravan of cheap labor marching forward (Elon Musk has not hidden his views on this, though I think he wrongly downplays the wage factor). Then, there are also Indian-American conservative politicians and academics like Vivek Ramaswamy and Dinesh D’Souza who make rather impassioned declarations about American workers who are not up to snuff. Even conservatives with migrant backgrounds often don’t view America as a culture they need to adapt to and support, they view it as an economic zone for their countrymen to freely access and exploit. This is their definition of the “American Dream”, and this is why immigration is a problem. Illegal immigration certainly, but H1B is also a concern. These people are quick to trash on Americans as “too uneducated” or “too lazy” to take on certain jobs. First and foremost, H1B holders are not working integral jobs. The vast majority (65%) work in IT and software development, largely for Silicon Valley. Only 9% are architects and engineers and 1% are doctors. These are not key workers keeping America afloat with their skills, though they might be keeping Silicon Valley companies afloat with their cheap labor. Second, H1B workers are not hired for their expertise, they are hired because they work for less money on average. Over 80% of visa applicants are hired for entry level positions or “junior/qualified” roles. Analysis from 2020 to 2025 shows that H1B employees are consistently paid less than their American counterparts (10% to 30% less depending on the sector and job). The H1B program legally allows companies to pay foreign workers less. The White House’s own documentation outlines this problem. The biggest lie about H1B is that foreign workers are hired because they have the training. Many do not. In fact, companies run training centers in the US, bring workers over on visas, then teach them how to do the jobs they’re being hired for. Even worse, American employees are often forced under contract to train their third world replacements before they are laid off. One could argue that H1B applicants are usually required to have a degree for the job they want to work. Not surprisingly, there are numerous programs for foreigners to gain admission to US colleges. Around 60% of Indian H1B holders got their degrees in US colleges, not Indian colleges. Over 300,000 Indian students go to college in the US every year. There are over 1,100 different college scholarship programs in the US specifically catering to Indian students. Again, why aren’t these classroom seats and jobs being filled with American citizens first? Are foreign workers more talented, or are they just being offered more opportunities because they are cheaper to hire? This is about US companies taking advantage and saving money on labor, it has nothing to do with skill or education. Trump ran on a campaign platform of America for Americans and America first. The H1B program was originally designed as a way to bring foreign workers with niche skills to the US to fill desperately needed roles. Instead, they are used by conglomerates to supplant American workers for less pay. They are also used by foreigners as the primary stepping stone to quick US citizenship, and by foreign governments as a way to drain wealth from the US economy. If a foreign worker really has something to offer that’s valuable to our country, then by all means, let’s bring them here. However, no foreign worker should be given a visa until companies at least attempt to hire and train Americans for these roles. If they can’t find enough people, only then should those jobs be outsourced. When Trump ignores these factors, it makes it seem as though he is abandoning the America First mantra that got him elected. It runs contrary to his efforts to keep jobs in America for Americans. Furthermore, blindly defending H1Bs from the third world undermines his goal of reducing immigration to only the best and brightest. Yes, there are many educated workers coming from countries like India – Because we educated them and trained them to replace us. The point is, if we can educate and train third worlders, then we can easily educate and train Americans. Therefore, there’s little reason for H1B to exist. If the economic plan is to make America stronger by retaining our jobs and resources, then stick to the plan, Donald. Stop acting like the US is an open economic zone. Establish education programs that favor American citizens that want to train for these jobs. Close the low wage loophole for foreigners. Remove the incentives that encourage corporations to hire outside the US and watch how many middle class jobs (and dollars) boost the US economy instead of feeding bank accounts in India. This is within your power as president. If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 23:20

Chaos: The Trump Doctrine For Latin America Authored by Roger D. Harris via AntiWar.com, The US, under Trump, is unapologetically an empire operating without pretense. International law is for losers. A newly minted War Department, deploying the most lethal killing machine in world history, need not hide behind the sham of promoting democracy. Recall that in 2023 Trump boasted: “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil.” As CEO of the capitalist bloc, Trump’s mission is not about to be restrained by respect for sovereignty. There is only one inviolate global sovereign; all others are subalterns. Venezuela – with our oil under its soil – is now in the crosshairs of the empire. Not only does Venezuela possess the largest petroleum reserves, but it also has major gold, coltan, bauxite, and nickel deposits. Of course, the world’s hegemon would like to get its hands all that mineral wealth. But it would be simplistic to think that it is driven only by narrow economic motives. Leverage over energy flows is central to maintaining global influence. Washington requires control of strategic resources to preserve its position as the global hegemon, guided by its official policy of “full spectrum dominance.” Via Associated Press For Venezuela, revenues derived from these resources enable it to act with some degree of sovereign independence. Most gallingly, Venezuela nationalized its oil, instead of gifting it to private entrepreneurs – and then used it to fund social programs and to assist allies abroad like Cuba. All this is anathema to the hegemon. Further pushing the envelope is Venezuela’s “all-weather strategic partnership” with China. With Russia, its most consequential defense ally, Venezuela ratified a strategic partnership agreement. Similarly, Venezuela has a strong anti-imperialist alliance with Iran. All three partners have come to Caracas’s defense, along with regional allies such a Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico. The US has subjected Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution to incessant regime-change aggression for its entire quarter-century of existence. In 2015, Barack Obama codified what economist Jeffrey Sachs calls a remarkable “legal fiction.”  His executive order designated Venezuela as an “extraordinary threat” to US national security. Renewed by each succeeding president, the executive order is really an implicit recognition of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution as a counter hegemonic alternative, challenging Washington’s world order. The latest US belligerence testifies to the success of the Venezuelan resistance. The effects of asphyxiating US-led sanctions, which had crashed the economy, have been partly reversed with a return to positive economic growth, leaving the empire with little alternative but to escalate antagonism using its military option. The AFP reports “tensions between Washington and Caracas have dramatically risen” as if the one-sided aggression were a tit-for-tat. Venezuela seeks peace, but has a gun held to its head. Reuters, blames the victim, claiming that the Venezuelan government “is planning to…sow chaos in the event of a US air or ground attack.” In fact, President Nicolás Maduro has pledged “prolonged resistance” to Washington’s unprovoked assaults rather than meekly conceding defeat. The death toll from US strikes on alleged small drug boats off Venezuela, in the Pacific off Colombia and Ecuador, and as far north as Mexico now exceeds 75 and continues to rise. But not an ounce of narcotics has been confiscated. In contrast, Venezuela has seized 64 tons of drugs this year without killing anyone, as the Orinoco Tribune observes. Russian Foreign Ministry’s María Zakharova quipped: “now that the US has suddenly remembered, at this historic moment, that drugs are an evil, perhaps it is worth it for the US to go after the criminals within its own elite.” On November 11, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, and its accompanying warships arrived in the Caribbean. They join an armada of US destroyers, fighter jets, drones, and troops that have been building since August. In a breathtaking understatement, the Washington Post allowed: “The breadth of firepower… would seem excessive” for drug interdiction in what it glowingly describes as a “stunning military presence.” Venezuela is now on maximum military alert with a threatening flotilla off its coast and some 15,000 US troops standing by.  Millions of Venezuelans have joined the militia, and international brigades have been welcomed to join the defense. President Maduro issued a decree of “external commotion,” granting special powers if invaded. The populace has united around its Chavista leadership. The far-right opposition – which has called for a military invasion of its own country – are more isolated than ever. Only 3% support such a call. Their US-designated leader María Corina Machado has gone bonkers, saying “no doubt” that Maduro rigged the 2020 US election against Trump. According to the rabidly anti-Chavista Caracas Chronicles, the so-called Iron Lady “is not simply betting Venezuela’s future on Trump, she is betting her existence.” The legal eagles at The Washington Post now find that “the Trump administration’s approach is illegal.” United Nations experts warn that these unprovoked lethal strikes against vessels at sea “amount to international crimes.” Even high-ranking Democrats “remain unconvinced” by the administration’s legal arguments. They’re miffed about being left out of the administration’s briefings and not getting to see full videos of the extrajudicial murders. The Democrats unite with the Republicans in demonizing Maduro to achieve regime change in Venezuela, but wish it could be done by legal means. The so-call opposition party unanimously voted to confirm Marco Rubio as secretary of state, fully aware of the program that he now spearheads. The corporate press has been complicit in regime change in its endless demonization of Maduro. They report that Trump authorized covert CIA operations as if that was a scoop rather than business as usual. What is new is a US administration overtly flaunting supposedly covert machinations. This is part of Washington’s full-press psychological pressure campaign on Venezuela, in which the follow-the-flag media have been its eager handmaiden. The US regime is buzzing drones over the airspace of Trinidad’s north coast, just miles from Venezuela T&T Pres. Kamla Persad Bissessar has endorsed the show of force, and is now backing up Rubio’s claim that reports of an imminent US assault are “fake news” https://t.co/lysqkLHhEA — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) November 14, 2025 The AP reports that Jack Keane, when he served as a US Army general, instructed staff to “see reporters as a conduit” for the Pentagon. This was cited as a criticism of Trump after a few dozen embedded reporters turned in their Pentagon badges. Trump has called out the Washington press corps as “very disruptive in terms of world peace,” proving the adage that even a blind dog can sometimes find a bone. The Wall Street Journal opines: “Nobody in the [Trump] administration seems prepared to ask the hard questions about what happens if they do destabilize the [Venezuelan] regime but fail to topple it.” Political analysts Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies suggest the answer is carnage and chaos  – based on the Washington’s past performances in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to mention a few. Foreign Policy’s perspective – aligned with the Washington establishment – is that the level of regional fragmentation is the greatest in the last half century. Regional organizations have become dysfunctional –  UNASUR has been “destroyed,” CELAC is “useless,” and the OAS canceled its summit. The factionalism, Responsible Statecraft agrees, “marks one of the lowest moments for regional relations in decades.” Bilateral “deals” with the US are replacing regional cohesion. This is Latin America under the beneficence of Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine.” The alternative vision, represented by Venezuela, is CELAC’s Zone of Peace and ALBA-TCP’s development for mutual benefit. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 22:10

US Needs More Gas Infrastructure, Storage To Support Electric Grid: NARUC By Robert Walton of UtilityDive Summary: The United States needs additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure and storage opportunities to reliably meet the growing demand for energy, a National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners task force report concluded on Wednesday. NARUC’s Gas-Electric Alignment for Reliability task force, or GEAR, was formed in 2023 in an effort to improve coordination between the two interwoven energy sectors, with an ultimate goal of bolstering grid reliability. The report includes nine recommendations but stopped short of advocating for a Gas Reliability Organization akin to electric grid efforts, and concluded changes to the gas-electric market day and force majeure contract provisions were unnecessary. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners on Nov. 12, 2025, published a report concluding greater harmonization between the gas and power sectors is needed “to ensure reliable and affordable electricity service.” More gas pipeline infrastructure will be key to the effort, the report said. Rising electricity demand and a reliance on gas-fired generation has at times left the power sector scrambling when necessary fuel was not available. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, some Texas electric companies cut power to gas production and transportation facilities as part of their emergency conservation response. That reduced fuel supplies to gas-fired power plants, contributing to energy shortages and blackouts. Almost 250 people in Texas died in the storm. And in 2022, unplanned generator outages reached 90,500 MW during Winter Storm Elliott, with gas fuel supply issues accounting for 20% of unplanned generating unit outages, derates and failures to start, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corp. The GEAR report parses diverse policy perspectives around the future of gas and gas infrastructure expansion, NARUC said. However, task force participants found common ground “on the need for harmonization between the electric and natural gas sectors to ensure reliable and affordable electricity service,” the report said. “The need for harmonization is crucial, regardless of one’s long-term perspective about future energy policy in various regions of the country,” it said. Recommendations include: creation of a natural gas “readiness forum”; development of additional gas pipeline infrastructure and gas storage opportunities; new and enhanced market tools to improve supplier performance in extreme weather; demand response initiatives for gas utilities; and market changes to incentivize gas pipeline capacity releases. Regulators and grid operators “should apply a strategic approach to expand opportunities for increased or new storage investment consistent with empowering end-users to exert greater control over supply needs,” the report found. There was some support for the formation of a Gas Reliability Organization, similar to the North American Electric Reliability Corp., but not enough to advance the recommendation, the GEAR report noted. “A majority of members [concluded] that such an option (on a national, regional or state basis) is unnecessary or not the best means to efficiently enhance gas-electric reliability,” it said. Similarly, discussions around aligning the timing of gas or electric days were not advanced. Gas and electric market schedules are typically several hours apart, though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has historically tried to better align them. “While it is obvious that the current bifurcated system is not how anyone would design the combined system from scratch, we are unaware of any systemwide outage that has occurred due to scheduling issues or mismatches,” the report said. And possible changes to standard force majeure contract provisions, which cover supply disruptions, were found to be “neither viable nor productive,” the report said. The task force noted that the primary driver for changes to the force majeure provisions “is aimed at expanded winterization of the production system,” and noted there are two recommendations that “facilitate a better understanding of force majeure and provide greater opportunities to mitigate its use.” The recommendations provide an “ideal starting point for state regulators to ponder future steps to enhance reliability,” Dwight Keen, vice chair of the GEAR working group, said in a statement. Keen is also a regulator with the Kansas Corporation Commission. A coalition of gas-electric groups supported the report’s findings. “The biggest challenge affecting interoperability across the systems is not operational; it is economic,” the Reliability Alliance said in a statement, The group consists of the Electric Power Supply Association, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and Natural Gas Supply Association. “Competitive power suppliers have invested significantly to strengthen winter readiness, but we need continued alignment between gas and electric systems,” EPSA President and CEO Todd Snitchler said in a statement. “That’s the measure of success we’re all working toward, and GEAR’s work has been an important step to bridge that gap.” Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 21:00

Obamacare Is A Disaster, Just As Expected Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness, Just over 15 years ago, when the Democrat-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate were debating the healthcare proposals offered by the Democrat president, nearly everyone on the political right was unified in opposition. It may well have been the last time the right was united on anything, but it was indeed unified and resolute. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (MN) warned that “This monstrosity of a bill will not only destroy the private healthcare market, it will lead to massive increases in premiums and rationed care.” Congressman (and eventual vice-presidential nominee and Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan (WI) complained that “This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It’s a government takeover that will explode costs and kill jobs.” Senator (and Republican Leader) Mitch McConnell (KY) insisted that Americans “want reforms that lower costs, not a trillion-dollar government experiment.” Right-leaning commentators like George Will and Charles Krauthammer agreed, not only with each other but with Republicans in Congress as well. Krauthammer, in particular, argued that President Obama’s promise to “bend the cost curve” down was pure, unadulterated, and extensively documented fantasy. National Review, much maligned among Trump supporters these days, dedicated most of an issue to exposing and forecasting Obamacare’s fiscal absurdities and the likelihood that it would result in lower quality of care, increased taxes, and exploding insurance premiums. Even the Heritage Foundation—in the news lately for purportedly exacerbating rifts in the conservative coalition—likewise agreed with everyone in the movement, insisting that Obamacare was a disaster waiting to happen and would keep none of the promises that it made, all while destroying what was good and valuable in the private insurance market. More than a decade later, when it was clear that the system was in trouble and that only greater government intervention and spending could save it, Heritage (in the form of Robert Moffit, Edmund Haislmaier, and Nina Owcharenko Schaefer) took something of a victory lap, detailing Obamacare’s manifest failures and arguing that it was long past time to scrap the whole experiment. “The facts,” the Heritage analysts noted, “are in.” The ACA dramatically increased health insurance premiums and cost-sharing in the individual market…. The ACA collapsed insurer competition in the nation’s individual markets…. The ACA failed to meet official enrollment targets in the individual markets…. The ACA is pricing middle-class Americans out of individual market coverage…. The ACA expanded government coverage while wrecking the private individual health insurance market…. The ACA compromised access to care for persons—including those with preexisting medical conditions—enrolled in the nation’s individual markets…. The ACA failed—and failed miserably—to attract young people into the exchange insurance pools…. The ACA Medicaid expansion prioritizes able-bodied adults, many of whom are working, over the elderly, the disabled, and poor women and children…. The ACA did not, as predicted, “bend the curve” of America’s healthcare spending…. The ACA’s vaunted delivery reforms did not yield the anticipated savings. Everything Republicans warned would happen did happen. And the Democrats’ response was to offer a massive “temporary” increase in subsidies to help paper over the failures. Again, every sentient person in the country insisted that doing so would be a disaster, that the subsidies would only increase costs, and that they would not be temporary. The Democrats didn’t listen, however. They didn’t listen in 2009 and 2010 when Congress initially debated and then passed Obamacare—without a single Republican vote in either house. They didn’t listen in 2020, when they insisted they needed expanded subsidies to address the financial hardships created by COVID-19. They didn’t listen in 2023, when they extended the COVID-era subsidies as part of the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act, at a cost of $64 billion. And they’re still not listening now. Indeed, they just engineered the longest shutdown in American government history because they have no intention of ever listening or ever admitting that perhaps the right was absolutely spot-on in its predictions about Obamacare. Worse still, in addition to sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the experiences of the last decade and a half, the Democrats are actually blaming the Republicans for all of the healthcare system’s problems, insisting that the GOP is somehow responsible for their delusions. As Senator Bernie Sanders, the ideological spirit animal of today’s Democrats, put it, “This government shutdown is all about whether Republicans will get away with raising healthcare premiums by 75% for 20 million Americans and throwing 15 million people off their healthcare.” Over the years, countless conservative commentators have played upon the famous line in the movie “Love Story,” arguing that “being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.” More accurately, they would note that being a liberal/leftist/statist means never having to say you were wrong or admit that your utopian dreams were, in reality, nightmares. This is a feature, not a bug, of leftism. Just as today’s young leftists insist that communism can work, despite its many high-profile and bloody failures, because “real communism has never been tried,” so the Democrats insist that Obamacare can work if it’s tweaked and adjusted in just the right ways. Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau shares the title “father of the modern left” with many of his Enlightenment contemporaries, he clearly did more than most to undermine and destroy the existing social and political orders and to discombobulate the West. As Nietzsche argued, Rousseau was “the greatest revolutionizing force of the modern era.” Rousseau did not believe in the concept of Original Sin and insisted that the very idea was invented to keep man oppressed, silenced, and miserable under the thumb of society’s imperfect institutions. “Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the creator,” he wrote in the opening pages of Emile, but “everything degenerates in the hands of man.” As a result, Rousseau and his followers saw society’s institutions as the foremost threat to man’s freedom and happiness. If man is good by nature, yet he behaves poorly under the direction and guidance of specific institutions, then the institutions, by definition, must be corrupt. They are clearly the cause of the aberrant behavior and must, therefore, be reformed—as thoroughly and as frequently as necessary to enable man to live as he should in a collective society. As the historian Paul Johnson noted in his Intellectuals, to Rousseau, society or “culture” was an “evolving, artificial construct….” But it nevertheless “dictated man’s behavior,” meaning that “you could improve, indeed totally transform, his behavior by changing the culture and the competitive forces, which produced it…” In short, according to Rousseau, one can change the world by successfully changing its institutions—over and over and over again, until you get it right, without ever having to say you’re sorry for getting it wrong. Normal people, of course, think that the institutions created by Obamacare are destructive, costly, and ultimately ineffective. And we know they believe this because so many of them said so before the system was ever put in place. The Democrats disagree, and they will not be dissuaded from their course by any appeals to theory or experience. They want to keep the institutions and keep reforming them until they inevitably find the right formula. They’ll get it right next time. Trust them. Oh, and in the meantime, pony up. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 19:50

October Foreclosure Filings Jump 20% YoY Last month we noted that US foreclosure filings jumped 17% in Q3 of 2025 vs. Q3 2024, with Florida, Nevada, South Carolina, Illinois and Delaware leading the pack, based on research by ATTOM.  Now, ATTOM is reporting a 20% monthly spike in October vs. 2024 - marking the eighth straight month of YoY increases.  Breaking it down: There were 36,766 US properties with some type of foreclosure filing in October, which include notices of default, scheudled auctions, or bank repossessions - a 3% rise over September of this year, and a 19% jump vs. Oct. 2024. Foreclosure starts - the initial phase of the process, were up 6% vs. September and were 20% higher than October 2024.  Completed foreclosures - the final phase, jumped 32% YoY for October.  That said, Attom CEO Rober Barber doesn't think it's a big deal. "Even with these increases, activity remains well below historic highs. The current trend appears to reflect a gradual normalization in foreclosure volumes as market conditions adjust and some homeowners continue to navigate higher housing and borrowing costs," said Barber.  Similar to last month's report, Florida, South Carolina and Illinois led the nation in state foreclosure filings. City-wise, the following metro areas led the pack: Tampa, FL Jacksonville, FL Orlando, FL Riverside, CA Cleveland, OH When it comes to completed foreclosures, Texas, California and Florida had the most - suggesting that those states will see more inventory available for sale at distressed prices. As CNBC notes, there's strong demand for houses in these price ranges, so it's likely that those foreclosed properties won't last long on the market.  Putting things in perspective All of the above translates to less than 0.5% of mortgages in foreclosure. At the peak of the Great Recession, over 4% of mortgages were in foreclosure - so we have a ways to go, and are currently well below the historic average of between 1% and 1.5%.  Also right now, 4% of mortgages are delinquent, which as 12% at the peak of the financial crisis. What is concerning are FHA loans:  "So, no foreclosure tsunami to worry about," said  Rick Sharga, CEO of CJ Patrick Co., a real estate market intelligence firm. "That said, there are a few areas of concern. [Federal Housing Administration] delinquencies are over 11%, and account for 52% of all seriously delinquent loans; we’re likely to see more FHA loans in foreclosure in 2026."  Sharga also pointed out that states which are experiencing falling home prices with rising insurance premiums are seeing an uptick in defaults.  At the end of the day, in most major metros - anyone looking to buy a home is still better off renting that same home for a fraction of the mortgage, property tax, and maintenance - with the wildcard of course being the potential for capital appreciation.  Update: As ZeroHedge reader Montana Cowboy notes in the comments below - it's even worse than that... The real problem arrives when the lender becomes the owner. This happens when the lender's demand exceeds the highest bid. A foreclosure is not automatically a process where the lender becomes the owner. A foreclosure is a forced public sale. The lender makes the first bid for the amount owed, which includes missed payments, unpaid property tax, forced insurance, foreclosure costs, and other costs. It typically comes to about 110% of the loan balance but can dramatically exceed that amount if the lender stalls. If there is no cash buyer for that total amount, the lender is the highest bidder and becomes the owner.  The fun really starts when the lender becomes the owner. GAAP and FAFSA accounting rules permit that lender to hide the loss by presuming the value of the property exceeds the lender's investment. Once the lender re-sells that property, there is no way to hide the loss on the lender's books. This is why lenders delay foreclosures, sometimes for years. They don't want to start the process because they know where it ends. It gets worse if the market is declining. Foreclosures accelerate that decline by increasing supply. The foreclosures reflected in the article do not account for loans in trouble where the initial step of foreclosure (a Notice of Default) is being deliberately delayed. Things are much worse than this article shows. Let's Compare Take a $2.2 million home in San Diego, for example... Someone with excellent credit will pay $13,859 per month when you include taxes, HOA, and home insurance, and cough up $439,000 for the 20% down payment.  If interest rates drop to 4%, you're still paying $11,480 per month... Meanwhile, this almost identically sized house around the corner (literally) rents for $6,200 / month -  which is $7,659 less per month than the mortgage (or $91,908 less per year) and includes a landlord to pay for that broken washing machine or whatever, plus you can bail when the neighbor kid drops a 2000W stereo in his Acura you can hear from 3 blocks away coming home from his Drakkar Noir-drenched attempt to get laid in the Gaslamp (did not get laid). Either way you're paying for a McMansion on a postage stamp. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 18:05

Labor Demographer Issues Warning: College-Educated Oversupply Is Here Goldman analysts led by Evan Tylenda published a note on emerging labor-market risks and how companies are adapting to aging demographics and shrinking labor pools. One section stood out in particular: the widening mismatch between an oversupply of college-educated workers and a deepening shortage of talent for non-degree, hands-on jobs. Tylenda and others on the team spoke with labor demographer Ron Hetrick, who outlined how the U.S. labor market is entering a structural slowdown driven by aging demographics, a falling birth rate, and weakening participation among older workers. Hetrick outlined that baby boomers once supplied 65 million workers, but only 25 million remain, and no younger generation is large enough to replace them.  He noted that BLS data show the workforce adding just 5.9 million workers by 2034, with nearly half of that coming from workers aged +65, even as participation among those +55 continues to decline. Here's where things get spicy: This demographic squeeze is creating a skills imbalance: an oversupply of college-educated workers and a shortage of vocational and lower-skilled labor for non-degree jobs. From the note: Shortage of skilled / technical labor: The Demographic Dilemma and resulting labor shortages make automation and AI success essential while simultaneously threatening to constrain AI's physical scale-up via potential skilled labor shortages. The emerging bottlenecks lie in power generation, transmission and grid modernization, and upstream industries required for electrification and digitization such as manufacturing, and critical minerals mining and processing — industries with long project cycles, high regulatory friction, and limited talent mobility from displaced knowledge-worker pools. Shortage of low-skilled labor in high turnover industries: where recent graduates and knowledge workers displaced by AI are imperfect fits. This is driving rising automation for low-skilled jobs, driven by rising costs, declining labor pools. For example, the U.S. added 4.5 mn workers with a college degree since 2019, while losing 800k workers without a degree. Automation in low-skilled roles (especially ones with repetition) has potential to help improve worker safety and pay for remaining workers, potentially driving lower employee turnover in the medium to long term. We hosted Ron Hetrick, a labor demographer, to highlight the structural issues forming for labor markets in the U.S. coming from declining labor pools, particularly in lower skilled fields not requiring a degree. Mr. Hetrick sees mounting challenges for the aging and declining workforce in the U.S., with industries like Healthcare and Construction most exposed to disruption, driven by limited availability of labor solutions. Companies adapting, and key solutions for addressing labor challenges. Corporates, across industries, are taking different measures to remedy risk of labor shortages, mainly around 1) Automation upgrades to boost productivity and consistency; 2) Retention efforts, including increased pay, better work conditions, enhanced benefits packages, providing childcare service etc.; and 3) Training & Upskilling through the expansion of their own training infrastructure and partnerships with external institutions. ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can read the complete note in the usual spot. It's loaded with far more detail on the shifting labor market, a framework that's increasingly important to understand before the 2030s arrive.  The most appropriate way to end the note is an epic quote by Palantir CEO Alex Karp: The average Ivy League grad voting for this mayor is annoyed their education is not that valuable, and that the person who knows how to drill for oil has a more valuable profession. I think that annoys the f*ck out of these people.  Palantir CEO Alex Karp on Zohran Mandani: “The average Ivy League grad voting for this mayor is annoyed their education is not that valuable, and that the person who knows how to drill for oil has a more valuable profession” “I think that annoys the fuck out of these people” https://t.co/uYA54AYAJN pic.twitter.com/46XmHSB1gb — Jawwwn (@jawwwn_) November 6, 2025 These days, college is a woke indoctrination factory pumping out our purple-haired creatures who are confused about their gender and rave about Marxism. College is not like it used to be. There is an oversupply of unproductive "woke" degrees. Don't be woke. Be productive, find a solid trade job that won't be automated into extinction by 2030, and start a family; this is one pathway for GenZers. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 16:55

"Incandescent Rage": Far-Left Nonprofit Head Furious Over Democrats Caving To Trump And Ending Shutdown Ahead of the Democratic Party's government shutdown, the billionaire-funded, far-left activist group Indivisible - the nonprofit partially responsible for color-revolution-style operations aimed at derailing President Trump and the America First agenda at every turn - posted a frantic call to action on its website, urging its white liberal boomer supporters to pressure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic senators to hold the line and not cave to President Trump. After the record-breaking 43-day government shutdown, Democrats embarrassingly caved to President Trump, and the government reopened on Wednesday.  Shortly after the Democrats caved, the unhinged millennial founder of Indivisible, Ezra Levin, joined leftist white boomer journalist Jennifer Rubin in a video conversation to express his profound frustration and "incandescent rage" over the Democratic Party's capitulation to Trump. Levin described it as a complete surrender that caused unnecessary pain without gaining meaningful concessions.  To note: Democrats tried to divert attention from their shutdown failure by releasing Epstein emails on the same day President Trump reopened the government. The email dump backfired on the party of far-left radicals. The millennial activist expressed to Rubin about the urgent need for strong party reforms through primaries (particularly targeting Chuck Schumer).  This is nutjob Jennifer Rubin talking with one of the Indivisible idiots about the democrat’s caving to open the government. I knew the progressive wingnuts were behind the shutdown because they threatened Schumer in March. Now they are working to totally rid the Democratic… pic.twitter.com/xXuy5R2FLp — The Researcher (@listen_2learn) November 14, 2025 The overall tone of the conversation, highly critical of Democratic capitulation, highlights how the woke party is absolutely rudderless. New leadership?  AOC attempts to explain that Mamdani supporters aren't crazy: “We are sane!" pic.twitter.com/0Q9NowpIvK — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 27, 2025 Only the people who insist they're "not crazy" tend to be the crazy ones. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 15:45

I'll Be Bullish On Stocks Again...Someday Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance Make no doubt about it: I am far more of a skeptic, a cynic, and a bear than most of the lobotomized market participants, analysts, and financial-news anchors wandering around the financial landscape like sedated Grand Theft Auto NPCs. Not only have I personally researched innumerable demonstrable frauds (think about what your mindset would be after analyzing companies akin to Enron and Madoff every single week for 10 years) and heard every bullshit narrative and excuse in the book firsthand while working as a professional short seller, but there’s also the other slight doubt of believing that the entire macroeconomy is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme dressed up in television makeup. I get labeled a “perma-bear,” a “doomsday sayer,” or someone peddling “fear porn,” but that’s not what I’m doing. I’m simply trying to identify trends objectively using fundamentals—a once-respected analytical tool now relegated to the catacombs of equity analysis. Think Cask of Amontillado: Benjamin Graham as Fortunato, while Michael Saylor and Tom Lee brick him in and leave him for dead. The main problem, as I see it from deep within my own echo chamber, is that the inconvenient conclusions I reach about certain sectors or companies tend to ruffle the feathers of the 80% of today’s market participants who happily attribute grotesquely overvalued stocks to things like “animal spirits,” “seasonality,” or my personal favorite, “the Santa Claus rally.” These terms are tossed around as if they’re divine revelations of why buying stocks at 39x P/E ratios finally makes them cheap after all these years. But instead, these gimmicks are really just lazy, backfitted explanations slapped onto whatever direction the market happened to move that day (spoiler alert: up). Bulls can get away with this nonsense endlessly, but bears get labeled anti-American miscreants for pointing out simple math. For example: “Hello, my name is Chris. Has anyone noticed the stock market to GDP indicator is at all time highs?” Which begets the only acceptable response in today’s market: “Stone him!” Yes, why bother with pedestrian concepts like the health of the consumer or the valuation of an index when you can just buy deep out-of-the-money calls on a cash-burning SPAC and turn $10,000 into $1 million because some guy on Reddit said “YOLO”? As I said yesterday in my column about Michael Burry shutting down his fund, the stock market today is basically a giant checkout-counter rack of scratch-off lottery tickets. “Investing” is just scratching the surface with a quarter and praying. Many of my readers found me during COVID because I was early in saying the pandemic would have a profoundly negative effect on markets. Ultimately, that turned out to be true—though not as fast as I thought—and the crash culminated during Bill Ackman’s “Hell is coming” moment on CNBC. Shortly afterward, I became bullish on a number of equities, including financials and certain consumer staples. That wasn’t an accident—I wrote about it extensively. By March 13, 2020, with the VIX at over 50, I start talking about stocks like Wal-Mart and Target. By July 2020, with the Dow at 26,870, I started predicting the Dow over 40,000 and talking about financial stocks I was buying due to their low price/book ratios. With Goldman at $216 (now $805) and JP Morgan at $98 (now $309), I told Jon Najarian on a podcast: “I actually own J.P. Morgan, I think it’s cheap on a price/book valuation. I think all the banks are going to come back. I think any losses that banks incurred to their share price as a result of coronavirus will eventually all be bought back. Because this is a financial problem to some degree, but it’s not a systemic financial problem. And you have the Fed providing unlimited liquidity and an unlimited backstop to the banks. So if you’re buying the banks now, you’re pretty much buying the Federal Reserve. Companies like JPM and GS are not, in my opinion, don’t pose any type of systemic risk. Those financial names are ones I like to buy on the dips. The sector is still off like 25% to 30% this year. I think they are being overlooked, it’s not like hospitality where there’s going to be real pain going forward.” “I like the banks! I love the names like GS and JPM. As much as I hate the system, those entities are as close to a bet on the Death Star as you can get.” And then the coup de grace — so you can tell people that one time you saw QTR was bullish on the overall stock market — I told Jon: “I do think the market could go higher from here and I wouldn’t mind owning an equal weight S&P ETF here. And I hate hearing myself saying that, but that’s the truth” The point is I have nothing against being bullish. If you believe the Fed will continue its gnarly inflation experiment—trying to inflate away the national debt while monetizing every market dislocation with QE—it’s difficult not to be bullish on the nominal price of equities over the long run. And even recently, while raising concerns about regional banks, private credit, and subprime consumer lending, my thesis has been that we’ll see a sharp deleveraging followed by some form of bailout, with the Fed stepping into the bond market one way or another. So no, I’m not allergic to bullishness. What I am allergic to is screaming “just buy index funds” at all times—especially when those funds are disproportionately weighted toward the Mag Seven, all trading at valuation levels that require oxygen masks. Howard Marks pointed out recently that investors who buy at the top usually underperform over the next decade. “Reality is recognizing where things stand,” he says in a recent interview. “The higher P/E ratio you pay, the lower return you should expect.” “When you buy the S&P 500 at a 23x P/E, your 10-yr annualized return has always fallen between +2% and –2%, in every case, every case,” he concludes. And Warren Buffett has shown that you don’t need to be short to avoid these traps, you can simply sit in cash instead of elbowing your way into the euphoria. And so, as I begin compiling my “26 Stocks I’m Watching for 2026,” I’m keeping that perspective in mind. I’ve never had trouble finding niche pockets of the market that present genuine opportunities, regardless of macro valuations. But you’re not likely to see me evangelizing index ETFs heading into a year where the Shiller PE is basically at 39x. That’s not analysis—that’s delusion. Don’t confuse the fact that the market hasn’t given us a “cheap” S&P 500 in years with the idea that I’ll never be bullish on the overall market again. I simply think we need a meaningful reversion to the mean first. Right now, there’s no doubt the U.S. economy is undergoing an enormous and seismic shift. Yes, the consumer is shitting the bed, but there’s something bigger at play that’s hard to ignore when you look at the price of gold. I’ve seen theories ranging from “they’re weakening the dollar to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.” to “the dollar is dead and gold is exposing the corpse,” to “the BRICS will switch to a gold-backed currency and dump Treasuries,” to “stablecoins are about to become the primary buyers of U.S. debt.” I don’t know which of these scenarios is most likely. All I know is that the price of gold—now making a generational move higher—is signaling that we’re accelerating toward some kind of monetary breaking point. So when Scott Bessent laughed off a question about gold a couple of weeks ago on a televised panel and attributed its rise to “more buyers than sellers,” it was one of the biggest tells I’ve ever seen. If you’re trying to downplay something, you don’t write it off in 3 seconds and say literally nothing. A more subtle response and a bit more of a limited hangout would have shown some more finesse. By being so flippant, he made it obvious to me that he could know there are tectonic shifts happening beneath the surface of the U.S. economy. With that playing out—and with equities still aggressively valued by nearly every metric you can slap on them, from P/E to the Buffett Indicator—forgive me if I’m not extremely bullish. I still believe, as I’ve written for years, that the massive deterioration, waste, and malinvestment in private credit, commercial real estate, regional banking, subprime lending, AI mania, and of course crypto all need to be purged before markets can find a real bottom. Yes, some of my warnings have seemed early. But “early” is usually just code for “right, eventually,” and it finally looks like the chickens are taking the off-ramp back to the coop. Back in April 2019, a CNBC anchor wrote that perma-bears were “ridiculous people”. Since then, the total return on gold mining stocks is 270% versus the S&P 500 at 157.2%. Sure, in some respects Josh was right because shorting the S&P outright at that time would’ve been a loser—but stepping away from U.S. equities and into gold miners, for example, would have been a winner. Today, a large chunk of my capital remains in gold and silver miners, and it will continue to— even if they experience a drawdown during a broad market selloff. But there will come a day when I’m bullish on equities again — when the market becomes so cheap it’s impossible to ignore. I don’t know if that will happen during this deleveraging cycle or if the Fed will panic and short-circuit the whole thing. Maybe we’ll wait five months; maybe five decades. Modern monetary policy has made actual forecasting about as reliable as a Magic 8-Ball. But when the day comes, you guys will be the first to know. For my thoughts on where the ugly parts of the market are right now, read: Credit Crash In AI Names Limbo When Mathematical Reality Kicks “HODLers” In The Nuts The Eye Of The (Shit) Storm Carvana, Ally And Other “Cockroaches” Shit Is Breaking...And It Will Get Worse 10 Areas Of The Market I’d Avoid Right Now No Crying In The Casino The Columbus Day Massacre: My Thoughts Race To The Dung Heap   QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 14:00

Jan. 6 Panel Cost Twice Previous Estimates, Hiring TV Producers To Dramatize Attack Authored by Mark Stricherz via The Center Square, The U.S. House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol cost almost twice as much as previously reported, including spending taxpayer funds for TV news producers and documentary filmmakers to create videos dramatizing its case against President Donald Trump, an investigation by The Center Square found.  The Washington Post reported that the panel had a projected budget of $9.3 million in September 2022. According to a review of U.S. House disbursements, the select committee spent $17.4 million. U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican who is on a new committee appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson to investigate security failures on Jan. 6, said the original committee didn’t spend taxpayer money properly after The Center Square told him about the final costs of the panel’s investigation.  “They wasted it, wasted it,” he said walking into his House office Wednesday before referring to two former GOP members of the panel. “That was a sham committee. (Liz) Cheney. (Adam) Kinzinger. It was a joke.”  Dan Savickas, president of policy and government affairs at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a non-partisan nonprofit, said more than doubling of the budget was not appropriate. “The median budget for a House committee is $6 million a year, so for the Jan. 6 committee to spend $17.4 million is excessive,” he told The Center Square in an interview. “And anytime a committee is grandstanding, specifically Jan. 6, to fit a narrative instead of holding people accountable and getting the story is bad. That’s why they hired documentary filmmakers.” Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and chair of the committee, declined an interview request. “The work of the committee speaks for itself, and the chairman continues to stand by it,” Yasmine Brown, a press secretary and communications director, wrote in an email to The Center Square.  An undetermined amount was spent on three dozen contractors and consultants. Many worked for a few months or less than a year, rather than all 18 months like full-time staff. They are listed in the committee’s report but do not show up in a list of expenditures the U.S. House posted online disclosing its spending. Among them were the former president of ABC News, a longtime producer for ABC’s Nightline, an Emmy-award winning daily TV news producer, and a former documentarian for the Oprah Winfrey Network.   “I was part of the first ever team of former television journalists brought in by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to produce the historic live hearings laying out the committee’s evidence to the country,” Melinda Arons, a former Nightline senior producer, wrote on her LinkedIn page.   Brian Sasser, an Emmy-award winning daily TV news producer, noted on his LinkedIn page that his job was to “(m)anage constantly evolving rundown and scripts for live hearings” of the select committee and to “(c)oordinate with various U.S. House staffers and Committee investigators to ensure accuracy of all scripting.”  James Goldston worked for ABC News for 17 years, including more than one year as the senior executive producer for Good Morning America and seven years as its president, according to his LinkedIn page. Ryan Mayers said on his LinkedIn page that he has been a freelance filmmaker for seven years and edited the documentary and interview series Oprah’s Next Chapter for the Oprah Winfrey Network.  Hyatt Mamoun described herself on LinkedIn as an award-winning filmmaker with a focus on environmental design. “With a passion for conservation through education, I believe that through educating as many people as possible through the entertainment of film, we can change our future,” she wrote. Jan. 6 different from other committees Previous committees and commissions examined the Watergate scandal in the early-to-mid 1970s, the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the Islamic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They hired or used only congressional staff, lawyers, and investigators.   By contrast, the Jan. 6 committee hired more than congressional staff, lawyers, and investigators. They also hired freelancers with backgrounds in producing and editing graphics as well as video and audio footage – prominent features of the committee’s 10 nationally televised hearings from June to December 2022. The committee’s records do not disclose the amount the panel paid for each freelancer.  Among the contracting companies was Innovative Driven Inc., an Arlington, Virginia-based firm that specializes in forensics, electronic data discovery and project management. The privately held company received $2.4 million. A company spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.  Another recipient was Polar Solutions Inc., a Gaithersburg, Maryland-based investigative firm of money laundering and cryptocurrency crimes. The company received $2.7 million. Polar Solutions’ president, Arthur Ahrens, declined to comment when called by The Center Square.  Full-time committee staffers received more money in personal and other compensation than regular members of Congress, a tradition in line with recent history. While rank-and-file members earn $174,000 a year, Timothy J. Heaphy, the committee’s chief investigative counsel, was paid almost $190,00 in personal and other compensation in 12 months. Election results challenged The committee was formed after former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, defeated President Donald Trump, a Republican, in the 2020 election. With 44,000 votes separating the candidates in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin, Trump contested the results.  He claimed voting fraud and irregularities were responsible for his margin, but 62 of his 63 legal challenges failed in court. On Jan. 2, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to help him “find 11,780 votes” so he could be declared the winner in the Peach State.  On January 6, 2021, the day Congress gathered at the Capitol to certify Biden the winner, Trump led a “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse in Washington at which more than 28,000 people passed through security.  More than 2,000 broke into the Capitol, including Ashli Babbitt, who was shot to death by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to break into the House floor. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick collapsed and died one day after the attack, while four other police officers at the Capitol that day died of suicide half a year later.  The violence represented a break with tradition in which presidents transfer power to their successor peacefully. On Jan. 7, 2021, Trump conceded he would not serve a consecutive second term.  That June, the House of Representatives voted to create a select committee, to be composed of 11 members “to investigate and report on the causes, circumstances, and causes” of the violent attack.” The panel was controversial from the start.  Previous select committees had members selected by leaders from both parties. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, nominated five House Republicans. In a break with tradition, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, rejected two of the members.  Instead of suggesting alternatives, McCarthy declined to cooperate. Pelosi, then, chose two Republicans as replacements, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. Both were outspoken critics of Trump for his conduct on Jan. 6.   The other seven members of the nine-member panel were Democrats. The committee hired more than 60 full-time staff members, many with backgrounds in intelligence and investigations, and conducted more than 1,000 interviews in 18 months.  Among the committee’s findings was that White House lawyers and senior Department of Justice officials told Trump early on that his claims of election fraud were baseless. “From the beginning, Donald Trump’s fraud allegations were concocted nonsense, designed to prey upon the patriotism of millions of men and women who love our country,” the report concluded. In addition, the committee found that Trump’s effort to overturn the election was multi-layered. He worked with a “handful of others” to prepare Trump slates of Trump electors in seven states that Biden won. He raised roughly $250 million between the election and Jan. 6 to support his claims. And as the attack on the Capitol unfolded, Trump watched the violence on television and did not tell his supporters to desist for 187 minutes. Police without “sufficient assets” At the same time, the Jan. 6 select committee was different from the Senate Watergate Committee of 1973 and 1974 and the 9-11 Commission, and not just because the panel hired contractors and consultants with backgrounds in television. The panel also examined only one part of that day and the events leading up to it – the role of Trump, his administration, and supporters. In its report, the panel concluded Trump was “the central cause” of an attempted insurrection.  In addition, the committee referred four criminal charges against Trump to the Department of Justice. While the Justice Department convicted more than 900 people for their actions on Jan. 6, special counsel Jack Smith was unable to prosecute Trump after Trump won the presidential election last year, bowing to longstanding department custom to not prosecute a sitting president.  Further, the Jan. 6 committee devoted less attention to the role of federal, state, and local law enforcement in failing to deter or stop the attack.  “Capitol police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd,” the report concluded.   The committee’s conclusion has come into question.   In an op-ed for Politico in January 2023, Georgetown Professor Donell Harvin, who oversaw the District of Columbia’s assessment of threat intelligence, wrote that “(t)he events of Jan. 6 represented the most telegraphed and predictable attack on the homeland in history.” Further, Harvin noted that the committee devoted only 44 pages in the annexes to the security and intelligence issues, roughly 5% of the 845-page report.  In 2022, Denver L. Riggleman, a former GOP U.S. representative with a background in military intelligence, wrote in Esquire magazine that the committee group in charge of investigating law enforcement’s response, known as the “Blue team,” occupied a lower place in the panel’s pecking order.  “The sensitivity of their investigation and the multiple moving parts – House leadership, the National Guard, DC and Capitol police, and the Pentagon – created a politically explosive finger-pointing extravaganza,” Riggleman wrote. “Several witnesses they tried to interview remained elusive, and the committee gave Blue no means to compel testimony.”  Riggleman received at least $97,047 in personal and other compensation as a senior technical advisor to the committee for 10 months, House spending data shows.  A February 2023 study from the General Accountability Office concluded that the attack on the Capitol cost taxpayers $2.7 billion. Most of the costs were for Capitol police and other law enforcement.   In September, House Speaker Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, named eight members – five Republicans, three Democrats – to a select subcommittee under the authority of the House Judiciary Committee to “conduct a thorough review of the security failures that occurred on Jan. 6.” The subcommittee’s chairman, U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican, declined comment. Kinzinger, Cheney and other members of the committee did not respond to The Center Square’s requests for comment. Tyler Durden Sat, 11/15/2025 - 12:50