"We have A Zero-Tolerance Policy": High School Student "Punished" For Expressing Support For The 'Cornell 7'

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

We have previously discussed high school administrators and teachers who engage in censorship and speech regulation, often targeting religious and conservative students. These cases cost school districts millions in court costs, but the school officials never seem to face any consequences. In California, Piner High School has joined this ignoble effort, punishing the high school football captain for expressing support for the "Cornell 7" on his own Instagram page. Other students then protested not to support free speech but to demand further punishment for the student. I wonder where they learned that repressive view of free speech?

According to media reports, the unnamed student wrote "Free the Cornell Seven" on his personal Instagram account and the school called him out. As should be obvious to any teacher or administrator, this is entirely protected speech under the First Amendment. The student was not discussing the school, calling for some school disruption or destruction of property, or encouraging violence. He was stating his view that defendants who have not been tried, let alone convicted, are innocent.

This case has divided the country with many politicians and pundits declaring the guilt of these students before any charges are actually filed against them. A prosecutor previously declined to take the case to a grand jury due to conflict statements from the alleged victim.

Rather than acknowledge the serious free speech concerns raised by the school's reported actions, Santa Rosa City school's public information officer, Patrick Gannon, issued a virtue-signaling statement on how it will not tolerate students expressing such thoughts on their personal social media accounts, or presumably publicly in their private time:

"Action was taken by the school and the district, and we're continuing to have conversations. We don't tolerate making light of sexual assault. That's why we have a zero-tolerance policy."

Whatever success the school has had on basic subjects like English and Math, it has clearly taught the student body to disregard the free speech of others. The football team reportedly forfeited a game after 200 students walked out to the "Santa Rosa City Schools district offices to demand accountability and greater support for students speaking out against sexual violence."

There was no statement from Principal Andrea Correia or the school denying the reported punishment. Instead, Gannon met with the 200 students and, instead of discussing the importance of free speech and due process, said the school "wants them to know that accountability and safety are top priorities."

Students are demanding further punishment of the student for expressing his views on the case. Obviously, if the same students had posted "Justice for Jane Doe at Cornell" he would have been celebrated rather than punished.

In 1969, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, since that iconic case, federal courts have often given short shrift to the free speech rights of students.

As we have previously discussed, teachers around the country have become notorious as speech commissars who bar expressions deemed divisive or intolerant. That often includes any conservative or religious speech.

An elementary school in Kansas came under fire after Arbor Creek Elementary Principal Melissa Snell stopped the wearing of shirts reading "Freedom," which became popular after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

In another case, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled in Ohio that students could be barred from wearing "Let's Go Brandon" shirts - a coded political expression criticizing the media and former President Joe Biden. Other courts have also upheld such censorship by teachers, who claim that the expression is a substitute for a vulgar expression chanted by crowds ("F- Joe Biden"). But these shirts do not contain vulgarity. Rather, the expression is used as a defiant reference to the media bias that led to the original substitution of the words, allegedly to protect Biden - it is a "Yankee Doodling" of the political and media establishment.

Judge Karen Nelson Moore joined Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian in a deeply flawed holding that, under the "vulgarity exception," the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court was asked to hear the "Let's Go Brandon" case, but recently declined to hear the case. It was a very disappointing denial from the Court for many of us in the free speech community.

In the California case, the underlying law is clear. Any punishment of this student would be a glaring violation of the First Amendment. The student can go to court to have any such actions set aside. However, it is equally clear that the administrators and teachers responsible for such actions will face no accountability.

The "zero tolerance policy" at Piner High School appears to refer to the exercise of free speech by those with unpopular or minority viewpoints. It is certainly a preview of higher education, where viewpoint intolerance and ideological orthodoxy are the norm. This chilling lesson has clearly taken hold at Piner High School.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 18:25

Trump DOJ Opens Civil Rights Probe Into Liberal New Jersey Town Over Gun Permit Delays

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has opened an investigation into the city of Pennsauken, New Jersey, on Wednesday to determine whether the township police department's handling of firearm permits has become so slow that it violates the Second Amendment. 

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the division's Second Amendment Section would "defend law-abiding citizens from local authorities who infringe on the right to safely carry legal firearms." She added: "Our investigation aims to discover if allegations of unconstitutional delays in firearm permitting are true, and if so, to fix it." In a statement to the Daily Caller, the DOJ said "individuals and groups" had alleged "extensive delays" in handgun purchase permits and that it had "not reached any conclusions."

The township's website lists the steps for a handgun permit to purchase: two references from outside the applicant's household, a fingerprint appointment within 90 days of applying, and a $25 fee per handgun on top of a $50 firearms purchaser ID card. The page states no processing time. Concealed carry is a separate application that asks for four references.

While the DOJ release doesn't name names, federal lawsuit filed in June 2024 fingers Pennsauken's police chief over handgun permit delays. Christian Benton, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation filed the federal suit (No. 24-cv-7098) on June 18, 2024, challenging New Jersey's permit system and its one-handgun-a-month limit. Bearing Arms reports that Benton alleges the department took more than four months on two applications, against a 30-day state deadline, and that the case awaits summary-judgment rulings. 

The legal hook is a footnote in the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Court did not rule out "constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."

The specific type of investigation the DOJ is conducting - 'pattern-or-practice' - comes from a 1994 crime bill provision that the division has historically aimed at police misconduct. The Second Amendment Section, created inside the division in 2025, now applies it to gun permits. Brady, the gun-control group, has called that a diversion of scarce resources from traditional discrimination cases.

Los Angeles County offers a comparison. The DOJ opened a probe of the sheriff's department in March 2025, when the department said it faced "a significant staffing crisis" with 14 people in its carry-permit unit, and sued that September. The two sides settled on August 13, 2026, after the department added staff and software. DOJ says it now meets state deadlines. DOJ's complaint said applicants waited an average of 281 days, more than nine months, just for processing to begin; the sheriff disputed those figures.

Philadelphia, across the Delaware River from Pennsauken, drew a probe in June. DOJ is examining the city's police department over permit revocations that it called based on "vague" reasons. The mayor's office, the city Law Department and the police department all declined to comment to WHYY.

The section also sued San Jose in September over a roughly $1,600 permit fee and a required psychological exam. Dhillon posted about the case in September:

The @CivilRights Division sued San Jose for charging a $1,600 application fee & requiring a psych exam for a concealed carry permit. These are unconstitutional barriers and @theJusticeDept will continue to pursue cities and states blocking this right! pic.twitter.com/NGWQUj0gMN

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) September 23, 2026

Residents who believe they were affected can file complaints online.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 18:00

NYC Sanctuary Laws Survive As Judge Rules Feds Can't Force City To Help ICE

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Oct. 15 dismissed the federal government's lawsuit challenging New York City's sanctuary policy, saying that states are not obligated to participate in federal immigration enforcement.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New York City in July 2025, alleging that its sanctuary policy was unconstitutional and impeded the government's ability to enforce federal immigration laws.

U.S. District Judge Ramon Reyes ruled that the administration lacked legal standing to bring the case, finding that federal law does not require states to assist with federal immigration enforcement.

"The United States' preemption arguments amount to nothing more than a backdoor around the Tenth Amendment and rest on a false distinction between compelling local governments' participation in federal immigration enforcement and prohibiting local governments from dictating how their personnel and other resources may be utilized towards federal immigration enforcement," the judge said.

Reyes said that striking down the challenged provisions would restrict New York City's ability to control its agencies and personnel from engaging in federal immigration enforcement, including by expending city resources to detain people and implement inter-agency information sharing.

"All potentially in violation of state law," the judge said.

"If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states' constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing."

In a statement, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hailed the judge's decision as "a victory for New Yorkers" and pledged to uphold the city's sanctuary laws.

"Our local laws make New York City safer. They allow us to focus our resources on protecting and serving our communities and ensuring that every New Yorker can turn to their city government without fear that asking for help will make them a target for deportation," he said.

The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The DOJ argued in its lawsuit that the city's sanctuary laws made it difficult for federal authorities to enforce immigration laws by preventing local officials from sharing immigrants' information such as release dates, court appearance dates, and custodial status.

"The challenged provisions also impair federal detention of removable aliens, including dangerous criminals, contrary to federal law," the complaint reads.

The suit cited the July 2025 case of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer who was shot by two illegal immigrants while he sat in Fort Washington Park.

The DOJ alleged that one of the immigrants had been arrested in April 2024 for felony grand larceny and petit larceny but was released after the New York City Department of Correction ignored a detainer.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Oct. 9 that New York City had failed to honor 14,916 immigration detainers issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) between Jan. 20, 2025, and Sept. 14, 2026.

The detainers were linked to 47,750 criminal charges and convictions, including homicides, sexual assaults, drug offenses, kidnapping, weapons offenses, and assaults, the department said.

The DHS statement was issued in the context of the recent shooting of Oscar Bengal, a criminal illegal immigrant in New York.

Bengal, from the Dominican Republic, was shot on Oct. 8 while federal immigration agents were attempting to arrest him in the Bronx.

Bengal was sent to a local hospital for treatment and subsequently placed in detention.

Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 17:40

"Whore Reporting For Duty": Former SNL Actress Ego Nwodim Taunts Shane Gillis After SNL Monologue

Shane Gillis is facing criticism from several former “Saturday Night Live” performers after a joke about women's workout clothes during his latest appearance as host drew accusations of sexism, according to NBC News.

The comedian used part of his seven-minute opening monologue to poke fun at increasingly revealing gym attire, particularly the brightly colored, tight-fitting shorts worn by some women. Gillis joked that he hadn't realized women were now dressing like “whores” to exercise, before riffing on the awkwardness of men being expected not to look.

The remarks quickly circulated online, drawing criticism from viewers who accused Gillis of making unnecessary and degrading comments about women.

NBC News noted that among those responding was actor Dan Levy, who posted an Instagram video arguing that women's clothing wasn't the issue. Instead, he suggested that men who use derogatory language to describe women based on their appearance are demonstrating misogyny.

Former “SNL” cast member Cecily Strong also weighed in, posting a photo of her colorful Pilates footwear and sarcastically describing her outfit as sexually provocative. She accompanied the joke with a reference to sexual assault allegations at Cornell University, a case that has attracted attention amid the broader debate.

She wrote: “On my way to Pilates in my new slutty ass orange shoes and rainbow socks. Might sell sex on the way not sure.”

Ego Nwodim, who spent seven seasons on “SNL” before departing in 2025, offered her own response through Instagram Stories. Sharing a photo of herself dressed for the gym in black athletic clothing, she jokingly announced, “Whore reporting for duty.”

She continued the satire in a subsequent post featuring her post-workout food, making another joke about her supposed promiscuity while discussing her protein intake. 

The backlash comes during Gillis' third stint hosting the NBC sketch comedy program. His relationship with the show has been controversial since 2019, when he was announced as a new cast member but dismissed shortly afterward following the resurfacing of offensive remarks from his podcast.

Despite that early controversy, Gillis has since built a successful stand-up career and returned to the program multiple times as a guest host. His latest appearance has once again put his deliberately provocative style of comedy at the center of an online debate over the boundaries of humor.

    OCTOBER ONLY.$10 OFFYOUR NEXT ORDER.$30 min. Ends Oct 31. One per customer.GET MY $10 OFF →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. Can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 17:20

Negative Political Ads: Voters Despise Them, But Campaigns Keep Using Them

Authored by Russ Jones via The Epoch Times,

Campaign season has arrived with its usual barrage of attack ads, and this cycle is no exception.

Polls consistently show voters say they dislike negative advertising, yet campaigns across the country keep pouring money into it.

Political scientists, strategists and marketing experts say the answer lies in a mix of high stakes, economic anxiety, simple human psychology, and now, artificial intelligence.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted after the 2024 election found that 74 percent of voters said the campaign was "too negative," a figure that held steady from a nearly identical result in an October pre-election survey.

Travis Ridout, a political science professor at Washington State University and codirector of the Wesleyan Media Project - which tracks political advertising nationwide - said he was struck this cycle by how much of the earliest negativity came from intra-party primary fights.

"There were a lot of races where there was a lot of negativity," Ridout told The Epoch Times. "This candidate is actually a closet liberal, or this one doesn't support Donald Trump sufficiently. That sort of thing."

That dynamic defined the Texas Senate primary, where Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee and Texas attorney general, defeated incumbent Sen. John Cornyn before facing Democrat James Talarico in the general election.

Since President Donald Trump reiterated his support for Paxton's campaign in late August, more than $100 million in mostly negative ads targeting Talarico has poured in from GOP-aligned political committees, including the Senate Leadership Fund, which alone spent nearly $66 million in September. These funds have contributed to ads accusing Talarico of being a "radical liberal" and an "extremist."

"The Texas Senate race is certainly standing out, just because the negativity started so early. ... A lot of it is focused on DEI or those sorts of things, so the more cultural issues," Ridout said.

Talarico, a state representative who has out-raised Paxton but said he received little outside help from national Democratic groups, said "dark money super PACs are flooding the airwaves with lies about me and my record," at a rally at Baylor University in Waco.

Talarico has also aired ads labeling Paxton "the most corrupt politician in Texas," highlighting Paxton's 2023 impeachment by the Texas House. Paxton was later acquitted by the state Senate.

The pattern extends beyond Texas.

In Georgia and North Carolina, the Senate Leadership Fund has aired ads attacking Democratic candidates, including Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, over transgender rights, reviving a line of attack from 2024.

The California governor's race has produced a new kind of attack ad. Republican Steve Hilton's campaign has aired AI-generated videos portraying Democrat Xavier Becerra as a puppet and associating him with what the campaign calls the "Democratic machine."

Meanwhile, Becerra's campaign has relied mainly on public statements to frame Hilton as Trump's "lapdog" and accuse Hilton of welcoming immigration enforcement "mercenaries" into California.

In Ohio, a series of political spots connects Republican state Sen. Jon Husted to a bribery scandal and the passage of House Bill 6, the controversial 2019 statute that authorized a $1 billion bailout for two nuclear power plants. State investigative records and federal court filings indicate that Husted has never been indicted, criminally charged, or formally accused of wrongdoing by law enforcement.

A parallel ad campaign in Maine by the Democratic super PAC WinSenate launched a $3.4 million advertising blitz focusing on "pay-to-play" allegations against Republican Sen. Susan Collins and a former defense contractor. Collins has issued explicit denials regarding any such schemes, and an FBI spokesperson told reporters that the agency's initial inquiry yielded no evidence implicating Collins or her campaign.

Why Campaigns Go Negative

Jay Revell, an adjunct instructor in Florida State University's Master's in Applied American Politics and Policy program and owner of the public relations firm Revell Media, shared with The Epoch Times that the stakes explain much of the surge.

"The higher the stakes, the more likely you are to see a lot of negative attacks," he said.

With control of Congress on the line, he said that dynamic is playing out from the top of the ballot to local races.

Ridout pointed to psychology.

"There's good psychology in support of a negativity bias, so people might be paying more attention when something's negative," he said.

"Part of it, especially, is to define one's opponent, to draw a contrast. You've got to create that contrast, and one way to do that is through campaign negativity."

Revell said this cycle is also shaped by economic pressure.

Rising prices, including at the gas pump, have widened the gap between voters who are struggling and those who are not, he said, giving challengers an opening to blame incumbents directly.

"There's just so much fodder out there in the world, based in truth and reality about the scenarios that people are facing, that you're seeing a lot more negative attacks pointing the blame at people versus just broad negative attacks about who they are," he said.

He said ads that draw a clear line between a policy and a voter's daily experience tend to resonate more than ones that simply declare a candidate a "bad person."

"There needs to be a one-to-one relationship with the truth for a message to be effective," Revell said.

"People need to hear that message and feel like, yes, that connects. That feels like it's based in reality."

Does Negativity Work?

The research on negative ads is mixed, Ridout said. "The best answer political scientists have right now is they work sometimes," he said.

"On average, they probably work as well as positive ads, but it depends on the context and the stage of the campaign."

Timing matters too, he said.

Negative ads can help define an opponent early, before voters form lasting impressions, but the tactic carries risk.

"There's a risk of a backlash," he said. "People won't like that negativity, and they'll take it out against the sponsor."

Speaking with The Epoch Times from Plano, Texas, Sheila Rondeau, a marketing strategist and CEO of MOGXP, said perception can matter more than substance.

"The prettier the person, the prettier the messaging; it seems to do better," she said.

"It seems very superficial, but it is just like artwork. It is just like labels. People pick the pretty bottle, the pretty label on the bottle of wine they choose."

Rondeau pointed to Paxton's primary as a case where negative advertising didn't decide the outcome.

He absorbed heavy attacks and still won by a wide margin over an opponent who outspent him roughly ninefold, she said.

AI Enters the Ad Wars

Ridout said this cycle also marks a leap in AI-generated content. "We've tracked about 170 different ads this season that have used AI," he said.

"That's undoubtedly an undercount."

Some are deepfakes showing a candidate saying or doing something that never happened, he said. Others are subtler, implying a candidate's presence by showing only the back of a person's head or a pant leg, or using AI to generate backdrops like a county fair or a bait shop.

"Other times they're just using AI more as a tool for video editing," he said.

That uncertainty is exactly what worries Mark Grebner, a Michigan-based political consultant who has run campaigns since 1973 and been elected 25 times as a county commissioner.

He said most negative advertising this cycle, including ads targeting Michigan congressional candidates Abdul El-Sayed and Will Lawrence, has become so generic that he suspects some of it is not written by people at all.

"It would not surprise me if this dreadful level, this soup of negativism, comes out of an AI generator," he told The Epoch Times. "It has all the feeling of third-rate thinking, not quite right, stock character."

Interchangeable Attacks

"I kind of think that we've gotten to the point that it's just like the weather or something," Grebner said. "You can complain about it, and you can pay attention if you want, but it's just endless and unavoidable. So I think that the average person isn't really affected anymore."

He said the messaging is nearly indistinguishable from race to race.

"It's all the same thing. It doesn't really have anything particularly to do with the candidates. It's just the word "dangerous," "socialist," "frightening," and "un-American," he said.

"Negative campaigning, in order to work, has to actually tell you something new about a person that you can kind of apply to them."

By contrast, he said the most effective negative ad he ever ran, decades ago, worked because it was specific. He mailed an opponent's own attack, that Grebner wasn't a 22-year-old student anymore - like his opponent - to the older, non-student voters in his district, quietly reminding them he was, in fact, an adult homeowner.

"That was devastating to his campaign," he said, adding that a version of the mailer was later reprinted in Harper's magazine.

Grebner cited informal estimates suggesting it can take roughly a million ad exposures to shift a single vote. "I can believe that," he said. "I think that's the experiment we're doing."

AdImpact projected total political ad spending for 2025-2026 at $11.6 billion, the most of any election cycle on record.

AdImpact data show a sharp partisan divide in political advertising during the first half of October. Republicans devoted 80 percent of their ad spending to negative ads and the remaining 20 percent to contrast ads, with none classified as positive. Their messaging focused heavily on taxes and transgender healthcare.

Democratic advertising was more often framed as contrast. Roughly 58 percent of spending went to contrast ads, 23 percent to negative ads and 19 percent to positive ads. The October figures come amid a record-setting cycle.

Voters Keep Watching Anyway

Ridout, Revell, Rondeau, and Grebner all pointed, in different ways, to the same disconnect. What voters claim to want and how they behave rarely match.

Rondeau compared it to rubbernecking at a traffic accident.

"People say they hate them. But they listen to them, and they repeat them," she said. "It is almost like the people who are in the cars who get so angry because there is a traffic jam, but they can't stop turning to look at the ambulance."

Revell said the anonymity of many campaign donors compounds public unease.

"When you put shadows in place where the money can hide, and you don't know who's sending out messages and you don't know who's paying for it, it just adds to that anxiety," he said.

Rondeau said the cycle is unlikely to break as long as it keeps working.

"As long as people listen and share, and it gets picked up by the media, they will continue to go negative," she said.

"When we stop listening to it, and it stops working, then we will have debates about true content and character."

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 17:00

Supreme Court Leaves Self-Described Antifa Member Jailed Before Trial

The Supreme Court this week turned down an emergency request to let Kyle Wagner, a 37-year-old self-described Antifa member from Minneapolis, out of jail before his trial. Wagner is charged in federal court in Michigan with one count of cyberstalking and one count of transmitting interstate threats. 

Kyle Wagner

Both counts stem from his dealings with a man identified in court documents as J.S., a pro-ICE social media figure. Prosecutors say that on Jan. 29 Wagner doxxed J.S. - posting his name, phone number and address, along with what he believed were his parents' details, and wrote, "we can all knock on strangers doors." According to the Solicitor General's filing opposing release, which quotes the Sixth Circuit's account of the record, the posts around it were far broader: he declared that Minneapolis was "kill or be killed," told followers to "hunt" ICE and lamented that protesters had not marched on the Whipple federal building "with guns." The same account says he raised between $10,000 and $15,000 from followers to help him evade detection, and that Instagram deleted his account before he resurfaced under a new handle.

Wagner's lawyers say the record shows a protester, not a plotter - noting that he has no violent criminal history, owned no weapons and advocated nonviolent protest, and Courthouse News reports he offered limits on his movements and internet use. His lawyers argued he is "being detained not on the basis of a history of violence, but rather based on his speech." 

A magistrate judge in Minnesota first ordered him held, citing the posts, his lack of stable work or housing and his stated desire to evade law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood then revoked that order, though she acknowledged the government had made "a very strong argument" on public safety. She released him to his mother's home in Minnesota with GPS monitoring, a ban on social media posting and limits to two approved devices. On Aug. 12, a divided Sixth Circuit panel reversed her. Judges Hermandorfer and Norris held that no set of conditions would protect J.S. and the public, and Judge Bloomekatz dissented.

It gets better...

Wagner faces additional charges for conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers in a separate case. Federal prosecutors claim Wagner and others engaged in coordinated efforts to disrupt federal operations during Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities.

A different judge ordered Wagner to be released on those charges, however, leaving him in detention solely based on the cyberstalking case. -Courthouse News

The Sixth Circuit's own opinion, as the government's brief quotes it, gives Wagner some ground. It conceded that he has no violent criminal history, a factor it said weighed "slightly against dangerousness," and it ruled for the government anyway. The majority leaned on the threats, on his alleged willingness, in a Signal chat two days before his arrest, to entertain a request to help "kill" a former senior government official, and on a record of missed state court dates that included an "absconder" listing and an active Iowa warrant. It also held that Judge Hood's remark that public protection depends on "what side of the street you're on" had no bearing on the question. Prosecutors say Wagner shoved and spat at the arresting agents and flashed his middle fingers in his booking photo, saying it was "for the judge." Bloomekatz read the "barrel of a gun" post as describing followers being threatened, and said the Signal exchange weighed only slightly toward dangerousness.

The Supreme Court was not asked to decide whether the posts were threats. Wagner wanted a stay while the justices consider his Sept. 18 petition, which asks whether appeals courts must defer to a district judge's release decision or review it from scratch. The Solicitor General answered that this is no emergency. The government says the dispute becomes moot when trial opens Jan. 12, 2027, after Wagner himself delayed it four times. The postponements ran from April to July, September, November and now January, and the brief says he admits the aim was to keep the issue alive. It also noted the Court turned down the same standard-of-review question in 2022. The reports on Tuesday's order did not address the petition itself.

The prosecution arrived with an announcement. In a Feb. 5 statement the Epoch Times quotes, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said the man "allegedly doxxed and called for the murder of law enforcement officers" and "proudly claimed affiliation with the terrorist organization Antifa." The Justice Department announced the arrest in a release. Courthouse News notes that Antifa is a decentralized movement with no official organization, though President Donald Trump designated it a domestic terrorist organization by executive order last year.

As we reported, that September order told agencies to investigate and dismantle the group and anyone acting on its behalf, and what we called the first Antifa terrorism case ended with five guilty pleas over an attack on a Texas detention center. The Michigan charges against Wagner are a different kind of test: they rest on what he wrote and posted online, not on an attack.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 16:40

Things Have Changed...

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via kunstler.com,

I remind you once again: history is a trickster. Sometimes things turn out, and sometimes they just turn, and these days they're turning hard. Get this: Russia is not our mortal enemy anymore. This is not 1956 or even 1986. It is no longer the so-called Free World against the wicked Hammer and Sickle.

Russia is no longer a weird political science experiment acting in defiance of human nature - that is, of people striving to make good lives for their families. No more sacrificing everyone's happiness to prove Karl Marx's cockamamie theories. No more trying to foist all that on the rest of the world. Russia gave up on that project and opted to become a normal nation, with the full kit of normality: commerce, shopping, banks, enterprise. Things have changed.

Things have gotten strange, too. You see every indication that, for now, Europe has become something of adversary, if not exactly our enemy, yet. Europe has lost its mind. Now, it is Europe's turn to destroy itself in pursuit of idiotic theories - such as: nations don't matter. . . you can have a high standard of living without productive industry. . . carbon is destroying the world.

Europe is now tyrannized by the unelected EU commission, much as the old Soviet Union was tyrannized by its politburo. An Orwellian switcheroo has occurred. When history plays tricks, it plays doozies. So, now you've got the grandmotherly Ursula von der Leyen dictating what all the countries in Europe may do and not do with their farms and factories and the daily lives of their people, just like Joseph Stalin in 1937. And you have the grotesquely weak leaders of France, Germany, and the rest submitting to this.

And outside the EU - which it voted to exit in 2016 - you have our so-called "mother country," Great Britain (the United Kingdom) committing suicide in the most extravagant way, turning over prime ministers like they were jacks in a game of whist, jailing their own people for impure thoughts, while allowing the wholesale rape of its womenfolk by foreign invaders. Most extraordinary, as Dr. Watson might have observed to old Sherlock. Meanwhile, they have the ragged remnant of their old empire to defend, and it's not going so well.

That remnant is all that's left of Britain's economy: its banks, its Wall Street, which they call The City of London, a square mile of hideous skyscrapers by which Britain desperately seeks to maintain financial flows into an economy that increasingly produces nothing. Which is to say, all that's left of Britain's vast imperial power is a matrix of nefarious financial rackets - just as, in the USA, all that's left of the old Democratic Party is its matrix of rackets.

These days, Britain's political apparatus is working hard to scare-up a war with Russia as a last-ditch attempt to salvage its hopelessly wasted economy. Britain's leadership apparently thinks it can summon a war economy and even draft an army of foot-soldiers as if this were 1914 or 1939. It's an insane project, based on an age-old wish to capture the vast natural resources of Russia. They've been at it, like, forever. (France and Germany tried it, too. Didn't work.)

Now we, here in the USA, in our own hemisphere of the globe, far across the salty seas from Europe, had been enlisted in this project to mess with Russia since 1991, and that's not working so well anymore, either. First of all, there is the NATO problem. We're still entangled in that anachronistic treaty, despite Russia having opted to be normal thirty-five years ago. So, you see, the way to get Russia was to stir up a war between it and Ukraine.

And they used us to do it - because the EU+ NATO lacked the mojo for the job. They got our Anglified State department and its NeoCon errand boys, along with our intel cowboys and their "Five-Eye" pardners, to stage the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Kiev, kick out the Russia-friendly president Viktor Yanukovych and, after running through a couple of puppet presidents, installed the former comedian Zelenskyy in the job (who had played a buffoonish Ukrainian president on TV previously, another great prank by our friend, history).

The next gambit was to try to shoe-horn Ukraine into NATO, which everybody knew would provoke Russia to move against Ukraine, which it did in 2022. Russia did not want NATO military bases on its border. That, Mr. Putin declared, loudly enough to be heard in Berlin, Paris, London, and Brussels, was a "red line." Voila, war! And the USA being the backbone and the bank account for NATO, got dragged into backing Ukraine by the feckless "Joe Biden" - years on Ukraine's bribery payroll, and too out-of-it to not be punked into playing along. Yeah, he said, you can join NATO. The blue and yellow flags busted out all over our land. Slava Ukraini, the useful idiots shrieked.

President Donald Trump, having survived the Ukraine phone call impeachment gambit and many other attempts to put him out of business, was wise to the game, and one of the first things he did returning to power in 2025 was to confab with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Against all odds, Mr. Trump has maintained that working relationship despite having to pretend to support NATO. He apparently realizes that the tricks of history have placed the USA in greater alignment with Russia than with our former World War Two allies, most particularly a desire to avoid the World War Three that NATO is now pushing for.

The President has made it clear that he is done with the weaselly Zelenskyy and all his machinations - his visits to suck-up with King Charles, his nefarious dealings with NATO, his monstrous money-laundering. If Mr. Trump has not yet secretly withdrawn America's remaining support for Ukraine via NATO, he will do so soon, explicitly, and in a way that is liable to be an end to NATO, which trickster-history has managed to turn into a warmonger. The EU and NATO do not have the money to keep that war going. It's as simple as that.

Now, Iran. Americans are badly exercised by this operation, which has so far claimed around twenty lives. Well, there's an election on, and you can be sure that a lot of this discontent is being generated by 1) the desperate Democratic Party and 2) the various characters in what's being called "Woke MAGA." The peeved apostates, such as Tucker, Candace, MTG, and company, might be acting under, shall we say, foreign influence, but they also seem plumb crazy. In the case of Tucker and Candace, of course, the ideas they've been retailing seem garishly insane. Tucker babbles about literal infestations of Satan-sent demons, and sneers Goebbels-like against the Jews, while Candace follows her cuckoo Charlie Kirk vengeance project.

Get this: Iran has lost this war, and badly. And for a good reason: being that they were determined to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to deliver them, and President Trump made the reasonable decision that it better not happen. Iran, being run by a lunatic Jihad faction, the IRGC, refuses to come to reasonable terms. The few weeks left before the US midterm election make this an especially delicate period. The Iranians well know this, and are playing it for all it's worth in hopes that a flip of the US Congress will improve their position. It's a bad bet.

The president has made it pretty clear, and consistently so for months. The Iranians can either agree to become a normal nation, even prosperous, happy one, but with no nukes and no more jihad, or we are going to put them out of business - whichever way the midterm election goes. In other words, what you're seeing now in that corner of the globe is not the final disposition of things.

The Europeans apparently have an incentive to do whatever they can do keep feeding the flames in Ukraine and Iran, though they are not advertising it overtly. Our interests have diverged. The Europeans are maneuvering in such a way as to make themselves an adversary to the USA, a very unwise move. It also happens that their countries are going up in flames at the moment. Their citizens are not happy, and they are further belabored by a large force of invading savages. The leaders in charge of those countries might not be in charge a whole lot longer. Think about recalibrating your expectations about where all this is going. And don't be so glum. The odds are in our country's favor, and these wars can be resolved favorably.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 16:20

Ukraine's Starlink & Starshield Services Restored, Officials Say

British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed on Oct. 15 that Ukraine's access to SpaceX's Starlink and Starshield services had been restored following a temporary disruption.

Starshield is the military version of Starlink, which offers satellite internet connectivity for consumer and commercial use.

The temporary disruptions to Ukraine's Starshield access, which were reported on Oct. 14, come amid increased tension between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Adding more confusion to this whole scenario, around midday on Friday, President Trump told a gaggle of reporters that he "didn't know who gave the order on Starshield," to slow it down, claiming further that "it wasn't us."

President Trump says the U.S. has not restricted SpaceX’s military-grade Starshield satellite communications services to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/K1fZNgpVRa

— Tabz (@TabzLIVE) October 16, 2026

As Timothy Frudd further reports for The Epoch Times, following a meeting with U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Oct. 15, Streeting told the BBC that he was "reassured directly" by Hegseth that Ukraine's access to Starlink and Starshield had been restored.

On Friday, Zelenskyy said satellite speed was returning but had not yet been fully restored to its previous levels.

Asked whether the Pentagon had restricted Ukraine's access to the satellite network to prevent strikes on Russian energy infrastructure during a Thursday interview on Fox News's "The Story with Martha MacCallum," Streeting said, "That's not my understanding."

"We didn't really get into why the service interruption had happened. We did reflect briefly on the fact that it had been restored and welcome that," he said.

Ukrainian officials said on Oct. 14 that its military access to Starshield services was temporarily restricted overnight, resulting in disruptions to combat missions.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, an adviser to Zelenskyy, said the restrictions impacted devices connected to Starshield's services that were moving over 100 mph.

"I confirm that SpaceX has implemented speed limits for Starlink terminals while in motion," Beskrestnov wrote in a statement on Telegram. "Our defense forces were not notified of this restriction, and it has resulted in the disruption of several missions."

Ukraine uses Starlink's satellite services to support drones used to strike Russian targets, intercept Russian drones, and for military communications.

Yevhen Karas, commander of Ukraine's 413th Separate Unmanned Systems Regiment, which specializes in drone operations, said the military lost drones due to communication disruptions and that some missions had failed.

"The Starshield shutdown was short, lasted only one day, but several drones and other systems were affected," he said.

Following reports of the disruptions by Ukrainian officials on Wednesday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski questioned SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, asking whether the restrictions were linked to political pressure.

Responding to the issue, Musk said the U.S. government owns and controls the Starshield systems.

"Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS," he wrote in an X statement.

Asked about the temporary restrictions on Ukraine's access to Starshield, a U.S. official told The Epoch Times, "No such request was ever made by the president."

The Epoch Times reached out to the Pentagon for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.

After weeks of pushing for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine on attacks targeting energy infrastructure, Trump criticized Zelenskyy on Oct. 10 for continuing to strike Russian oil and gas refineries and suggested that it was "time for Ukraine to get a new president."

Trump's criticism came after Zelenskyy voiced opposition to a deal the Trump administration made with Russia to supply diesel to the global market.

On Oct. 11, Trump announced that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to an energy ceasefire.

However, Ukraine has since resumed attacks on Russian refineries after Zelenskyy said Kyiv was "done" complying with the ceasefire, accusing Russia of continuing to launch attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

In a Thursday interview on Newsmax's "Finnerty," Trump was asked about Ukraine's resumed strikes on Russian oil refineries.

Trump described Zelenskyy as "not a good guy for us to deal with," adding that he was "not a big fan" of the Ukrainian president.

Trump told Newsmax that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy both want to see the war ended and that it "should end soon."

"But I think I find Zelenskyy to be more difficult to deal with than Putin," Trump added.

During Thursday's interview with Fox News, Streeting referenced the recent tensions between Trump and Zelenskyy, saying it was "not the first time we've seen a falling out" between the two presidents.

"We need President Trump engaged on Ukraine. He has been, and the diplomatic track is as important in ending the war as making sure Ukraine has the weapons it needs to see off Russian aggression," Streeting told Fox News.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 15:45

US Closes Fiscal 2026 With $2 Trillion Budget Deficit, Pays Record $1.4 Trillion In Interest

With DOGE disbanded more than a year ago, and tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court, the US is no longer even pretending that there is any hope to normalize spending, or any kind of happy ending to the US debt trajectory. 

At 2pm today the US Treasury published the latest, September, monthly budget deficit data, which was also the last month of fiscal 2026, and it will again come as no surprise to anyone that things are looking ever worse. 

Total US receipts for the month were $558 billion, a modest 2.6% improvement from the $544 billion a year ago, with individual income taxes accounting for $298 billion, or more than half of the total, and the bulk of the balance coming from Social Insurance and Retirement receipts of $149 billion.

On the spending side, things were ugly: total outlays were $585 billion, a 70% deterioration from the $345.7 billion spent a year ago, although like last month, much of that had to do with the calendar impact of tariffs. 

Putting receipts and spending in context, a chart of the trailing 6 months of government revenue and spending shows that the two trendlines continue to diverge with spending on pace to surpass the covid all time high, even as government revenue remains stuck in a much more narrow range.

The difference between the two, is of course, the US budget deficit, which in September was $27 billion, an improvement from August's 167 billion deficit, which however was the result of some calendar discrepancies between the two months.

It's worth noting that after several months of EPS-boosting tariff refunds (courtesy of the Supreme Court), in September the US was once again collecting net tariff revenues, if at the normal rate from before Trump's latest  trade war. 

What matters more is that for the full fiscal 2026, total US deficit is closed the year at $2 trillion (technically $1.992 trillion), over $200 billion worse than last year. The silver lining is that contrary to what we said a month ago, when we predicted that "2026 will be about $200bn worse than the previous year when all is said and done, and be the 3rd worst year for the US deficit on record, with just the crisis years of 2020 and 2021 worse", 2026 was actually just fractionally better than 2023 and its $2.014 trillion deficit.

Finally, turning to the elephant in the room, namely interest expense, in September the US spent $92 billion on gross interest expense, which means for all of fiscal 2026, total US interest spending has risen to a record $1.360 trillion, up 12% from a year ago, and the highest on record (as for the net vs gross nazis, in September the US for the first time ever paid net interest of more than a trillion dollars, or $1.05TN to be precise)

Extrapolating the current trend (and with the recent Fed rate hike our estimate may prove conservative), on an LTM basis, total US interest of $1.4 trillion is set to surpass Social Security (which was $1.67 trillion LTM but growing much slower), by the end of 2028. 

And since 23% of marketable US debt is now T-Bills, which will see an immediate impact from the recent (and coming) Fed hikes, US interest expense is going to rise even more sharply, signaling that while the debt endgame for the US is guaranteed, the only question is whether Warsh will bring it on even faster. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 15:30

Millions Watched Zuckerberg Sip A Guinness. Nobody Heard What He Said Next.

Authored by Patrick Feeley via Substack,

The Sip

On the October 12 episode of John Collison's Cheeky Pint, Mark Zuckerberg picked up a full pint of Guinness, took what looked like a mouthful of foam and held it there long enough for the clip to travel around X and pick up millions of views. Zuckerberg eventually responded himself with "that's just my face," which is fair, and I will admit I have made a similar face reading through a capex budget.

Most people who saw the clip probably did not watch the rest of the episode, which is a shame, because later in the conversation Zuckerberg said something that matters a great deal more for anyone trying to understand the AI buildout than his reaction to an Irish stout.

"At some point the GPUs will be fully depreciated, but we're probably still going to be using them for a while, because the value of even an H100 at this point is higher than it was last year... compute continues being constrained."

In other words, the CEO of a company running one of the largest fleets of Nvidia chips in the world said on camera that a used H100 has gone up in value over the past year, and he said it almost as an aside while making a separate point about why Meta owns its own data centers.

Land

The common assumption among investors is that AI chips behave like a perishable good, where a company buys the hardware, the hardware loses most of its value within three or four years, and the whole bet depends on revenue showing up before the chips are worthless. Much of the bubble commentary I read about the hyperscalers rests on some version of that assumption, whether or not the writer says so directly.

Zuckerberg described the hardware differently. He explained that owning data centers is "a financial advantage for us" compared with "a bunch of the other companies that are paying clouds," and he put the cost of capacity at roughly "15 billion a gigawatt." When he described the downside, he said that if AI works overall, "plenty of other people want all our compute," which sounds a lot more like a landlord describing a building than a company worried about a depreciating machine.

I think history supports him, at least partly. Canals, railroads, the electric grid and long-haul fiber all looked like manias while they were being built, and many of the investors who financed them lost money, though the assets themselves lasted for decades and kept producing for whoever owned them after the shakeout. The mistake investors kept making was treating the fate of the first owner and the life of the asset as the same question.

The Math

Zuckerberg's own figure is a useful place to start. If a company writes off $15 billion per gigawatt over 5.5 years, the annual depreciation is roughly $2.7 billion, while the same investment written off over four years comes to about $3.75 billion, so a single assumption about how long the equipment lasts moves the yearly cost by about a billion dollars per gigawatt. Since his figure also includes buildings and power equipment that last much longer than chips, the sensitivity on the servers themselves is even larger than that.

Meta has already made this choice in its own accounting. In January 2025 the company extended the estimated useful life of most of its servers and network equipment to 5.5 years, and according to its 10-K that change alone cut 2025 depreciation by $2.92 billion and added $2.59 billion to net income, or about $1.00 per diluted share.

A company that rents from a cloud provider is in a very different position, since it pays for the depreciation, the provider's margin and the power every year it rents, and that bill does not shrink once the underlying chip is paid off. The owner, once the chip is written off, is mostly paying to keep it running, and if compute stays scarce the owner can also choose to keep using the chip, move it over to inference work or rent the capacity to someone else, options the renter simply does not have.

The Dissent

Amazon took the opposite view, and I do not think that should be brushed aside. Effective January 1, 2025, Amazon shortened the useful life of a portion of its servers and networking equipment from six years to five, citing the pace of development in artificial intelligence and machine learning, which means two of the most experienced operators of computing hardware in the world looked at similar equipment in the same month and came to opposite conclusions. I find that disagreement more informative than most analyst models on the subject.

Amazon's position has real merit, because Zuckerberg's argument depends on compute staying scarce, and scarcity rarely lasts. Each new generation of Nvidia chips does more work per watt, and in a world where power is the real constraint, a data center operator may pull an older chip that still works perfectly well simply to make room for a more efficient one. An H100 is valuable in a shortage and far less so in a glut, and it is worth remembering that the railroads lasted for over a century while plenty of railroad investors were still wiped out.

My view is that the industry has not yet agreed on what kind of asset these chips are, and I think the market has largely adopted the cautious view as though the question were already settled. The answer will come from utilization rates, prices for used chips and the useful-life disclosures in company filings over the next few years, and of those three I would pay the most attention to used chip prices, since that is the one number management cannot set.

Downstream

The part of this that matters most to me sits further down the chain. If older chips have a long second life, they will eventually move out of the largest companies' fleets and into cheaper inference work and into businesses that would never buy a new frontier GPU, which means a regional distributor or a specialty manufacturer could put AI to work for a fraction of today's cost. That is the adoption gap I spend most of my time studying, and a durable H100 would help close it sooner.

Zuckerberg also said Meta built inference capacity "ahead of knowing that the product was going to be ready," which is the kind of bet a company only makes if it believes the hardware will outlast the original plan. He may well be right, or supply may catch up faster than he expects, but either way he told the audience exactly how he thinks about the asset, and he did it between sips of Guinness.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 15:15

Wisconsin Democrat's 'Number One Priority' As Secretary Of State: Driver's Licenses For Illegal Immigrants

JoCasta Zamarripa, the Democratic nominee for Wisconsin secretary of state, told WMTV that her top priority if elected is getting driver's licenses for people in the country illegally - and she wants David Crowley to be the governor who signs them into law.

Democratic candidate for Wisconsin Secretary of State JoCasta Zamarripa: "My number one priority is to see the governor sign driver's licenses for undocumented Wisconsinites into law. And I hope that that governor will be David Crowley..." pic.twitter.com/flOhsit4Qo

— Vanessa Kjeldsen (@VanessaKjeldsen) October 15, 2026

Asked whether Crowley, the Democratic nominee for governor and Milwaukee County executive, had signed on, Zamarripa acknowledged the two haven't discussed it yet. "We're going to talk soon," she said, adding that she feels "confident" he'll back it because "as a legislator he was supportive."

Years of Bills, None Passed

Zamarripa, a Milwaukee alder and five-term former Assembly member, has pushed "driver card" bills for undocumented immigrants for years, and none became law. One version she sponsored would have issued licenses that couldn't be used to board a plane or enter a federal building; she pitched it then as economic development: "Latinos are great consumers." An earlier version specified the card would not be valid for voting.

Her case now is public safety:

"Driver's licenses for undocumented Wisconsinites is going to improve the public safety of all Wisconsinites, whether they're fifth generation U.S. citizens or brand-new, newly arrived immigrants, because it's going to mean more folks with a driver's license driving on our roads, more folks accessing affordable automobile insurance."

An Office With No Say

Wisconsin has barred undocumented immigrants from getting licenses since a law took effect in 2007. Gov. Tony Evers put licenses for all in his budget proposals, and Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee stripped them out.

The job Zamarripa is running for wouldn't change that. Wisconsin's secretary of state doesn't issue driver's licenses or run elections - the Department of Transportation and the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission do - and the office mainly keeps official records and the Great Seal. Zamarripa concedes as much: "I'll no longer be that legislator with the vote in that way, but I believe I can use the office as a platform."

Her pick for governor has been blunt on immigration. "When it comes to immigration, I'm not an ally; I'm an accomplice," Crowley has said on the campaign trail. He has said he doesn't see "any scenario" in which local law enforcement would want to partner with ICE, and Republican Tom Tiffany has built an ad around the line, cutting it between crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Wisconsin.

The Fond du Lac Case

The interview landed the same week Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney charged Elmer Jose Cardona Bustillo, a Honduran man prosecutors say is in the country illegally, with knowingly operating a vehicle while suspended, causing great bodily harm. Immigration records show he was ordered removed by an immigration judge in November 2015, Toney said.

According to the complaint, the pickup Cardona Bustillo was driving struck a 50-year-old woman with Down syndrome in a crosswalk shortly before 5:45 a.m. on Oct. 9, and he acknowledged knowing he wasn't allowed to drive. He told officers he didn't see her; the complaint notes it was dark and she was wearing dark clothing. She was airlifted to Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, where Toney said she is "fighting for her life." Cardona Bustillo is presumed innocent; a preliminary hearing is set for Oct. 23.

The Race

Zamarripa, unopposed in the August primary, faces Republican businessman Jay Schroeder and the Green Party's Pete Karas on Nov. 3 for a seat left open by Democrat Sarah Godlewski's run for lieutenant governor. Schroeder wants to eliminate the Elections Commission and move election administration into the office; Ballotpedia's forecaster rates the race Leans Democratic.

Zamarripa frames the stakes in partisan terms: "It is really critical that this office remain in Democratic hands," she told WPR.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 15:00

Princeton Researchers Find A Lower-Energy Route To Fusion Ignition

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

• A new Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory model finds that heating plasma first and compressing it second could sharply cut the energy needed to reach fusion ignition.

• Tungsten at just one part in 10,000 could double the pressure ignition requires, a red flag for the dozen-plus next-gen machines built with tungsten walls.

• The findings are theoretical, but a liquid lithium coating could keep tungsten out of the plasma as AI-era money keeps pouring into fusion.

A new model for nuclear fusion has potentially discovered a significantly more energy-efficient way to achieve nuclear fusion, and flipped everything we thought we knew about the fusion process. The scientists' modelling also flips the traditional order of operations for managing and sustaining plasma in a controlled fusion experiment. Traditionally, fusion processes start by compressing plasma for higher density, and then heating it to superhot temperatures. However, new modelling from the United States Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) shows that reversing this order of operations could drastically reduce the energy inputs necessary to achieve ignition.

This is big. Ignition refers to when a fusion experiment creates more energy than it consumes. To date, this has been the biggest and most elusive challenge of achieving fusion - the process which powers our own sun - here on Earth. The first ever successful ignition was achieved in 2022 at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. And while this achievement has been repeated and other instances of ignition have occurred, the sector is still a far cry from creating enough net energy to be anywhere close to practical and commercial application.

Unlocking the secret to commercially scalable nuclear fusion would solve much of the world's energy problems essentially overnight. Fusion provides a near-limitless source of clean energy and yields none of the hazardous and radioactive spent nuclear fuel associated with nuclear fission. It's therefore viewed as a 'holy grail' of clean energy. This is why finding more energy-efficient pathways toward ignition is such a big deal, even if they are - at this point - purely theoretical.

But the team at PPPL didn't just discover how to make fusion easier. They also discovered a way to make fusion much, much more difficult - and found that it could be a major stumbling block for many of the nuclear fusion experiments and startups racing to achieve commercial nuclear fusion. The team found that the incorporation of just a tiny amount of the element tungsten in the fusion process - as small as one part of tungsten in 10,000 within the plasma - could cause the pressure needed to achieve ignition to double, creating major issues for efficiency and stability.

This is highly relevant for many next-gen fusion experiments which use tungsten in the design of their reactors. According to reporting from Interesting Engineering, "More than a dozen next-generation fusion machines have selected tungsten for their inner walls because the metal can withstand extremely high temperatures." If the tiniest bit of this tungsten enters the plasma, achieving fusion quickly becomes much more difficult, and could even make the experiment unstable.

Discovering this risk now may avoid a lot of wasted energy and expenditures going forward. And, happily, those tungsten-based reactors don't need to be scrapped; they just need to be coated, such as with liquid lithium, to ensure that the tungsten doesn't contaminate the plasma.

"While more study is needed, we are excited by these results, and they suggest a clear path forward for future research in this area," PPPL physicist Jonathan Menard told Interesting Engineering.

PPPL is far from alone in its enthusiasm for fusion research and its disruptive potential. After a century of slow and painstaking progress from very few players, the field of nuclear fusion is now exploding as investors take note of the accelerated developments in the field, and the AI boom causes VC money to flood into all kinds of alternative energies. As a result, startups are starting to crowd into the sector, creating more competition and leading to increased innovation.

Some of the tech sector's biggest names and deepest pockets are heavily involved in the burgeoning fusion sector. Microsoft's Bill Gates and OpenAI's Sam Altman are vocal advocates for and financial backers of nuclear fusion research as a critical solution to the energy monster their own companies are creating through the hyperscaling of AI data centers. Altman has admitted that the world simply doesn't have enough energy to support the tech sector's growth trajectory in a business-as-usual scenario.

"There's no way to get there without a breakthrough," he said at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "It motivates us to go invest more in fusion."

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 14:45

Watch: Ilhan Omar's Husband Snaps At Reporter Over Rumors Congresswoman Fled Country

Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) husband snapped at reporters after being confronted over rumors that the Minnesota Democrat fled the United States following a federal raid on the couple's Washington, D.C., home.

Tim Mynett, a political consultant married to the far-left congresswoman, was approached by a Fox News reporter while walking the couple's dog Wednesday evening.

"There are rumors that the congresswoman left the country, is that true?" a reporter asked.

Mynett sidestepped the question and expressed frustration with the media presence outside their residence.

"You guys are annoying the hell out of all the neighbors around here, man," he barked.

SPOTTED: Ilhan Omar's husband Tim Mynett snapped at questions surrounding rumors that the congresswoman fled the country following a federal raid by Homeland Security Investigations. He was seen outside their Washington, D.C., home multiple times, but Omar has not been spotted... pic.twitter.com/HuD7yETtmk

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) October 15, 2026

The tense exchange comes amid questions about Omar's whereabouts following Monday's reported raid by Homeland Security Investigations agents.

On Monday morning, Federal investigators searched the congresswoman's home as part of an investigation examining alleged irregularities in her family's immigration paperwork.

Authorities seized Omar's cellphone and passport during the operation, while several relatives have received subpoenas, according to NBC News.

The investigation centers on questions surrounding Omar's immigration history, including alleged discrepancies involving her reported birth year that could potentially affect the circumstances under which she obtained American citizenship, The Wall Street Journal reports.

In a defiant statement, Omar's office denounced the investigation as politically motivated and reaffirmed that she had done nothing wrong.

"This raid by Trump's DHS is an outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies. For a decade, Donald Trump has relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with inflammatory rhetoric, repeatedly putting a target on her back," the statement read. "Now, those attacks have escalated to a pointless federal raid. The Congresswoman has done nothing wrong. No president should be able to use the power of the federal government to intimidate his political enemies."

Earlier in the week, Mynett dismissed concerns about the investigation, insisting his wife entered the U.S. legally as a child refugee from Somalia.

"My wife came here when she was 12 years old as a child war refugee," he told Fox News. "No concerns."

Meanwhile, Omar has faced separate scrutiny over financial disclosures involving business interests tied her husband that were reported as being worth as much as $30 million.

The lawmaker's office subsequently amended the filings, attributing discrepancies to reporting errors.

Meanwhile, oops...

WaPo, while attempting to exonerate Ilhan Omar, actually reported some incredibly new, damning information. Ilhan Omar's second husband - the one alleged to be her brother - applied for a green card, was asked about the marriage, and then withdrew his application.

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) October 16, 2026

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 14:30

TD And BMO Among 9 Banks Accused Of Discriminating Against Conservative Customers, US Regulator Says

Authored by Jennifer Cowan via The Epoch Times,

A U.S. banking regulator's report has flagged the Bank of Montreal and TD Bank alongside seven other financial institutions accused of restricting financial services to certain American customers because of their conservative political or religious beliefs.

The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has published a report based on its findings during a supervisory review of debanking practices across nine major banks under its jurisdiction, based on 100,000 complaints at institutions it regulates. Debanking is when a bank or financial institution suddenly closes a customer's bank accounts or refuses to provide financial services.

Joining the two largest Canadian banks on the OCC's list were JPMorgan Chase & Co. - the world's largest banking institution - plus Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., and PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

The OCC says its review stemmed from a presidential directive issued by Donald Trump last August which mandated that U.S. citizens cannot be excluded from accessing financial services based on their religious convictions or political viewpoints.

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould says the banks named in the report "denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses" between 2020 and 2025.

"Americans should have access to financial services regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or political views," Gould said in a press release. "Fair access to financial services is not a mantra - it is a mandate. The Trump Administration is committed to ending the weaponization of finance against hardworking Americans, once and for all."

TD did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report, while BMO directed The Epoch Times to a previously issued statement from the Bank Policy Institute.

"We support efforts to establish clear and consistent standards that promote access while maintaining sound risk management, including the administration's recent efforts to prioritize supervisory attention on material financial risk and rather than reputational risk," the statement said.

"We look forward to continued engagement with the administration and Congress as they consider additional proposals that ensure that political or religious beliefs do not unfairly affect customers' access to banking services."

The regulator's report presents examples from the financial institutions of practices it deemed to be an issue. Here's a look at some of the complaints.

TD

TD was listed in the report several times, notably for its management of accounts belonging to an organization dedicated to advancing pro-life advocacy and a faith-based health care sharing ministry.

The OCC reported that the bank instituted a policy requiring that loan requests from the pro-life non-profit organization be flagged for review by TD's reputational risk committee.

The organization's national director was also identified by the bank as having a "high political and media profile," the report found.

TD's line of credit to the faith-based health ministry was determined by the bank to carry a "reputation risk," if the relationship became public knowledge through media coverage or advocacy groups critical of the group's operations.

The bank determined that the group's "moral and religious requirements" to access services conflicted with "TD's values of diversity and inclusion."

BMO

The report highlighted BMO's approach to firearms-related businesses, noting that in 2022 the bank assessed the "reputational risks" of lending to a longstanding customer that manufactured empty firearm magazines and other tactical products.

"The customer was part of a family of companies that had a 'strong relationship' with the bank dating back several decades," the report said.

BMO's environmental and social risk policy directed account managers to understand their customers' businesses and work with those whose practices did not meet the bank's firearms and ammunition guidelines to bring them into compliance before the next credit decision. If existing customers refused to meet the requirements, managers were expected to work toward ending the banking relationship.

A senior risk officer ultimately approved maintaining the relationship but required ongoing monitoring. The bank also established a quarterly threshold requiring tactical products to account for less than 30 percent of the customer's total sales.

Other Findings

The report listed several examples of payment processor WePay, which is owned by JPMorgan, closing customer accounts because of their political or religious views.

One of these instances occurred in February 2021, when WePay closed the account of a merchant that sold merchandise promoting Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) brand.

It also closed accounts later that year of a merchant that sold "conservative/ republican" t-shirts and hats, as well as that of a customer that it deemed to be a "religious conservative non profit with strong anti LGBTQ rhetoric."

Another merchant saw its account shut down after handling transactions for an upcoming event, prompted by social media commentary from the event's organizer that described then-President Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci as enemies and characterized Black Lives Matter activists as Marxists.

JPMorgan Chase said in a statement that it has since "improved the way we do business" and prohibits discrimination against customers based on political or religious views.

The OCC did not announce any bank penalties in its report, but it signalled that it is currently reviewing additional regulatory and supervisory measures to avert similar occurrences in the future.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau responded to the report in a press release this week by promising to address any "harm" caused by the debanking.

It said it would "fully investigate whether the institutions featured in OCC's report and others have complied with federal consumer financial laws and take appropriate action."

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 14:15

Judge Orders Trump Admin To Reopen 2027 Diversity Visa Lottery

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to open registration for the 2027 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program by Nov. 1.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta of the Southern District of California requires the State Department to announce the registration period no later than midnight ET Oct. 29, open a 30-day electronic entry window by midnight Nov. 1, and notify selectees by midnight Dec. 3.

The department must accept entries and process applications until the fiscal year 2027 visa allocation runs out, or Sept. 30, 2027, whichever comes first.

The program was suspended days after a Dec. 13 shooting at Brown University, which killed two students and injured nine. Officials said the suspect was granted entry to the United States under the program.

"This heinous individual should never have been allowed in our country," then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at the time. "At President Trump's direction, I am immediately directing [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] to pause the DV1 program to ensure no more Americans are harmed by this disastrous program."

Red Eagle Law, a California immigration firm, initially sued Rubio on Aug. 19, arguing the State Department's failure to open the 2027 lottery was a violation of federal law.

The firm requested emergency relief to restart the program. Judge Ohta denied a temporary restraining order on Sept. 3, citing problems with timing.

She later heard arguments on a preliminary injunction, and then set an oral ruling for Oct. 14. The government had contended that statutory deadlines for running the program had already passed.

The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows nationals of certain countries with low rates of immigration to be granted lawful permanent residency (LPR) after an annual lottery.

The program allows for up to 55,000 individuals to receive LPR status after entering an annual lottery conducted by the State Department. The winning lots are apportioned across six regions of the world.

To apply, candidates are required only to have either a high school education or two years of work experience in a job that requires two years of training. Registration usually opens in early October and closes in early November.

The program was frozen during the pandemic, but in September 2020 a federal judge ordered the first Trump administration to resume it.

"There is no statutory requirement that every available diversity visa be issued each year," U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his ruling. "But that does not mean that the State Department could effectively extinguish the diversity program for a given year by simply sitting on its hands and letting all pending diversity visa applications time out."

Trump has long sought to scrap the diversity visa lottery, saying it brings "the worst of the worst" into the country.

In a separate case, a federal judge in August struck down a Trump administration policy that suspended immigrant visa issuance for applicants from 75 countries.

"Consular officers were ordered to refuse immigrant visas to nationals of the 75 designated countries, regardless of whether the consular officer had, following an individualized assessment, determined that the applicant was not likely to become a public charge and that the applicant was otherwise eligible for a visa," U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas wrote.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 13:40

Lululemon Restructures Fabric Team After See-Through Leggings Complaints And Stock Collapse

Lululemon is restructuring its fabric development operations following another round of customer complaints about product quality, eliminating seven positions and shifting some responsibilities closer to overseas suppliers, according to Bloomberg.

The changes, implemented in August, include moving certain raw-material development functions to vendor partners. The company is currently advertising related positions in Taipei and Ho Chi Minh City.

Bloomberg writes that the shakeup follows complaints that leggings from Lululemon’s Get Low collection were too transparent, prompting a temporary suspension of online sales. Similar concerns emerged weeks later over its heart-patterned leggings.

The problems add to a history of quality-control issues. In 2024, Lululemon discontinued its Breezethrough leggings following criticism of their fit, while in 2013, the company recalled nearly 20% of its women’s bottoms over excessive sheerness.

It comes during an already disastrous year for Lululemon shareholders. The stock has plunged roughly 55% in 2026, dramatically underperforming the broader market as investors question whether the once-dominant athleticwear brand can regain its footing.

The company's financial performance has done little to restore confidence. Second-quarter revenue declined 4% to $2.4 billion, while comparable sales fell 9%, including a 12% decline in the Americas. Management has repeatedly lowered its outlook and now expects full-year revenue to decline between 5% and 7%, a remarkable reversal for a company once celebrated for its consistent growth.

Competition has also intensified, with emerging brands like Alo Yoga and Vuori challenging Lululemon's dominance in premium athleticwear. Meanwhile, merchandising missteps, declining customer traffic and concerns about product quality have raised questions about whether the company's once-formidable pricing power and brand loyalty are beginning to erode.

Shares are now trading more than 80% below their late-2023 peak, leaving new CEO Heidi O'Neill with a difficult turnaround ahead.

While the stock's collapse has made its valuation considerably cheaper, investors appear increasingly unwilling to pay a premium for a company struggling with declining sales, intensifying competition and repeated product failures. For now, the question is whether Lululemon is simply experiencing a temporary rough patch or confronting a more permanent deterioration in its brand.

* * *

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 13:25

AVs Drive More Safely... But Can Lead Nearby Human Drivers To Take Risks: Study

Authored by Jeremy Lott via The Epoch Times,

The way automated vehicles (AVs) drive frustrates many motorists sharing the road with them, leading to more dangerous driving and possibly road rage.

A line of Waymo robotaxis drives through North Beach in San Francisco, Calif., on July 7, 2026. Heather Diehl/Getty Images

That is one way to interpret the findings of researchers at Chinese universities in a newly released paper that aims to gauge the effects of integrating AVs into car fleets worldwide.

"Automated vehicles drive safer but induce riskier behavior in human drivers in car-following scenarios" is the title of the new paper, published in the journal Communications Engineering in October.

Researchers Yueying Chu and Peng Liu from Zhejiang University, and Ying Gao and Zhigang Xu from Chang'an University, sought to answer two questions using available AV driving data: Will AVs drive more safely? And will AVs make nearby human drivers drive safer?

The answer to the first question was yes.

"Our evidence clearly shows that AVs drive safer and smoother as compared to their human counterparts in car-following," the researchers reported.

The answer to the second question was complicated, and potentially deadly.

Cars following AVs tend to drive more slowly because that is what drivers most often do when a slow car is in front of them. In that sense, the behavior of human-driven vehicles was coded as safer.

The reason AVs tend to be the slower cars is that they are programmed to obey all traffic laws and treat speed limits as an upper bound, not a suggestion.

Yet following behind AVs also led human drivers to engage in behavior that the researchers coded as risky. Human-driven cars followed AVs more closely, which is another way of saying they tailgated them.

The Chinese researchers examined several reasons why this might be the case. Their best answer was that because AVs in the lead do not tend to vary their speed, human drivers are more comfortable leaving a smaller gap.

"So, ironically, AVs' better velocity and acceleration management might, unconsciously or implicitly, lead their human followers to maintain a shorter distance and create higher tailgating potentials," they write.

The paper did not examine passing.

On a road with multiple lanes in both directions, passing is relatively safe behavior. Statistically, on two-lane roads, it is much more dangerous because it can lead to collisions with oncoming traffic, sideswipes, or other damaging, often fatal, outcomes.

More tailgating wasn't the only potentially dangerous finding in the paper. It also found that because AVs tend to leave more distance than humans would between themselves and the lead car, other human-driven cars are more likely to "cut in" to that gap, which can lead to accidents, the Chinese researchers found.

That AVs leave significant room and that humans tend to tailgate them is consistent with other findings involving AVs and accidents.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called safety "critical" to the success of the AV industry.

Duffy wrote in an introduction to a September report that AVs "don't drive drunk, they don't get tired, and they can't get distracted by an incoming text message or notification - all significant contributors to crashes today."

The Department of Transportation said it is preparing for "both human-driven and automated vehicles coexisting on public roads" for the foreseeable future.

The safety record of AVs is usually better than that of human drivers, studies have shown.

A July study released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the L4 class of Waymo's AV taxis crash at "police-reportable" rates that are 68 percent lower than those of comparable human drivers traveling the same roads under the same conditions.

"Waymo's rate of rear-ending another vehicle was 91 percent lower; its vehicles' rate of being rear-ended was 40 percent lower," the study found.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 12:40

Trump Directs DOJ To Seek Capital Punishment For Killers Of Police, Firefighters

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump told first responders on Oct. 15 that he was pushing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek capital punishment for murderers convicted of killing members of law enforcement or firefighters.

"We're bringing the death penalty back for anybody that kills a police officer, by the way, or anybody in law enforcement," Trump said at a White House Rose Garden luncheon honoring America's law enforcement and firefighters.

He said he directed the DOJ to pursue capital punishment for people convicted of killing a police officer, but also asked the department to add the punishment for anyone who murders a firefighter.

"They're on the ladder and they get shot at and nobody ever talks about that," Trump said. "You'll see - shootings will stop very quickly."

"America owes our first responders a debt it can never fully repay," he said. "But as president, I will always stand behind those who stand on the front lines of law enforcement, fighting fires, all of the things that you people do so courageously."

National Border Patrol Council President Paul Perez told the president that first responders have "never had the support or leadership from any administration that we have from you."

"And it's because of you that America is stronger, America is safer, and the border is totally secure because of you and your leadership," Perez said.

National Volunteer Fire Council Chairman Steve Hirsch presented the president with a fire helmet at the luncheon.

"While this helmet protects us in a fire or a wreck, we want it to protect you," Hirsch said. "We want God to wrap his protective arm around you and use this helmet - remember that we want you to be protected by our Lord."

The U.S. Fire Administration reported that 30 on-duty firefighters have been shot and killed by gunfire in the United States since 1990.

An average of about 50 officers are killed intentionally every year by firearms or other weapons, according to FBI statistics.

The federal government and U.S. military still allow death penalty sentencing, along with 27 states, while 23 states, as well as Washington, D.C., have abolished it.

Four states - California, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Ohio - allow capital punishment but have placed an executive hold on death penalty cases.

Many U.S. states still consider murdering a law enforcement officer a capital offense with added circumstances. But in the four states that have a hold on executions, the death penalty cannot be applied.

Several organizations were represented Thursday, including the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Border Patrol Council.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 11:10

Apple's iPhone Duo Delivery Dates Slip To Late January As Preorders Swamp Launch Inventory

Apple's first foldable iPhone went up for preorder earlier this morning, with the earliest buyers securing delivery next Friday.

Shipping estimates quickly slipped into November, then December, with some iPhone Duo models now showing delivery dates as late as the end of January. The growing backlog suggests initial orders are outpacing available launch inventory.

Here's more from Apple blog MacRumors:

The first customers who preordered right when preorders began at 5 a.m. Pacific Time today will have their iPhone Duo delivered on launch day, Friday, October 23. By just 5:30 a.m. Pacific Time, though, Apple's online store in the U.S. was already showing a shipping date of January 25 for all iPhone Duo configurations.

• iPhone Duo / Star White / 256GB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Star White / 512GB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Star White / 1TB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Star White / 2TB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Night Sky / 256GB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Night Sky / 512GB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Night Sky / 1TB: January 25
• iPhone Duo / Night Sky / 2TB: January 25

Apple customers who were furious about the new delivery times took to X:

Within 5 minutes iPhone Duo Orders have slipped to Dec!! https://t.co/TPPvMz8B4H

— Rjey (@RjeyTech) October 16, 2026

Delivery dates for iPhone Duo are now 12/15 to 12/22 https://t.co/zKFyu4VhuM

— Ray Wong (@raywongy) October 16, 2026

Dang, Duo already backordered almost to February 2027 lol https://t.co/lRYTOyL6jh

— Christian Selig (@ChristianSelig) October 16, 2026

"Compared with the debut of the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max in September, which went smoothly for customers who placed a timely order, securing an iPhone Duo was significantly more difficult," Bloomberg reporter Chris Welch wrote.

With the first deliveries due next Friday and shipping estimates stretching into the end of January, scarce launch inventory could push resale prices on platforms such as eBay to double or triple the retail price. Whether buyers will pay those expected hefty resale prices, potentially as much as a fairly used 2008 Toyota Corolla, remains to be seen.

Demand outstripping launch inventory is great news for Apple's new CEO, John Ternus.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 10:55

Another Mass Shooter Stopped By Armed Citizen In Oregon

Three children and one adult are dead following an active shooter situation at Silver Rail Elementary in Bend, Oregon on Thursday afternoon. The suspected active shooter is also dead after an armed civilian chased the shooter into the school and killed him.

The shooter was reportedly a 16-year-old boy, though no details on identity or motive have been releases yet.  He was armed with a long gun; an anonymous law enforcement source told the Associated Press it was a pump-action shotgun purchased legally by his mother.     

Police responded to the school at about 12:59 p.m. after receiving a report that an unknown man had shot into a car.  Deschutes County 911 dispatchers received multiple calls reporting that someone had entered the school and started shooting.  By the time they arrived, the assailant was already dead.  

Unfortunately, three children (ages 5, 8, and 11) and one teacher were killed before the shooter was stopped.  A 7-year-old child and a 54-year-old teacher were also critically injured.  Both were transported to St. Charles Medical Center in Bend.

Victim names have not been officially released.  

While the identity of the shooter is still under wraps, commenters are already suggesting that the attack might be yet another case of a transgender lunatic on a rampage.  It should be noted that the state of Oregon has one of the highest rates of teens and children undergoing transgender treatments in the US.

If this is the case, then the incident may be buried by the establishment media.  It might also be sent down the memory hole because of the successful intervention of an armed citizen.  The narrative for decades within the media was that armed civilians rarely if ever stop violent crimes.  

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has repeatedly examined the definitions used by the FBI to categorize civilian interventions in violent crimes, and they found significantly higher numbers of such cases than the FBI had reported.  In other words, the FBI was suppressing the actual data on civilians saving the day, often with their own firearms. 

One recent CPRC count identified 615 active shooter incidents from 2014–2025 and concluded armed citizens stopped 225 of them (about 36.6%). When limited to locations where civilians are legally allowed to carry (i.e., excluding gun-free zones), the rate rises to roughly 52–53% (and higher in some recent single-year examples). 

CPRC attributes the gap to the FBI missing or overlooking numerous incidents and occasionally misclassifying civilian interventions (for example, listing private armed citizens or volunteer church security as professional security guards). They argue their expanded list still uses the FBI’s core definition and that media coverage tends to under-emphasize successful civilian interventions.      

While gun control advocates often cite mass shootings as a reason for banning of weapons (or outright confiscation), these incidents account for only 2% of all gun deaths in the US on average.  The majority (around 60%) are suicides, and 35% are homicides.  

Around 20% of US counties account for 90% of all homicides in the country.  Of these counties, the vast majority are controlled by Democrats.  Among the worst 1% of US counties (about 31 counties, holding ~20% of the population and ~41% of murders in recent data), the CPRC lists political leanings as 21 Democratic strongholds, 6 leaning Democratic, and 4 swing or Republican-leaning.  

In other words, the counties with the most aggressive gun control advocates and laws in the US are also the places with the most gun violence.  Perhaps it's because law abiding citizens in these places are far less likely to carry, which emboldens criminals to commit more violence. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/16/2026 - 10:40