Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
From Matthew Graham at Mortgage News Daily: Rates Trickle to Another Higher LowMortgage rates are as high as they've been on almost any other day this month. You'd have to go back to August 1st to see anything higher. On the other hand, rates are still noticeably lower than almost any other day of the past 10 months. It's really only the past 2 weeks that have been any better and the gap between recent highs and lows is very small. [30 year fixed 6.59%]Tuesday:
emphasis added
Click on graph for larger image.
On a rolling 12-month basis, inbound traffic increased 0.7% in July compared to the rolling 12 months ending the previous month. In my book, “The Indispensable Right,” I write about the intolerance for viewpoint diversity in higher education and the atmosphere of orthodoxy created by overwhelmingly liberal faculties. We have also discussed consistent studies showing that students no longer feel free to express their viewpoints in class or on campuses. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views.
The authors explain that “these students were not cynical, but adaptive.”
Faced with the intolerance and rigidity of liberal faculty, they pretend to be liberal to avoid being penalized for their real views or values.
In other words, they “quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.”
In a recent op-ed, Northwestern University researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman detail their findings:
Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. …
We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes.
These students were not cynical, but adaptive. In a campus environment where grades, leadership, and peer belonging often hinge on fluency in performative morality, young adults quickly learn to rehearse what is safe.
The result is not conviction but compliance. And beneath that compliance, something vital is lost.
This has been a long-standing problem in higher education. The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed the sense of free thought and expression on our campuses. Faced with consistent polling showing that students feel compelled to mimic liberal ideology and viewpoints, faculty shrug or even attack students for being weak. In a debate that I had at Harvard Law School, a Harvard professor called such students “conservative snowflakes.”
However, they are not conservative. Take Harvard. A recent survey of the graduating class by the Classroom Social Compact Committee found that, despite an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse. The results show a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.
Last year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
This sense of orthodoxy is conveyed by the Harvard faculty, which itself does not tolerate opposing voices except for a handful of conservative academics. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The virtual purging of conservative faculty members across the country sends a message to students that such ideas are not favored or acceptable. The result is that the vast majority of students — liberal and conservative — self-censor in an environment of intolerance.
In the latest study, the researcher found:
Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation.
The authors’ research suggests that on some issues, such as the nature of gender and gender identity, students’ actual beliefs are quite different from what appears to be the prevailing orthodoxy on campus.
They write further:
Authenticity, once considered a psychological good, has become a social liability. And this fragmentation doesn’t end at the classroom door. Seventy-three percent of students reported mistrust in conversations about these values with close friends. Nearly half said they routinely conceal beliefs in intimate relationships for fear of ideological fallout. This is not simply peer pressure — it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized.
Universities often justify these dynamics in the name of inclusion. But inclusion that demands dishonesty is not ensuring psychological safety — it is sanctioning self-abandonment. In attempting to engineer moral unity, higher education has mistaken consensus for growth and compliance for care.
Again, if students saw a meaningful number of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian faculty members, they might believe that opposing views are tolerated. Instead, they receive a steady drumbeat of often strident ideological commentary. I constantly hear reports of students having to sit through diatribes from faculty members against conservative politicians, justices, and values. Years ago, a graduating student told me that my Supreme Court class in her final term was the first time in college or law school that she felt comfortable expressing her conservative views, including pro-life views. It was a profoundly sad statement about the state of higher education.
This report will now be added to a tall stack of other reports showing a culture of intolerance and intimidation in higher education, particularly for more conservative students. It also reflects why the last election shocked so many in the media and establishment, as young people voted Republican. This generation of faculty and administrators has created a type of underground culture as students mouth liberal orthodoxy in class to avoid the retaliation or disfavor of liberal professors.
After many years of such studies, there is no evidence that faculty members are prepared to change in adding more diversity to their ranks. While this environment is the antithesis of higher education, it is advantageous for those who espouse accepted viewpoints and values. The students are left to “adapt” or face the consequences.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 15:20Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,
More than 300 people have been arrested following the federal takeover of law enforcement at the District of Columbia police department, according to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Bondi said that 68 people were arrested overnight on Aug. 16 after President Donald Trump federalized policing in the nation’s capital. This brings the total number of arrests to more than 300 since the operation began earlier this month.
“Just last night, our federal and DC law enforcement partners made 68 arrests and seized 15 illegal firearms,” Bondi stated in an Aug. 17 post on X.
“Homicide suspects, drug traffickers, and more are being charged. I’ll continue to stand with you as we make DC safe again!”
Those arrested face charges including assault on a federal officer, aggravated assault, felony grand larceny, and driving under the influence (DUI), according to FBI Director Kash Patel.
Trump announced a federal takeover of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) on Aug. 11, deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to the nation’s capital to curb crime.
Bondi then appointed DEA administrator Terry Cole as D.C.’s “emergency police commissioner,” granting him full authority over the MPD.
Bondi, however, revised the order following a federal judge’s ruling issued in response to legal challenges from D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who alleged that the federal government violated the Home Rule Act by attempting to replace MPD Chief Pamela Smith.
In her updated order, Bondi stated that Cole will serve as her “designee” at the MPD, and allowed Smith to remain in charge of its operations. The order will still require D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to assist with enforcing federal immigration law and locating illegal immigrants.
Spokesperson for the U.S. AG’s office, Chad Gilmartin, said the revised order is stronger than the initial one “because instead of requiring D.C. to rescind just one MDP order, @AGPamBondi has now REQUIRED full cooperation with federal immigration authorities.”
Trump also ordered law enforcement to patrol the nation’s capital around the clock. He invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which allows the president to control the city’s police department for up to 30 days, with any extension requiring congressional approval.
Schwalb has accused the Trump administration of infringing on the district’s right to self-governance and abusing its authority under the Home Rule Act by declaring “a hostile takeover” of the MPD.
“These orders far exceed the President’s limited authority to request services from MPD, which can only be done on a temporary basis, under emergency circumstances, and solely for federal purposes,” his office said on Aug. 15.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson has defended the federal takeover of the MPD, saying it’s necessary “due to the emergency that has arisen in our nation’s capital as a result of failed leadership.”
“The Democrats’ efforts to stifle this tremendous progress are par for the course for the Defund the Police, Criminals-First Democrat Party,” Jackson told The Epoch Times.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 14:40There have been a number of stories about the ways Trump has hurt the people who supported him in November 2024 and his declining approval among two groups who moved toward him in the last election –Hispanics and young men. He does not seem to have suffered much erosion in rural populations generally despite his […]
The post Buyers Regret? appeared first on Angry Bear.
Large tech groups including Meta, Alphabet, Nvidia, Amazon and Palantir are sharply increasing spending on personal protection as executives face rising hostility and a bigger role in US politics, according to Financial Times,
The FT found security budgets for 10 major tech CEOs exceeded $45mn in 2024, with several firms raising spending by more than 10% year on year.
Meta leads the pack: it spent $27mn last year securing Mark Zuckerberg and his family, far more than peers because it covers relatives as well as him. Nvidia spent $3.5mn protecting Jensen Huang, up from $2.2mn. Amazon has consistently funded Jeff Bezos’s protection at $1.6mn annually and spent $1.1mn last year on CEO Andy Jassy. Tesla reported only $500,000 in 2024 for Elon Musk but acknowledged this was a fraction of the real cost, with Musk sometimes traveling with 20 guards and even founding his own firm, Foundation Security.
Financial Times writes that spending has surged after high-profile killings, including the December 2024 shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. “The first half of this year was as busy for us than all of 2024,” said Joe LaSorsa of LaSorsa Security, citing a “remarkable increase” in attacks on executives’ homes.
Security experts warn of a shift. “Previously, we’d see executives targeted by someone with a personal grievance... but the direction of violence towards the top of company leadership has changed,” said Lianne Kennedy-Boudali of Control Risks. James Hamilton of Hamilton Security added: “I’ve never seen the threat or the concern higher than it is today.”
Palantir’s Alex Karp, whose fortune jumped by almost $7bn, has faced death threats linked to the firm’s military contracts and now moves with a 24/7 detail. Nvidia’s Huang, worth more than $153bn, is mobbed by fans at public events. Musk said: “We actually did have two homicidal maniacs in the last roughly seven months come to aspirationally try to kill me.”
Beyond tech, JPMorgan, Fox, Lockheed Martin, and healthcare companies have also expanded protection. CVS and Anthem even removed executives’ photos from websites.
Security firms are increasingly asked to guard against kidnapping, stalking, home invasions and AI-driven fraud, not just assassination attempts. “People are fixating on the leader of a company as the representation of all that is wrong with the world,” Hamilton warned.
Crypto leaders have also become early adopters of private security. Coinbase spent $6.2mn protecting CEO Brian Armstrong in 2024, while Blockdaemon founder Konstantin Richter noted: “Every time the market pumps things get weird... Keeping a low profile is key.”
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 14:20Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,
At the August 15 Alaska summit, Vladimir Putin performed as expected. He desperately wants an end to Western sanctions, détente with the U.S., and assurances that the U.S. will not impose a disastrous anti-Russian secondary boycott—and, apparently, some additional Ukrainian territory.
Consequently, Putin, in his media synopsis, talked more about restored friendship with a “neighborly” United States under Trump. He scarcely mentioned Ukraine directly—other than to imply to Westerners that he seeks not merely to annex a foreign country, but to reclaim what he views as a former Soviet province with ancient ties to the Russian people.
Trump did not get his ceasefire with Putin. But he quickly pivoted to remind us that the table is set for a supposedly comprehensive peace without first requiring a temporary cessation of arms.
Trump addressed the media more succinctly and with greater discretion than Putin, appearing more optimistic that the Russian-American hostility was thawing. And he views normalization as a necessary step toward comprehensive peace in the weeks to come.
The left lambasted Trump for speaking politely of Putin and vice versa. There was additional criticism of a Fox interview in which Trump mentioned “land swaps” and for his supposed prior naïveté in believing he could obtain a ceasefire with Putin.
Yet for all the posturing, we have known for some time the general outlines of a peace, how it could come about, and why it has not yet happened.
Ukraine will not join NATO, but will likely be fully armed by the West. Ukraine lacks the power to retake Crimea or the Donbass, but with Western aid, it can preserve most of its territory.
Russia is worn out, but it is not yet ready to give up and may not be even after the envisioned destructive secondary sanctions. Putin will only make peace when his dictatorship feels it has advanced far enough westward (perhaps 100 miles west of the border) to justify to the oligarchy and military his foolhardy invasion and the needless toll of one million Russians dead, wounded, missing, or captured.
No one knows where a hypothetical DMZ line might eventually be drawn. But for now, it depends on which army has the greater wherewithal and momentum to push its enemy backward before there is a general consensus to stop the madness.
These contours of peace can be shaped by promises of trade deals and normalization between Russia and the West. Or, contrarily, they can be realized by threats of tougher sanctions and boycotts, as well as by security guarantees to Ukraine, by near-permanent aid to Ukraine to maintain its quite formidable army and deterrence, or by internal erosion from the war either in Ukraine or Russia.
Yet few critics of the administration address the unmentionables that likely account for the above general outlines of a settlement.
There are some realities that serve as subtexts to any possible agreement that cannot be simply thought away.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 14:001. Ukraine could only regain Crimea and the Donbass and return to its pre-2022 borders by a historic transference of U.S. and European arms, intelligence, logistical support, and financial aid that would be little short of actively fighting nuclear Russia.
Europe talks grandly of unlimited support. But some Europeans still buy Russian energy, slow-walk aid, seem exhausted by the war, and are likely in time to peel away as they once did from the endless “no-fly zones” over Saddam’s Iraq after the first Gulf War. Europe sounds as if it fields vast armies, but in truth, Putin believes European support will erode more quickly than Ukrainian resistance or American help.
So, for all the talk of an “exhausted” Russia, there is a silent consensus that a depopulated and broken Ukraine cannot sustain its current levels of resistance without a much greater Western profile. And that is unlikely to happen.
2. Notably, the left never really dwells on the likely 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, and captured from three and a half years of war. It is a humanitarian nightmare, a modern Stalingrad that makes Gaza look like child’s play.
Yet Westerners are far more likely to posture on the human costs of the “genocide” in the distant Mideast wars than on Europe’s doorstep. Perhaps Germany or France feels it can influence Netanyahu by performance-art declarations of statehood for the Palestinians (on the quiet assumption that Israel is Western, friendly, and more likely to listen to Euro-moralizing than is a proximate, hostile, and dangerous Putin’s Russia).
Strangely, Trump alone seems to be lamenting the needless loss of thousands of lives each month, with no end in sight. It is fine to demand zero concessions to Putin or to accuse any who seek negotiations through land swaps as appeasers. But it is quite another to lay out a strategic plan for victory and complete recovery of pre-2014 Ukrainian territory, the likely costs necessary for such an ambitious strategy, and who, and for how long, will pay the tab.
3. There is a long history, both peaceful and hostile, between Russia and Ukraine that Westerners often ignore due to the current naked aggression of Putin and the murderous nature of his regime. Nonetheless, most recently, since 1939, the borders of present-day Ukraine have been fluid and changeable between Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. There still remains strong Russian influence and even support in Eastern Ukraine. And there has been a Western naivete since the end of the Cold War about pre-Putin Russia’s trip-wire sensitivity to the eastward trajectory of Western military alliances toward Russia and the more insidious Westernization of former and still mostly Russian-speaking areas of the old Soviet Union.
The current tensions with Canada and the U.S. would certainly boil over if China were to begin overtly championing the Canadian cause. Americans remember the 1962 U.S. response to Castro’s Cuba when Nikita Khrushchev broke Cold War conventions by strategically arming a third-nation proxy on America’s doorstep.
4. Talking to a monstrous Putin is not treasonous, foolhardy, or unnecessary. FDR openly courted, joked with, and even praised (“Uncle Joe”) an even greater monster in Joseph Stalin, who by 1941 had the blood of nearly 20 million Russians on his hands. Stalin had already invaded pro-Western Finland and Poland. And between September 1, 1939, and June 22, 1941, he had enabled Adolf Hitler to overrun much of Western Europe, hoping Germany would destroy both the West and itself in the process.
Nixon did not just “go to China” but sought to change the geostrategic nuclear landscape by courting Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Not calling Putin a “killer” and “murderer” at the summit is hardly appeasement but more like art-of-the-deal, speaking softly while carrying a big stick, rather than Biden-style loud rhetoric while carrying a twig. Who is the greater humanitarian—the inert and anemic blowhard who resorts to name-calling a “murderous thug,” or the president willing to meet face-to-face with a monster to explore costly ways of halting the mass slaughter?
5. Finally, few seem to remember that Trump is a latecomer to the Ukrainian-Russian mess.
In the end, we should remember it was not Trump who once talked grandly of a soon-to-be NATO Ukraine or who for years welched on the promise to spend a meager 2 percent of GDP on defense.
It was not Trump who pushed a plastic red button to embark on a “Russian reset” with a voracious Putin. It was not Trump who invited Russia back into the Middle East after a nearly 40-year hiatus.
It was not Trump who, after the reset’s failure, moved on to concoct “Russian collusion” and “Russian disinformation” to use Russia to destroy a political rival. It was not Trump who went to Ukraine, threatened to hold up aid, and fired a prosecutor looking into his son’s selling to Ukrainians the influence of his father’s vice presidency.
It was not Trump on whose watch Putin invaded Georgia, the Donbass, and Crimea, and sought to absorb Kyiv.
It was not Trump who dreamed up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to subsidize green energy fantasies—while still buying Russian energy.
And it was not Trump who conditioned his possible reaction to Putin’s invasion based on whether it might be “minor.”
A Cybertruck passed us this morning on the way back from the south shore of Rhode Island. My wife remarked that it looked like a rolling dumpster. I’ve certainly never understood the appeal. Apparently, my aesthetic is shared. “Once one of the world’s most-hyped vehicles, sales and production numbers for Tesla’s Cybertruck have fallen sharply. […]
The post Alas, Cybertruck, we hardly knew ye appeared first on Angry Bear.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says investor enthusiasm for artificial intelligence may already look like a bubble., according to CNBC.
“Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes. Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes,” he told reporters last week. “When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth.”
Altman compared the surge in AI spending to the dot-com boom of the 1990s, when hype drove valuations before the Nasdaq lost nearly 80% of its value.
He isn’t alone. Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai, Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, and Apollo Global Management economist Torsten Slok have issued similar warnings. Slok recently argued the AI boom could be “bigger than the internet bubble,” with today’s market leaders more overvalued than those in the 1990s.
Not all analysts agree. Ray Wang of Futurum Group said Monday that “from the perspective of broader investment in AI and semiconductors... I don’t see it as a bubble. The fundamentals across the supply chain remain strong.” Still, he noted “an increasing amount of speculative capital” chasing weaker companies.
CNBC writes that investor concern has grown alongside rising competition. Earlier this year, Chinese start-up DeepSeek claimed to train a cutting-edge model for under $6 million, far below the billions spent by U.S. giants like OpenAI—though those claims remain disputed.
Altman, meanwhile, has acknowledged challenges at OpenAI. He told CNBC the company is on track for $20 billion in annual recurring revenue but remains unprofitable. The rollout of its GPT-5 model drew mixed reviews, forcing OpenAI to restore GPT-4 access for paying users.
He has also begun questioning whether “artificial general intelligence” remains a useful term, saying it may be losing relevance despite earlier predictions it could arrive in the “reasonably close-ish future.”
Investor faith, however, hasn’t wavered. OpenAI is preparing a $6 billion stock sale valuing the firm at roughly $500 billion, just months after raising $40 billion at a $300 billion valuation—the largest private tech round ever.
Looking ahead, Altman said OpenAI could spend “trillions of dollars” on data centers, hinted at expansion into consumer hardware and brain-computer interfaces, and even suggested buying Chrome if regulators forced Google to sell.
Asked if he’d still be OpenAI’s CEO in three years, he replied: “I mean, maybe an AI is in three years. That’s a long time.”
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 13:05OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says investor enthusiasm for artificial intelligence may already look like a bubble., according to CNBC.
“Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes. Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes,” he told reporters last week. “When bubbles happen, smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth.”
Altman compared the surge in AI spending to the dot-com boom of the 1990s, when hype drove valuations before the Nasdaq lost nearly 80% of its value.
He isn’t alone. Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai, Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, and Apollo Global Management economist Torsten Slok have issued similar warnings. Slok recently argued the AI boom could be “bigger than the internet bubble,” with today’s market leaders more overvalued than those in the 1990s.
Not all analysts agree. Ray Wang of Futurum Group said Monday that “from the perspective of broader investment in AI and semiconductors... I don’t see it as a bubble. The fundamentals across the supply chain remain strong.” Still, he noted “an increasing amount of speculative capital” chasing weaker companies.
CNBC writes that investor concern has grown alongside rising competition. Earlier this year, Chinese start-up DeepSeek claimed to train a cutting-edge model for under $6 million, far below the billions spent by U.S. giants like OpenAI—though those claims remain disputed.
Altman, meanwhile, has acknowledged challenges at OpenAI. He told CNBC the company is on track for $20 billion in annual recurring revenue but remains unprofitable. The rollout of its GPT-5 model drew mixed reviews, forcing OpenAI to restore GPT-4 access for paying users.
He has also begun questioning whether “artificial general intelligence” remains a useful term, saying it may be losing relevance despite earlier predictions it could arrive in the “reasonably close-ish future.”
Investor faith, however, hasn’t wavered. OpenAI is preparing a $6 billion stock sale valuing the firm at roughly $500 billion, just months after raising $40 billion at a $300 billion valuation—the largest private tech round ever.
Looking ahead, Altman said OpenAI could spend “trillions of dollars” on data centers, hinted at expansion into consumer hardware and brain-computer interfaces, and even suggested buying Chrome if regulators forced Google to sell.
Asked if he’d still be OpenAI’s CEO in three years, he replied: “I mean, maybe an AI is in three years. That’s a long time.”
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 13:05Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Treasury Department on Friday unveiled guidance that tightens the criteria for wind and solar energy projects to receive federal tax credits.
Giant wind turbines are powered by strong winds in front of solar panels in Palm Springs, Calif., on March 27, 2013. Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
The guidance follows President Donald Trump’s July 7 executive order directing the department to enforce the One Big Beautiful Bill Act he signed into law on July 4, which effectively ends renewable energy tax credits for projects that have not begun construction.
The new rules narrow down the definition of projects considered to have begun construction, replacing the previous rule that allowed developers to qualify after incurring 5 percent of the project costs.
It stated that the “Five Percent Safe Harbor” is no longer available for determining “whether a wind or solar facility has met the beginning of construction deadline and, thus, is not subject to the credit termination date.” However, small projects below 1.5 megawatts could still be considered for the provision.
Developers will need to prove they started “physical work of a significant nature” to establish that solar or wind projects have begun construction, and those projects must be continuous, according to the guidance.
“Provided that physical work performed is of a significant nature, there is no fixed minimum amount of work or monetary or percentage threshold required to satisfy the Physical Work Test,” it stated.
The newly released guidance counts activities such as setting anchor bolts into the ground, excavating land, and pouring concrete pads of the foundation as qualified work in progress.
Preliminary activities such as mapping, clearing a site, test drilling, or excavating to change the contour of the land are not considered as having begun construction, according to the updated rules.
It also stated that solar or wind facilities must be operational by the end of the fourth calendar year after construction begins, in order to fully qualify under the new rules.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) criticized the guidance as a “blatant rejection” of congressional approval and said that it threatens small businesses supporting the U.S. clean energy sector.
“American families and businesses will pay more for electricity as a result of this action, and China will continue to outpace us in the race for electricity to power AI,” SEIA CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement.
Clean Energy Buyers Association CEO Rich Powell said the guidance provides the business community with certainty “by honoring existing contracts” while ensuring proper use of taxpayer money.
“Meeting these new standards will be challenging, but we are confident that American energy buyers will help developers rise to the challenge of delivering all sources of power critical to the continued growth of the U.S. economy,” Powell stated.
The executive order to end federal subsidies for wind and solar energy projects cited concerns over the reliability of these energy sources and dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains.
In his order, Trump stated that reliance on “so-called ‘green’ subsidies” poses a national security risk by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.
“Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts to unreliable energy sources is vital to energy dominance, national security, economic growth, and the fiscal health of the nation,” the order stated.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/18/2025 - 12:45
Recent comments