U.S. Defense Stocks Hit Resistance As Goldman Reveals Key Takeaways From America's Top Weapons Conference

The S&P 500 Aerospace & Defense Index (SPSIAD Index) has surged as much as 72% since late March, fueled by rising defense spending and the U.S. military's strategic reposturing under what we've dubbed the "Western Hemispheric Defense" theme. But after weeks of hitting technical resistance, and with growing risks of a near-term pullback, attention now turns to insights from Goldman analysts, who met this week with 15 defense firms at the AUSA conference to gauge what 2026 might bring for the sector.

Two weekly bearish shooting star candles have printed, signaling exhaustion - or at least near-term resistance - and suggesting rising odds of a retracement.

To capture executive sentiment across the defense sector, Goldman analysts led by Noah Poponak met with 15 companies, including large-, mid-, and small-cap defense firms, defense-tech players, startups, and government IT contractors.

Macro Outlook:

Poponak sees the U.S. defense budget rising in FY27 versus the FY26 base, though not when adjusted for reconciliation. International demand for weaponry remains solid but races production capacity constraints. Margin outlooks are mixed. 

Defense Tech Momentum:

New entrants are rapidly gaining traction with scalable, advanced technologies, signaling a potential shift in the defense market. Booth traffic at the AUSA conference for these companies was notably high. Legacy defense firms in the drone and space segments are also showing strong growth tailwinds. 

AUSA Conference Trend:

A major theme of the conference was counter-drone technology, with many companies unveiling new systems. 

Government IT:

Government IT contractors continue to face headwinds from federal personnel turnover and constrained agency budgets, compounded by potential government shutdown risk.

Out of the 15 meetings the analysts held with defense firms, we're focusing on just two: L3Harris Technologies Inc. and Palmer Luckey's Anduril Industries Inc.

L3Harris Technologies Inc. (LHX; Buy)

We hosted a group meeting with Bob Daminski (Director, DoD tactical communications). The discussion focused on LHX's expansion into unmanned systems with differentiated radio technology, robust international radio growth, and new program wins via strategic partnerships.

• Expansion in unmanned systems and drones: LHX highlighted a push into the unmanned systems market, developing both kinetic and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, exemplified by their "Red Wolf" and "Green Wolf" initiatives. These are reportedly targeting multiple Army programs, including the "Army Launch Effects" program, with management noting strong customer reception. The company noted its differentiated radio technology for command and control links in these systems, enabling both remote and autonomous operations. LHX also stated it is actively working with partners like AeroVironment (AVAV) to integrate its radios into unmanned platforms.

• International growth and resilient communication solutions: LHX highlighted strong international growth, particularly in its radio segment, with large orders from countries such as the Netherlands, Poland, and the Czech Republic. This growth is driven by customer demand for security and resiliency in communication, with LHX's software-defined radios allowing for substantial upgrade work beyond new unit sales. The Company's TACCOM (Tactical Communications) offerings, including anti-jamming capabilities and the NGC2 cloud network, are key differentiators.

• Strategic partnerships driving new program wins and market expansion: The Company noted its collaboration with Anduril on projects like Eagle Eye, leveraging Anduril's expertise in night vision, and the SMBC program of record for next-gen IBAS (Integrated Battle Command System), which Anduril acquired from Microsoft. Domestically, LHX is collaborating with GM Defense on the Infantry Squad Vehicle. These partnerships demonstrate LHX's ability to integrate its advanced technologies into major defense initiatives and expand its reach into new platforms and capabilities.

Anduril Industries Inc. (private)

We hosted a group meeting with Christian Brose (Chief Strategy Officer) and Allison Lazarus (Head of Investor Relations). The company discussed the state of the defense supply chain, government procurement process, and Anduril's longer term product and market vision.

• Supply chain. Anduril noted that progress in the defense space has largely been limited by the supply chain and production capacity rather than funding. The company is building its own supply chain to solve for this issue, with a focus on commercial materials that simplify the supply chain and make it easier to find employees. Anduril has started onboarding employees at the company's new facility in Ohio that will be 4-5mn sq ft and has access to two twelve-thousand foot runways, and the facility will start opening in 1Q26. Anduril aims to differentiate its production with more automation and larger production batches, along with bringing components causing bottlenecks in-house to enable faster production. Motors are a key area that it has brought in-house and the company noted it can produce 6-8 thousand GMLRS sized motors a year.

• Shifting government procurement. Anduril emphasized that it does not see expensive exquisite systems going away, but rather being augmented with higher volumes of cheaper, effective systems. The company highlighted that government procurement is moving in this direction as the customer becomes more open to different business models like Anduril's that are more commercial and rely on IRAD. Additionally, Anduril plans to continue to push for novel approaches such weapons or compute/encryption as a service.

• Long term vision. The company is being built on a foundational vision of a data fabric and network layer to move information to people and machines efficiently without additional manpower or higher costs. This enables a modular approach that should simplify production and operation of its products. Anduril emphasized that there is not a lack of capable technology to achieve this, rather it is a matter of utilizing up to date systems rather than outdated tech. The company also noted that it embraces partnerships when other companies do things it cannot do internally, and that the team approach with partners like Microsoft and Palantir are novel and more efficient than bringing everything in-house.

Related: 

• Anduril Founder Urges Rapid Reindustrialization As U.S. Defense Supply Chain Remains Alarmingly Reliant On China

A reversal in stocks only takes a trade headline or two... 

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/17/2025 - 09:05

Germany's Steel Industry Collapse: The March Toward Green Socialism

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

On the eve of an emergency crisis summit with the steel industry, Germany’s ruling Social Democrats (SPD) have unveiled their “crisis roadmap.” If subsidies and protectionism fail, the sector will be nationalized. Just like that.

Germany’s steel sector has become the perfect parable for the pitiful state of the country’s broader industrial base. Its decline over the past eight years is almost without precedent in modern economic history. Output has plunged by more than 30% since 2018, with the first half of this year alone showing a brutal 12% year-on-year drop — a collapse accelerating at high speed.

In absolute numbers: crude steel production fell from its 2018 peak of 42.4 million tons to what will likely be only 29 million tons this year. It’s simple: producing in Germany no longer pays. So capital is fleeing to more profitable locations. China — and now increasingly the U.S. — is where business gets done.

Unprofitable Location

The capital exodus from once-mighty producers like ThyssenKrupp and Salzgitter AG has left deep social scars: roughly 30,000 of what were once 120,000 steel jobs have already vanished.

And the capital flight isn’t confined to steel — it’s happening across the entire industrial landscape. No surprise, then, that the particularly expensive and technically demanding “green steel” production — the CO₂-free moral gold standard — is collapsing just as fast as conventional steelmaking.

Politically, this might cause some “concern,” but intellectually no one is budging. What bureaucrats label “market failure” is answered with yet another round of subsidies. Both Brussels and Berlin have already mobilized fresh billions on the bond market to flood the dry channels of this “green planned economy.”

It’s remarkable how German politics resolves cognitive dissonance by throwing ever more taxpayer money at it. This has nothing to do with real policy-making or setting a viable framework for business. It’s the ritual execution of a green cult.

Talk-shop Mode

This obvious disconnect with economic reality is being papered over with a steady stream of “summits.” Politicians seem stuck in permanent talk-shop mode — gatherings that change nothing but look busy.

A “steel summit” is now supposed to follow the recent auto industry summit.

In these ritualized roundtables, industry demands subsidized electricity, unions call for job guarantees and short-time work schemes, and politicians promise to cut red tape — an empty phrase that has become grotesque in light of the regulatory flood they themselves created.

These “talk shops” serve one purpose: defending the status quo. They simulate reform, projecting “action” and “awareness” to a public that increasingly tunes out.

But the collapse of Germany’s industrial base requires no more fake summits. It demands a new understanding of the state’s role in society: only a minimal state, setting clear rules for a free market and then disappearing from view, can enable real problem-solving.

SPD’s “We Understand” Moment

The date of the steel summit is not yet set, but given the catastrophic figures, it will be on the agenda soon. In North Rhine-Westphalia, once the heartland of coal and steel and an SPD stronghold, the party has already launched a cosmetic PR operation.

Under the slogan “We have understood,” local SPD officials are pretending to reconnect with the people they lost long ago.

They now claim to “focus on the real problems” and “fight for every job.” It’s classic social-romantic rhetoric, straight out of the party’s postwar playbook. One might think they’ve dug up an old speech by Johannes Rau.

Socialism in Small Steps

But the real direction was revealed in a new SPD parliamentary position paper.

The language is clear: in “exceptional cases,” the state should take equity stakes in struggling steel companies. And since crises tend to multiply in this environment, “exceptions” will soon become the rule.

Before outright nationalization, of course, the SPD wants to deploy the full toolbox: subsidies, tariffs, and protectionism — the usual. And if one intervention fails, the answer is always the same: double down.

Without dismantling this eco-socialist nightmare, there is no turnaround for German industry. And, as always, the center-right opposition will comply, offering token criticism while fundamentally agreeing on the green transformation agenda. The course set in Brussels will be defended at any cost — against all economic logic.

We are witnessing the step-by-step construction of a new, real-world socialism. This time, it’s green.

The Causes Are Obvious

The causes of Germany’s industrial collapse are hardly a mystery: a self-inflicted energy crisis, a cult-like CO₂ fixation metastasizing through every layer of EU policy, and the slow suffocation of competitiveness.

More troubling still is how deeply this eco-socialist faith has penetrated the political class. Climate dogma is so deeply embedded in the population’s mindset that a swift return to U.S.-style economic pragmatism is almost unthinkable.

No pressure from the grassroots. No ideological rethink.

The full rollback of the climate complex — the deliberate dismantling of this vast crony economy, the end of CO₂ taxes, the clearing of the regulatory jungle — will fall to a future generation forced to clean up this mess.

It’s not a pleasant prospect. But if a prosperous, free society is the goal, returning to market principles and a minimal state as guarantor of security — without ideological baggage — is the only way to unleash the forces needed for renewal.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/17/2025 - 05:00

China Caught In 'Large Scale Espionage' Against UK... Yet Case Collapses Over Beijing Appeasement: Officials

China's intelligence service conducted "large scale espionage operations" against the UK - accessing classified government computer systems for over a decade - a senior British government official told prosecutors in a case against two Brits allegedly involved - which collapsed in court. 

Xi Jinping, Keir Starmer

And why did said case collapse? Because the left-wing Labour government failed to refer to China as a threat to national security, so prosecutors could not produce evidence to bolster that claim, the UK's director of public prosecutions - as well as opposition conservatives who say Labour has been "too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security."

Starmer has been criticized by conservative politicians for pursuing a thaw in relations with Beijing, despite a mountain of evidence that China is behind various cyber-attacks and espionage attacks in the UK. He also faces pressure from members of his own cabinet not to approve China's new mega-embassy in London.

As Bloomberg reports, Chinese hackers infiltrated UK computer systems for over a decade, routinely accessing "low- and medium-level classification information on UK government servers," including information marked "official-sensitive" and "secret"  - along with some material on the government's secure IT networks, according to anonymous sources. 

The data accessed included confidential documents relating to the formulation of government policy, private communications and some diplomatic cables, the people said. One described Chinese efforts to access British government systems as endless. Information and intelligence deemed top secret was not believed to have been compromised and is held securely, the people said, pushing back against a report Wednesday in The Times newspaper.

One compromise related to a data center in London used to store some sensitive government information, which was sold to an entity aligned to China when the Conservatives were in power, flagging major security concerns, one of the people said, confirming a report in the Spectator. Ministers in the then government briefly proposed a plan to destroy the data center before it was made secure in a different way, they added. -BBG

The UK's documents classification system has three levels;

• Official - which "includes routine business operations and services, some of which could have damaging consequences if lost, stolen, or published in the media, but which are not subject to a heightened threat profile."

• Secret - some of which was asked accessed by China, and is "where compromise might seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the investigation of serious organized crime."

• Top Secret - the government's "most sensitive information, requiring the highest levels of protection from the most serious threats, where compromise might cause widespread loss of life or else threaten the security or economic wellbeing of the country."

According to Matthew Collins, the UK's deputy national security adviser, the alleged activities of two men accused of spying for China were "prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK," and that "information and material" passed along to Beijing would be "directly or indirectly" useful to the Chinese state. Collins also emphasized to prosecutors that Britain was committed to "pursuing a positive relationship with China to strengthen understanding, cooperation and stability." 

Christopher Cash, 30, a former researcher for a Conservative MP, and Christopher Berry, a 33-year-old teacher, both denied allegations that they passed sensitive information to an alleged Chinese intelligence agent between 2021 and 2023. The Crown Prosecution Service unexpectedly dropped the charges against them last month, prompting a political backlash. -Politico

"I cannot understand why the CPS took the nuclear option of collapsing this case rather than leaving it to a jury,"  Emily Thornberry, who chairs the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the House of Commons on Thursday. 

Another MP, Matt Western - who chairs the Joint Committee on National Security - told the chamber that his panel will hold an inquiry into the case "as soon as we possibly can.

On Wednesday evening, the UK government published three witness statements provided by Collins to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) between December 2023 and August 2025 - in which Collins says Chinese intelligence services are "highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK. China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions."

Yet, like a stockholmed rape victim he also said that the UK is committed to a "positive" relationship with Beijing, and that the official government position was to "co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security."

Last year, Bloomberg reported that British government officials feared Chinese state actors had made widespread and likely successful efforts to access British critical infrastructure networks.

Earlier on Wednesday, former premier Boris Johnson’s chief of staff in Downing Street, Dominic Cummings, told The Times newspaper that China had hacked secret information from the British government’s classified computer system.

“Vast amounts of data classified as extremely secret and extremely dangerous for any foreign entity to control was compromised,” Cummings said.

China Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters in Beijing that the accusations are "purely vilification," adding "we urge relevant personnel in the UK to stop their baseless hypes and stop this kind of political manipulation."

Yet, Ciaran Martin - former head of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre, told Bloomberg that "for many years China has been, and continues to be, a significant cybersecurity threat to Britain and British interests," adding that "Chinese state actors target British government, commercial and other networks for espionage purposes."

That said, Martin said that China hadn't managed to access systems containing "highly classified state secrets." 

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/17/2025 - 02:45

Poland "At The Limit" On Ukrainian Refugees, Presidential Aide Warns

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Poland has reached its capacity when it comes to accepting Ukrainian refugees and must instead concentrate on integrating those already living in the country, Marcin Przydacz, head of Poland’s Presidential Office of International Affairs, has said.

“Poland cannot constantly accept Ukrainian refugees because Warsaw should focus on the integration and adaptation of people already staying in Poland,” Przydacz said in an interview with RMF24.

Currently, about 1.5 million Ukrainian citizens live in Poland, but only 26,000 have received Polish citizenship over the past five years. He warned that Poland’s capacity to integrate newcomers is being stretched and that “separate migrant districts” are already forming.

“When the scale exceeds the capacity of inculturation, problems begin. We don’t want such problems in Poland. I think we’re already at the limit – we can’t accept any more,” Przydacz added.

A new study published this week by Germany’s Ifo Institute drove home the challenge facing European nations that have accepted large numbers of Ukrainians, with polling showing a tiny fraction realistically plan to return home after the conflict.

A new study warns that the vast majority of Ukrainian refugees living in Europe may never return home unless Ukraine regains its territory and secures Western security guarantees.

Just 3 percent of Ukrainian refugees in Europe would return to their home country in the most pessimistic post-war scenario, the study found, with respondents regarding territorial integrity and security guarantees as the most decisive factors when weighing up their decision.

While nearly half of refugees (46.5 percent) would return if Ukraine fully restored its 1991 borders, joined NATO, cut corruption, and boosted incomes, this hypothetical is not politically realistic while NATO members like Hungary oppose its accession.

Just 2.7 percent would do so if Russia retained most occupied territories, no peace deal was signed, security guarantees were absent, and the economy worsened.

Przydacz also urged NATO to strengthen its deterrence posture in response to Russian provocations on the eastern flank. He said the alliance’s reaction so far had been “appropriate,” but called for more troops and advanced equipment, “especially anti-drone equipment.”

Referring to reports of “little green men” on the Russian-Estonian border, Przydacz warned that Moscow “will constantly test our reaction and our internal cohesion” and said similar incidents could occur on the Polish-Belarusian frontier, where a border wall built by the previous government had proven effective.

The presidential adviser also commented on public frustration with the current government, citing a new Opinia24 poll showing that 80 percent of Poles see no improvement since the change of power, with only 12 percent saying their lives are better and 31 percent saying they have worsened.

“This government was supposed to bring hope,” Przydacz said.

Discussing the situation in the Middle East, Przydacz welcomed a newly signed peace agreement with “cautious optimism” and said that “violations of international and humanitarian law have certainly occurred” in Gaza, which should be “assessed in an appropriate manner by experts.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/17/2025 - 02:00

What's The Future Of Russia's Bases In Syria?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Lavrov suggested that they could facilitate the dispatch of aid to Africa, but it’s also possible that they might host complex military-diplomatic talks between all stakeholders in Syria while also helping its armed forces maintain national unity by re-equipping, training, and advising them too.

Russian-Syrian relations are interesting for many observers due to the realpolitik that’s come to define them since Assad’s downfall last December.

Ahmed “Jolani” Sharaa’s Al Qaeda-descended Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was designated as terrorists by Russia prior to their Turkish-backed seizure of power, and they accordingly hated Russia for bombing them, yet both swiftly put that aside. The fact of that matter is that their respective state interests require continued cooperation regardless of whoever’s in power in Syria.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hinted at the future of his country’s bases there in an interview that aired last week ahead of Sharaa’s trip to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with Putin.

While their summit was certainly important, Lavrov’s remarks shed more light on this subject than the opening statements from their talks (there was no press conference afterwards), which is why his words form the basis of this analysis.

Here’s exactly what he said, which will then be analyzed:

“The function must be reconfigured. One clear task that could benefit the Syrians, their neighbours, and many other countries is establishing a humanitarian hub, utilising the port and airport to deliver humanitarian supplies from Russia and the Persian Gulf states to Africa.

There is a shared understanding that this will be in demand, and we are prepared to coordinate the details. The matter has, in principle, been discussed, and there is mutual interest.”

This is a unique proposal that would allow these facilities to become logistical hubs for supplying Russian, Arab, and possibly others’ aid to Africa. Russia’s continued dispatch of donated foodstuffs, mostly wheat, as well as discounted energy and fertilizer helped avert a chain reaction of tragedies over the past 3,5 years that could have exploded due to the West’s unilateral sanctions.

There might be more to the future of Russia’s bases in Syria than just that, however, judging by what else Lavrov said:

“We understand Israel’s legitimate security concerns (in Syria)…

Yet, the interests of other actors must also be safeguarded. In the northeast, there are the Kurds, whom the Biden administration began courting, actively encouraging separatist sentiments.

Our Turkish counterparts maintain a presence in the north, along their border with Syria. Meanwhile, Alawites and Christians continue to face persecution – recently exemplified by a barbaric attack on a church.”

He then added that all those with influence in Syria must prioritize its unity and declared that “We are prepared to collaborate on these matters with other nations pursuing their interests in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Accordingly, it can be intuited that Russia’s military facilities could hypothetically host security talks between these conflicting parties, while its armed forces and diplomats could also provide advisory services to their Syrian counterparts to advance their shared goal of maintaining national unity.

Therefore, while the official reason for retaining Russia’s bases in Syria might be to facilitate aid to Africa and possibly host complex military-diplomatic talks, the real purpose might be to re-equip, train, and advise its army, albeit within the unofficial limits imposed by Israel and agreed to by Syria in that event.

This vision was first shared in early February here and thus presciently predicted what’s thus far come to pass. These plans could still be offset, but for the time being, they arguably appear to be on track.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 23:25

Reporters Leave Pentagon En Masse After All But One Outlet Rejects New Rules

Wednesday evening saw reporters from nearly every major network and mainstream news outlet hand in their press badges and exit the Pentagon, following their refusal to sign a new policy issued by War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America," the Pentagon Press Association announced in a statement.

"The Pentagon Press Association's members are still committed to reporting on the U.S. military," it added. "But make no mistake, today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all."

Those who did not sign the new policy which vows to not seek or obtain classified, sensitive, or leaked material said the document would expose journalists to potential prosecution.

Axios, which did not sign, also listed the following non-signers who have been effectively booted from the Pentagon premises: Fox News, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, AP, the Washington Post and the New York Times, and others. However, One America News (OAN) was a significant network that did sign it.

According to the NY Times, the request for a Pentagon press badge went from signing one page of rules/policy to a whopping 21-pages detailing what reporters can and can't do: 

The new rules codify sharp limitations on access and raise the prospect of punishment — including revocation of credentials — for simply requesting information on matters of public interest. Lawyers representing national news organizations have been negotiating for weeks with Pentagon officials over the strictures.

Since being introduced last month, there's been a full-on, very public revolt against the policy. Ironically, it was Hegseth himself who earlier in the Trump administration had been thrust into the center of controversy due to the embarrassing Yemen group chat Signal episode.

Outlets had been told to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5 pm or surrender their press credentials within 24 hours. So by close of Wednesday, large groups of journalists were seen walking from the Pentagon to the parking lot with all of their things.

Via X

Hegseth responded on social media to this MSM media exit with a dismissive wave emoji directed at the outlets’ statements. He subsequently posted a list titled “Press Credentialing FOR DUMMIES,” outlining new restrictions such as visible badge requirements and a prohibition on "soliciting criminal acts."

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 23:00

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes

By Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America,

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment's core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called "welfare check." They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him. 

Case survived, but his rights did not.

During this so-called "emergency" situation, police stood around for 40 minutes, armed themselves with rifles and a ballistic shield, went into Trevor Case's home without a warrant, and shot him. https://t.co/vRpkDaKKX5 pic.twitter.com/lBTGWnszPT

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 15, 2025

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police's warrantless entry. Apparently, the government's "reasonable suspicion" that Treavor Case might need "help" was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

And it was not as if obtaining a warrant would have been difficult. A recent Harvard Law Review study found that 93 percent of warrants are approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes. With modern technology, police can draft and submit warrant requests directly from their phones. The officers in Montana had nearly an hour to seek judicial approval. They chose not to.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man's home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as "community caretakers." The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment's protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended "caretaking" exceptions.

The facts in Montana look nothing like an emergency. Body camera transcripts reveal that officers themselves doubted that Case required immediate aid. One noted that "chances are pretty slim" he needed urgent medical attention. They discussed staging medical personnel outside but decided against it. After forty minutes of hesitation, they declared the situation an "emergency" and broke in anyway.

In any other context, an armed entry without a warrant would be understood as unlawful. The Constitution does not stop at the property line of a gun owner. If a homeowner responds defensively to armed intruders, the law recognizes the basic right of self-defense. What transforms that same scenario into a police action is supposed to be the warrant requirement. Strip that away, and the police have no more right to enter than anyone else.

Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, however, has sided with Montana. 

FYI @TheJusticeDept supports the warrantless home invasion of gunv owner Trevor Case.

DOJ says federal agents (like @ATFHQ) "make warrantless entries into residences" & need to "prosecute cases" where they "encounter evidence of a crime" without a warrant. https://t.co/jsDfw4nci3 pic.twitter.com/a5dsrKiczu

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 15, 2025

In an amicus brief, DOJ argued that when police are "providing aid" rather than investigating a crime, they should not need probable cause or a warrant. That claim, if accepted, creates a dangerous loophole: police may simply reframe their role to avoid constitutional limits.

The risks are obvious. A neighbor calls for a welfare check. Officers arrive, say they are caretakers, and enter without a warrant. Inside, they confront a homeowner startled by strangers in his house. The encounter escalates, and the mere presence of a firearm becomes justification for force. What began as a welfare check ends as a shooting.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment to prevent precisely this kind of abuse. 

Judicial oversight was designed to ensure that government agents could not force their way into private homes unless a neutral magistrate agreed the evidence justified it. By lowering the bar from probable cause to suspicion, the Montana court has eroded that safeguard.

Caniglia was unanimous and recent. For Pam Bondi's DOJ to back Montana in this case is not simply inconsistent with precedent; it also undermines the Fourth Amendment principle that the home is a place of security. If the Supreme Court accepts this reasoning, the Fourth Amendment will be reduced to a formality.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:35

Transportation Sec. Duffy Says Leftist Gov. Moore Is 'Poor Steward' Of Collapsed Key Bridge Rebuild Funds

Leftist Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who appears to be friends with the "dark-money NGO King" - the Soros family, specifically Alex Soros...

... and was recently caught "half-naked" on George Clooney's luxury motor yacht in Italy. 

Who has also seen collapsing poll numbers in a deep-blue state overtaken by radical leftists in Annapolis, who care more about criminal illegal aliens, higher taxes, an exploding deficit fueled by out-of-control spending, toxic social and criminal justice reforms, the promotion of the climate crisis hoax, and dark-money-funded NGOs.

Everyone knows Democrats aren't competent managers but rather left-wing activists who squander the nation's wealth created by those who actually build systems, whether at the state, local, or federal level. This understanding comes as Maryland's fiscal deficit worsens, raising alarm bells within the Trump administration about whether Democrats in the state, specifically Moore, can properly manage the rebuild of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge. 

18 months later... 

Fox Baltimore reports that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Gov. Moore that Maryland's $2 billion rebuild project of the bridge, which relies heavily on federal taxpayer money, is coming under intense scrutiny because the project's costs are "ballooning," schedules are slipping, and certain hiring practices may violate federal law. 

"It's my job to ensure the American people's tax dollars are spent properly and major projects are completed on time and on budget," Duffy wrote in a recent letter to Moore. "Ballooning project costs are already threatening to delay this critical project."

Moore has not yet replied to Duffy's letter and has avoided interviews despite repeated media requests, according to the local media outlet. 

In an exclusive interview with Fox Baltimore on Tuesday at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport, Duffy doubled down on his concerns that Moore and Maryland officials are not competent "stewards with the money"... 

"The federal government is going to pay for the project, but the governor is going to manage it. And when someone else pays, at a wedding, you get the finest alcohol, you'll get the finest steak if someone else is buying. We need to make sure we're looking out for the federal taxpayer and also rebuild this bridge.

"I don't think he has been a good steward with the money, but also, we have sent a letter to all of our partners saying they have to follow the law." 

Today, I reviewed the history of the Key Bridge rebuild, including what Maryland Gov. Wes Moore once highlighted as one of the best examples of state and federal partnership.

That partnership now seems to be deteriorating as the federal government is increasing scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/KSCIJj4ozr

— Gary M. Collins (@realgarycollins) October 16, 2025

Duffy's criticism of Moore and radical leftists in Maryland didn't stop at their fiscal management. He warned new concerns about the state's approach to diversity hiring, particularly regarding race- and sex-based contractor selection. 

"A long time ago, we got rid of contracting based on race and sex," Duffy said, adding, "That can drive the cost up and the time frame up for completion."

Eighteen months later, and still no new bridge (China would've had this built in six months). The project exemplifies the incompetence of Democrats who masquerade as competent managers but are actually left-wing activists. Their intent isn't to build but to squander the nation's inheritance through socialist and Marxist policies.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:10

Extending The ACA Subsidies?

Authored by Bill King via RealClearPolitics,

Over the last week, the decision on whether to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies has increasingly become the defining issue of the shutdown.  It is an issue that is fracturing the Republican Party and threatening to derail their midterm election prospects.

Unpacking the numbers

From the outset, the Affordable Care Act subsidized the purchase of health insurance by some lower-income Americans on the health insurance exchanges. The subsidy was based on a sliding scale that set a maximum a person would pay as a percentage of their income. The ceiling for the subsidy was originally 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Today, that is about $60,000 for an individual, a little over $80,000 for a couple, and $124,000 for a family of four.  Anyone who exceeded that ceiling got no subsidy when purchasing their insurance.

For those below the ceiling, the government would pick up the cost of the insurance that was above a percentage of the person’s income. That ranged from just over 2% to almost 10%. According to CMS Marketplace data, the subsidy typically covered 75-85% of the premiums for this group. Before the expansion, nearly 9 million Americans received the subsidy, and they accounted for over three-quarters of all Marketplace enrollment. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the subsidy was costing the federal government about $50 billion annually.

During the pandemic, Congress expanded the eligibility criteria for the subsidy by eliminating the income limits. But the expansion was only temporary, scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Since the expansion was adopted during the pandemic and was set to expire automatically, a narrative emerged that the expansion was a pandemic response that would no longer be necessary after the pandemic ended. But the truth is that the expansion had nothing to do with the pandemic. The pandemic was just a pretext to expand coverage, something Democrats had long sought to do. The automatic termination was included to reduce the projected effect on the deficit. This allowed Democrats to use the reconciliation process to avoid a Republican filibuster.

The expansion eliminated the 400% of FPL limit. However, the benefit was capped by requiring that individuals must pay 8.5% of their income toward the premium before they could receive any subsidy. Furthermore, the premium is based on a particular level of coverage that currently costs about $10,000 per year for a single adult.

The net effect of the expanded subsidy rules is to reduce the subsidy as a person’s income increases gradually. For most people, the subsidy goes to zero at an income of about $120,000 for an individual and about $240,000 for a couple. This opened the subsidy to millions of Americans who did not previously qualify. As a result, the number of Americans participating in the Marketplace leaped from 11 million to 21 million, and those receiving some subsidy went from about 8.8 million to 13.3 million. The average monthly subsidy went from $525 to just over $600. The expansion benefits have been costing about $40 billion per year. This is consistent with the CBO’s estimate late last year of the cost to extend the enhanced subsidy. That would add about 2% to the projected federal deficit.

Unpacking the politics

The Democrats adopted the expansion on a straight party vote. Not a single Republican voted for the original extension. However, it turns out that Americans across the political spectrum came to strongly support the expansion of the subsidies.

A poll by the KFF (fka the Kaiser Family Foundation) found that 77% of Americans want Congress to extend the subsidies. The extension enjoys remarkable support across the political spectrum. Even self-identified MAGA Republicans favor the extension 56-43.

Earlier this year, KFF conducted a detailed analysis of the effect of the expiring subsidies by congressional district. Those most impacted are skewed toward districts currently held by Republicans. In all but one district with an incumbent Republican, voters over 60 who are currently receiving the subsidy would see an increase in their premium of over 100%. These individuals make up 7% of the population of those districts. Since they are over 60, most are likely registered voters and typically vote Republican.

We are currently entering the ACA reenrollment period, and many Americans are learning for the first time how much their premiums may go up. As a result, Republican members of Congress are hearing from their constituents. It is, therefore, not surprising that a growing number of Republican members are breaking with the leadership on extending the subsidies. Most notable has been MAGA loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene.

A compromise on subsidies may be the off-ramp to end the shutdown. If the Senate were to pass a clean bill with an extension of the subsidies, it is hard to imagine the House would not do the same.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 21:45