Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics,

Historically, no one really wins a government shutdown. But JD Vance might. In the 24 hours after Senate Democrats voted against a continuing resolution to keep the federal lights on, the vice president quickly became the face of the White House counterargument.

Vance began the day on Fox and Friends to blast Democrats for taking the government “hostage.” By midmorning, he was rallying the MAGA base during an appearance on The Ben Shapiro Show, where he predicted that Democratic resolve was “cracking.” In the afternoon, the vice president made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room.

Reporters were only tipped off moments before when an advance staffer set up the ceremonial flag of the vice president behind the podium. According to sources familiar with the day’s planning, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt invited Vance to meet the press in person.

The shutdown may amount to the first real crisis of the second Trump administration. The White House feels they have the upper hand because they are not the ones who caused it and because they have an ace up their sleeve in Vance.

Another source familiar with the strategy told RealClearPolitics that the vice president “is widely known as the administration’s bulldog, a natural, excellent messenger, maintains good relationships with his former Senate colleagues, and served in the Senate throughout multiple government funding debates.”

“It only makes sense for Vance to help President Trump drive this fight home,” they added. And if Vance succeeds as the administration’s point man in that debate, it could go a long way towards further cementing the expectation that Trump’s apprentice will become his MAGA heir.

But the squabble in question is a little different than the normal brinksmanship over government funding, in large part because of who currently occupies the Oval Office. At the heart of the battle is a policy dispute over extending Obamacare subsidies and restoring Medicaid cuts that Republicans made in the One Big Beautiful Bill, the president’s marquee domestic policy achievement.

Trump alleges that, in exchange for keeping the government open, Democrats are demanding that the federal government provide healthcare to illegal immigrants. Democrats counter that Republicans are lying because illegal immigrants cannot receive Medicare or Medicaid. As part of the OBBB, Republicans put up additional barriers to ensure, in large part, that non-citizens do not receive those benefits. They say that if the subsidies were restored, then millions of immigrants, who entered the U.S. illegally but were paroled by the Biden administration, would again have access to taxpayer-funded healthcare.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, pushed back: “Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in federally funded health coverage under existing law or Democrats’ funding proposal – but millions of American citizens will see their health care premiums double next year if Republicans keep refusing to act.”

As thorny as it is complicated, the fight centers around who exactly is “lawfully present” in the U.S. In short, Republicans made “lawfully present” immigrants ineligible for Obamacare subsidies, and now Democrats want to roll back that restriction. Into that thorny briar patch enters Vance.

“They say, ‘We’re not actually trying to give healthcare benefits to illegal aliens,’” Vance said of Democrats during his Fox News interview. “And here’s why it’s not true.” The vice president then pointed to two Biden-era actions, one that made immigrants eligible for emergency healthcare at hospitals and another that granted parole and Obamacare subsidies to millions of immigrants.

“So it’s not something that we made up,” he added. “It’s not a talking point. It is in the text of the bill that they initially gave to us to reopen the government. It’s preposterous for them to run away from it now.”

Procedural fights over funding the government do not normally move voters to the polls. But Trump has forced the political fight into the cultural zeitgeist when he posted an AI-generated video of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, complete with a fake mustache and sombrero. The Democrat called the images “racist” and “bigoted.” Vance laughed them off.

“I’ll tell Hakeem Jeffries right now, I make this solemn promise to you that if you help us reopen the government, the sombrero memes will stop,” the vice president told reporters. “And I’ve talked to the president of the United States about that.”

More than memes, the debate could have future political implications for Vance. The fight isn’t just about turning the lights back on. Longstanding conservative orthodoxy could shift in the process. The White House has told Democrats that they are willing to negotiate over Obamacare premiums but only after the government is reopened.

“Hopefully we can convince the president and others we can’t do that,” Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told National Review of the possibility of continuing the Democratic extension of Obamacare subsidies. “I know people like me are vastly outnumbered here.”

Asked if the party that ran on repealing Obamacare for decades would actually extend Obamacare subsidies, Vance told RCP that the administration wants to ensure citizens have access to healthcare and “we are willing to have that conversation.”

“But I think it’s important to bracket that health care policy conversation,” the vice president clarified, “because it’s separate from the government shutdown.”

For now, the vice president is front and center in the shutdown conversation. Democrats have concluded as much. This includes California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential Vance opponent in the coming 2028 presidential election. A sign of the current digital discourse: Newsom posted a deep-fake video of Vance dressed like and sounding like an Oompa Loompa.

Authored by Haika Mrema via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

American Eagle Outfitters’ chief executive has defended the retailer’s ad campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, saying the company will not retreat in the face of public criticism.

“You can’t run from fear,” CEO Jay Schottenstein said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. “We stand behind what we did.”

The campaign, which launched in late July, spotlighted the 27-year-old actress, best known for her roles in “Euphoria” and “The White Lotus,” modeling the brand’s denim line.

The promotional tagline, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” played on a double meaning. In one video, Sweeney remarked, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”

Sydney Sweeney x American Eagle, oh my god. pic.twitter.com/tDkeGT9R7G

— Sydney Sweeney Daily (@sweeneydailyx) July 24, 2025

The wordplay drew accusations from some critics who claimed the ads carried undertones of racism, sexism, or eugenics. The company declined to alter or withdraw the campaign.

Schottenstein, an Orthodox Jew, said he was surprised by such associations. He noted that his own family had endured the impact of Nazi Germany and said that if he and his team felt the campaign would be offensive in that way, “we never would’ve done it.”

In response to the criticisms, Schottenstein instructed his leadership team to remain calm, refrain from public comment, and assign a small group to monitor online reaction. American Eagle also hired an outside firm to poll customers about their response to the campaign.

The strategy appears to have benefited the company. Between July and September, the campaign helped attract nearly 1 million new customers, as reported by the Journal.

Popular items linked to Sweeney—including a cinched denim jacket and a wide-leg jean featuring a butterfly design—sold out within days. The company also reported an uptick in sales growth beginning in August, reversing earlier declines.

Some marketing experts said American Eagle’s decision to remain consistent set it apart from other corporations that have scaled back campaigns after online criticism. “By sticking to their guns, they gained customers,” said Susan Cantor, CEO of branding firm Sterling Brands.

The campaign also drew national attention beyond the retail world. President Donald Trump praised Sweeney and the ads in a post on Truth Social, calling it the “hottest” campaign running.

“Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the ‘HOTTEST’ ad out there,” the post read. “It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are ‘flying off the shelves.’ Go get ‘em Sydney!”

American Eagle has continued building on the momentum, announcing a partnership with NFL player Travis Kelce, who is engaged to pop star Taylor Swift, weeks after Sweeney’s campaign launch.

By Tom Teague of The Manhattan

Modern Monetary Theory is a macroeconomic theory developed in the early 1990s. It maintains that governments that issue their own currency are not financially constrained in the same way as households or businesses. According to MMT, governments can create money and spend as they see fit; taxes serve primarily as a tool to control inflation and create demand for the currency. MMT also emphasizes that government spending should aim to ensure full employment.

Putatively heterodox to most economists, MMT has often been quietly promoted as a back door to central planning. It is analogous to Critical Race Theory in that it is referenced everywhere, yet often denied when challenged. Although no major central bank has formally adopted it, MMT’s logic aligns with the behavior of many major central banks since the Global Financial Crisis.

During the GFC, the financial system nearly collapsed under excessive leverage to the housing market and a series of black swan events. The aftermath provided a platform for the political left—who had been sidelined by the fall of Communism—to return to power and lay the foundations for a new vision of society. This shift promoted “stakeholder” capitalism: an economy to be guided by elites seeking less greed, greater inclusivity, and more environmental focus. (See the World Economic Forum.)

New rules were implemented for Europe’s financial institutions, particularly insurance companies and pension funds. Post-GFC, European insurers were governed under Solvency II and III. Under these regimes, there was a zero risk-weight for government bonds and large capital charges for corporate bonds, equities, infrastructure, and securitizations. This forced a major reallocation of asset holdings in the insurance sector (which controls €9.5 trillion in assets) toward government bonds, and away from risk assets. Pension funds—managing another ~€10 trillion—were also affected by these regulations and incentivized to shift toward “safe” government bonds, though to a somewhat lesser extent. The result was a significant shift from the private sector to the public sector, greatly benefiting European governments that could now borrow more cheaply. This process arguably helped finance the ‘Great European Project,’ but at the expense of private sector vitality.

This regulatory drift toward government bonds did not stop in Europe. In the U.S., the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III were implemented, which encouraged banks and other regulated institutions to hold Treasuries rather than risk assets. While these rules had a significant impact on banks’ balance sheets, their effect on insurance companies and pension funds was less direct. Basel III’s risk weightings granted U.S. Treasuries and MBS very low charges, while company loans, equities, private credit, and various securitizations faced 100% or higher risk charges. Notably, the risk weight for equities held on bank balance sheets increased from 100% to 250%.

Basel III’s greatest impact did not come from the risk weights alone, but from higher total capital requirements, new capital buffers, and the liquidity coverage ratio—all of which further favored government bonds and reinforced the preference for “safe assets.” In practice, this crowded out private sector lending and investment, even if risk weights themselves did not always change dramatically.

It is understandable that, following the near-collapse of the financial system, regulators sought to promote stability. Yet, the net effect of these efforts was to encourage lending to governments and discourage lending to the private sector—ironic, given that the crisis was rooted in regulatory failures to prevent excessive leverage in U.S. housing.

In the post-GFC era, governments—enjoying lower bond yields and greater regulatory power—found themselves in a position to expand spending. Using debt to solve problems and bail out economies became the norm. The crucial question is whether this shift was intentional, or merely a byproduct of circumstances. Given recent government agendas to “rebuild capitalism,” focus on climate initiatives, and promote forced equality (including through immigration), it seems unlikely to be accidental.

Government spending relative to GDP has accelerated in recent years. In the U.S., this figure grew from 35% in 2018 to 39.7% in 2024, peaking at 47% in 2020 during Covid (compared to less than 20% pre-GFC). In the EU, government spending hovered around 46.5% of GDP in 2015–2019, and surged to 52.9% during Covid. In Japan, government spending is normally about 40% of GDP and reached 47.1% during the pandemic. We have entered an age where governments use cheap borrowing to centrally plan economies.

A peculiar relationship has now evolved between central banks and governments. As government spending grows, central banks are increasingly tasked with protecting the government’s ability to borrow at low cost, instead of focusing on stimulating the private sector. Ambiguity arises when governments create jobs by expanding already bloated agencies, placing them in competition with the private sector. The result is a zero-sum game between the government and the private sector. Rather than fostering private sector growth, governments and central banks have tilted toward active intervention and control.

In 2017–2018, the Trump administration implemented deregulatory measures and passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, aiming to boost private sector business investment, productivity, and job growth. In response, Chairman Powell raised rates four times in 2018, moving the Fed Funds rate from 1.5% in March to 2.5% by December. The Fed’s rationale was to preempt inflation from an overheating economy—even as core inflation hovered near the 2% target. By Q4 2018, fears of tightening led to a major stock market correction.

In the past year, global bond yields have increased as markets become less tolerant of central planning and begin to price in weaker growth. German Bund yields have moved from 2.1% to 2.75% on the 10-year. In Japan, the 10-year JGB yield has climbed from 0.75% to 1.64%. Investors are realizing: 1) government spending is not effectively growing the economy (if it ever intended to), and 2) underinvestment in the private sector, due to energy costs, regulation, and offshoring, has eroded growth potential. Ultimately, the private sector must generate the taxes that service government debt.

Enter the Scully Curve: an economic concept positing a relationship between government spending (relative to GDP) and economic growth. The curve, named after Gerald Scully, argues for an optimal spending level—typically 24–32% of GDP for industrialized economies. For each additional 1% of government spending above this range, GDP growth may decrease by 0.1–0.2%; if spending rises to 45–50% of GDP, a 0.5–1.5% reduction in growth can be expected. This weakening of the private sector ultimately leads to doubts about debt repayment and undermines the argument that “the government can do it better.”

Central banks, often in concert with fiscal authorities, may now raise rates to combat inflation resulting from deficit spending—which in turn lifts borrowing costs for businesses, crowds out private investment, and distorts market signals. Studies from the post-2008 period reveal that sustained high rates in Europe suppressed private sector recovery and channeled capital into sovereign bonds.

MMT was a prescriptive idea for more central planning, and it has left a profound mark on government debt markets and private sector growth in the West. Now, as economies confront a world of high spending and low growth, there is increasing urgency to reverse course. Populist leaders, most notably Trump, are calling for shrinking government and deregulation to unleash pent-up private sector demand. The U.S., uniquely among major economies, may still have the capacity to grow out of the MMT legacy.

Following last week’s news of China’s massive shift away from American farmers in favor of Brazilian ones, the Trump administration is seeking financial support to mitigate the impact on U.S. farmers and plans to address the issue in upcoming trade talks with Beijing.

On Wednesday, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that U.S. farmers are “being hurt because China is, for negotiating reasons only, not buying,” adding, “We’ve made so much money on Tariffs, that we are going to take a small portion of that money, and help our Farmers.”

In fact, Beijing’s pivot to ag purchases in Brazil is merely one way to target Trump’s farm base, with hopes that the hybrid pressure campaign will force his supporters to push the president into concessions in the trade war. Trump, however, has stated that he would use tariff revenue to cushion American farmers.

Related:

• Trump To Bail Out Farmers With Tariff Money, Will Investigate Seed & Fertilizer Companies Over Jacked Prices

• China Pivots To Brazil, Squeezing U.S. Farmers As Trump Plans Relief Fund

Earlier today, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said U.S. farmers could see an announcement on a “substantial support” package as soon as Tuesday. 

*BESSENT: NEWS COMING TUE. ON SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FOR US FARMERS

*BESSENT: UNFORTUNATE CHINA DECIDED USING SOY IN TRADE TALKS

*BESSENT: MET WITH TRUMP, ROLLINS YESTERDAY ON FARMER ISSUE https://t.co/xpPdlZPm71

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 2, 2025

Trump noted in the Truth Social post above that he will be meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in four weeks and will make Soybeans a “major topic of discussion.” 

. . . 

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking to compel the agency to disclose records related to specific operations, according to the complaint filed on Oct. 1.

The lawsuit, filed jointly by the ACLU and its Virginia and North Carolina affiliates in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, concerns the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

According to the lawsuit, ICE issued a Request for Information (RFI) on May 28, seeking information on available detention facilities capable of housing single adult populations to support the agency’s Washington Field Office.

An RFI is issued to gather information regarding services or products from suppliers, and in the case of ICE, it wanted information on detection facilities. While ICE owns five detention facilities, it relies on private prison companies and other facilities to detain a majority of people in its custody, the lawsuit said.

On Aug. 8, plaintiffs submitted an FOIA request to ICE, asking for records of responses to the agency’s RFI.

The FOIA “was enacted to facilitate public access to government documents,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit added that the basic purpose of FOIA is to “ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.”

With this aim in mind, the FOIA statute requires that federal agencies such as ICE disclose records within 20 working days, the lawsuit said.

An additional 10-day extension for processing may be provided under certain circumstances.

However, “more than 30 working days have passed” since plaintiffs filed the request, and there has been no response from ICE with regard to providing the records, the complaint said, adding that the statutory time period has elapsed.

“Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies regarding ICE’s failure to respond to the Request,” the complaint stated.

ACLU and its affiliates asked the court to order ICE to process and release the necessary records.

The ACLU lawsuit comes amid protests and instances of violence against ICE’s immigration enforcement operations and the officials carrying them out.

On Sept. 24, a gunman opened fire at the ICE Dallas building. While no law enforcement officers were injured in the attack, two detainees died.

On Sept. 26, ICE’s processing facility at Broadview, Illinois, saw clashes between protestors and federal agents. In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson said residents approached her looking for help due to chemicals being allegedly used by federal agents near the ICE facility.

The DHS said in a Sept. 26 statement that some of the rioters had arrived with fireworks and gas masks, with one apprehended carrying a gun.

“These lawless rioters began chanting ‘Arrest ICE, Shoot ICE,’” the department said.

Since ICE launched Operation Midway Blitz in early September, targeting criminal illegal aliens in Illinois, “rioters have assaulted law enforcement, thrown tear gas cans, slashed tires of cars, blocked the entrance of the building, and trespassed on private property,” DHS said.

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

Efforts to Unmask ICE Officers

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the No Secret Police Act (SB 627) on Sept. 20.

The act bans local and federal law enforcement, including ICE personnel, from wearing ski masks and other such “extreme masks,” according to a Sept. 20 statement from the office of California state Sen. Scott Wiener, lead author of the bill.

The bill was backed by a coalition of immigrant and civil rights groups. While the DHS asked Newsom to veto the bill, the governor opted not to do so, said the statement.

“The No Secret Police Act is a bold step that builds on a remarkable record of leadership defending our immigrant communities and democracy itself,” Wiener said.

In its Sept. 26 statement, DHS said that ICE officers were facing “a more than 1,000 percent increase in assaults against them.”

In a Sept. 26 X post, Bill Essayli, acting attorney for the Central District of California, criticized Newsom’s decision, accusing him of being “confused” with regard to his role under the U.S. Constitution.

Newsom “oversees California, not federal agencies. He should review the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli wrote.

“California’s law to ‘unmask’ federal agents is unconstitutional, as the state lacks jurisdiction to interfere with federal law enforcement. I have directed federal agencies to disregard this state law and adhere to federal law and agency policies,” Essayli said.