Money

Treasury is examining whether the $5,000 checks can be issued without authorization from Congress, days after the president promised them at "100 percent" if Republicans keep Congress.

By LouOne More Question · the breakfast edition, 20 September 2026

I want to start with something nice, and I mean it. The Washington Examiner ran an explainer Thursday the tenth — "Trump's promised $5,000 'dividend' checks: What to know." It is a clean piece of work. Headings. A section called "What Trump promised." Somebody sat down and organized the thing so a fellow waiting on a bus could follow it start to finish. I read it twice in my car with the engine running, because if I shut the engine off it has opinions, and the belt is on order.

There is one word on that page I keep going back to, and I'll come back to it at the end, because it's the word carrying the whole load. Dividend.

Then there's the number, and the number is what spoils the page for me. Hold on — it's in here behind the registration. Here. One point two trillion. Not mine. That's the moderator's, at the Kansas State Fair, in the item The Hill ran Saturday the twelfth: the moderator asks Sen. Roger Marshall and his Democratic opponent Adam Hamilton if they support the payments, citing the cost amid the growing national debt. The Hill has Marshall appearing to shift his opinion. The quote they print begins "I'm going to" and the item stops there. I have looked for the rest of that sentence four times.

The order is what I'm stuck on. Wednesday night in Dallas, at the Republican National Committee's midterm convention, the president pledges $5,000 to every adult citizen if the party holds the House and the Senate in November. That same Wednesday, Vice President Vance answers the debt worry by saying tariff revenue offsets it: "Wealth will go back to the people." Saturday, the fair, the one point two trillion, and the senator not saying yes. Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Rep. Mike Lawler is asked the same question and answers, "I support putting money back in the pockets of hard-working," and The Hill's headline on him is "How do you pay for it?" Also Sunday, outside Air Force One, the president tells reporters the checks "happen 100 percent" if the GOP keeps its majority, and The Hill runs that Monday the fourteenth.

Monday the fourteenth, the Examiner prints Guy Benson, its own columnist, calling it a "disastrous idea" on Fox News's "Sunday Night in America with Trey Gowdy," and saying conservatives would scream "bloody murder" if a Democratic president offered this to maintain power. National Review, the same Monday, says the checks would make inflation worse and echo the sort of "socialism" the president decries. Also that Monday, MAGA Inc. expands its spending and sends Vance to Kansas for Marshall — a race the Cook Political Report considers likely Republican, upended last week by a New York Times report that Marshall's old medical practice sued 700 patients over unpaid bills, had 81 of them arrested, and routinely charged 18 percent interest.

Tuesday the fifteenth, The Hill reports Republican lawmakers panning the proposal, warning they will not support giving away money to people who don't work or pay taxes. Tuesday the fifteenth, the Examiner has Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner calling the payment a "bribe" in a video. And Tuesday the fifteenth, Secretary Bessent tells the House Financial Services Committee that Treasury is examining whether the checks can be issued without authorization from Congress — and the Times reports he testified he supports the payments if Republicans win in November.

Here's my trouble, and it's a garage problem. My car needs that belt. The fellow at the shop, good man, years there, tells me he'll put it on for nothing if I send him three customers before Thanksgiving. Fine deal. So I ask who's paying for the belt and he says the supplier is covering it. I call the supplier from the lot, dog in the back seat, and the supplier says they've got questions about the cost and they don't hand out belts to people who don't buy tires. I go back inside and tell him what the supplier told me, and he says he's looking into whether he can get the belt without the supplier. So which of us is bringing him the three customers for?

Excuse me — one thing and I'll let you close up. On that clean page with the headings, under "What Trump promised," the money arrives if the party keeps Congress. On Tuesday the Treasury says it's examining whether the money can go out without Congress. I apologize for circling the same word, I do, but if the vote isn't what releases the money, what is the vote doing in the sentence — and does the page still call it a dividend?

This story on its own page →

Energy Secretary Chris Wright says a 30-minute military operation unlocked 65 billion Venezuelan barrels for American buyers, who marked the windfall by paying a record $4.15 a gallon over Labor Day.

By ChipStaff Writer · the breakfast edition, 20 September 2026

Let me walk you through the balance sheet, because the balance sheet is the good news. On the asset side: majority control of 65 billion barrels, with 35 percent of the stake held by the Pentagon, nine months after the military took Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores out of Caracas. That is a position. Positions are what you want.

It has been building for a while. On Friday, August 28, Common Dreams reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller were in talks with Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, over an ownership stake in more than a dozen oil fields, and officials said the talks would secure "America's energy future for generations to come." Generations. Not a quarter. Analysts asked lawmakers to halt it, which tells you the analysts understood precisely what was on the table, which — strike that, I'd like that back.

By Friday, September 4, Energy Secretary Chris Wright was on a flight from Caracas to Washington explaining to the Washington Examiner how U.S. companies would swap newly sourced Venezuelan heavy crude for U.S. light and medium crude better suited to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is a supply story. The opposite of a shortage. That same Friday the national diesel average hit $5.85, an all-time high, passing the $5.81 record set in May 2022 — different war, same pump, which is — those are separate markets. Mostly separate.

On Sunday, September 6, Wright told ABC News the United States has "a lot of leverage over Venezuela. We control the sale of oil outside," describing the deal The Hill reported grants Washington control of more than 65 billion barrels. Common Dreams reported he denied the administration was stealing Venezuela's oil one hour after saying the country is "forced to work" with the United States. Both statements hold. Leverage is what you have when the other side is forced to — when the other side elects to partner. Partner. That same Sunday, Rep. Mike Lawler told CNN, "Any time you are at war or in a military escalation, it is certainly not small potatoes. It is serious. I think we all recognize that," two days after the President declined to call the Iran conflict a war and called it "small potatoes for us."

Markets agreed, in their way. That Sunday OPEC Plus held production steady, Brent rose about 1 percent, and the national gas average sat near $4.15. On Monday, September 7, AAA put regular gasoline at $4.15, the highest it has ever been on the holiday; ABC News reported $4.14. The New York Times reported the same day that some drivers are using "special techniques to maximize their miles per gallon." Call that consumer adaptation. That is a market working.

Monday, September 7 also carried the rest of it: U.S. forces destroyed three Revolutionary Guard crude oil tankers in the Persian Gulf on Saturday after Iran launched ballistic missiles at two U.S. Navy vessels, Iran threatened a "more painful" response, and nearly 5,000 troops aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln began heading home after nearly 300 days deployed. On Tuesday, September 8, oil rose again as a top Iranian official said Tehran would impose an "exclusion zone" outside the Strait of Hormuz.

On Friday, September 11, Fox News reported Wright saying a 30-minute military operation unlocked the Venezuela oil windfall for U.S. buyers, and that the administration is tapping the country's 300 billion barrels of reserves to grow supply and cut prices. Those are not two piles: the 65 billion is the barrels the deal hands Washington control of, the 300 billion is the reserve base Wright says he is drawing on. One country's oil, counted twice in two rooms.

That same Friday, Rubio announced the foreign terrorist designation of Los Tiguerones during his diplomatic tour, bringing the list in Latin America to 21. Workers World reported that on September 3, for the ninth month running, protesters rallied outside Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center.

Also that Friday, the New York Post reported that Cilia Flores asked to be released from the Brooklyn jail, citing a heart ailment, while she and her husband await trial on U.S. drug trafficking charges. That is the filing and that is the date.

On Sunday, September 13, the President spoke with the Saudi crown prince and said everything will "work out fine."

Assets: 65 billion barrels, a 35 percent Pentagon stake. Costs, as of Labor Day: $4.15 a gallon, $5.85 for diesel, and one filing from a cell in Brooklyn citing a heart.

This story on its own page →

THE FILING

Anthropic's CEO begged Washington to pace AI; suit says he'd already agreed to pace it with rivals.

By MitchInvestigations · the coffee break edition, 20 September 2026

I read filings for a living, so let me walk you through this one at the pace it requests.

September 12: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei publishes a 3,800-word essay titled "We Must Pace the Frontier," arguing the industry must pace "the rate of capabilities advancement." Same day, OpenAI's Sam Altman and Musk's operation rally behind him on the record — three competitors, one message, in public, asking Washington to make them do it.

Two days later, September 14, President Trump posts that his own "high IQ" is the only guardrail AI needs. The next day, September 15, his adviser David Sacks tells CBS that pacing would hand the race to China. The public ask went out twice more that week and got declined both times.

Then, September 19 — a Friday, seven days after the essay — a civil suit lands in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It names Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google. It does not allege the pacing was refused. It alleges the pacing already happened — that the same companies whose executives spent a week publicly asking regulators to make them slow down had, per the complaint, already agreed among themselves to slow down. Not a request for a leash. A description of one already worn.

All together now: an antitrust complaint asks the same question a household budget asks. Coordination among competitors that affects output is the thing the law exists to catch, whichever direction the output moves. Slower, allegedly agreed to in private, is still coordinated. An essay that tells Congress an industry cannot self-regulate, filed the same week that industry was, per the suit, already self-regulating just fine on its own, has not made two different arguments. It has made one, to two audiences, and only one audience got the version with the handshake in it.

The Washington Examiner, writing about the essay on September 20, asked who benefits when Big Tech begs for federal rules it could simply follow itself. Fair question. The complaint filed the day before offers an answer that doesn't require Congress at all — just a federal court and a calendar. The essay ran September 12. The suit ran September 19. Seven days, one document read two ways: once as a plea to the people with no leverage over the industry, once, allegedly, as a memo already circulated among the people who do.

Check the docket. That's the filing.

This story on its own page →

Salazar asks Trump to preserve Hispanic support the same week it's already eroding

By RuthThe Money Desk · the early bird edition, 20 September 2026

The filing starts on September 2, when reporting confirmed the Department of Homeland Security had assigned hundreds of agents to comb state voter rolls for noncitizens under what the agency calls the Unlawful Voter Initiative. That is immigration enforcement extended from the border into the polling place, in the same community the party spent 2024 courting.

By September 8, elections analyst Charlie Cook was telling The New Republic that the president had, in his description, uniquely hurt his own voters, citing policy moves — among them a war with Iran — that broke a campaign promise and left his own coalition exposed to it.

Three days later, The Hill filed the follow-up: Hispanic voters who delivered the 2024 gains were telling reporters they were unhappy with the economy and the enforcement crackdown, and Democrats were picking up ground Republicans had counted as banked for good.

The next day, the Washington Examiner ran the same finding from inside the party's own trade press, reporting from Dallas: Hispanic voters had swung to Trump at a historic 43% in 2024, and Republicans were bracing, less than two months from the midterms, for that number to come down.

Four filings, four separate desks — a federal enforcement report, an elections analyst, a newspaper's voter interviews, and the party's own trade coverage — landed on the same conclusion inside ten days: the 2024 gain was already going soft.

Into that ledger walks Representative Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, who cut an ad calling the president's immigration policy "gone too far" and asked him, in her words, to "preserve that fortune that you have brought to the party." Her plea reached CBS's report only after all four of those findings were already sitting in the public record.

Reconcile the ask against the filing, hon. Preservation is a word for something you still hold. The enforcement blitz was already running. The analyst had already named the damage to Trump's own coalition. The Hill had already found the voters souring on the economy and the crackdown alike. The Examiner had already put a number, from inside Salazar's own party press, on how far that number could fall. She is asking the president to keep hold of a fortune the paper trail says was already being spent down, and her request arrives last in the sequence, not first.

The gap here sits between the word "preserve" and everything that word requires to still be true. By the time Salazar filed her ad, the receipts say it already wasn't.

This story on its own page →

Republican senator begs Trump for a 1970s-style embargo to lower diesel prices the war he defends caused.

By ChipStaff Writer · the late evening edition, 20 September 2026

A United Nations inquiry has already found the Iran war likely committed war crimes. The administration keeps defending it anyway, and the sequence since has run in one direction only.

By September 4, diesel had hit an all-time high of $5.85 a gallon, a record the wire tied directly to the war's disruption of energy markets. The next day, Common Dreams reported Republicans fretting: their own internal polling showed voters blaming President Trump for the price. On September 9, the president acknowledged on the record that the war would not end before the midterms; the same week, Iranian officials said U.S. bombing and blockade had left the country short roughly 800 medicines. On September 10, Defense Secretary Hegseth described "devastation" to Iran's capabilities, present tense, as though the war were still producing results measured in wreckage rather than relief. On September 11, diesel crossed $6 a gallon for the first time, then kept climbing to $6.06 — a 14 percent jump in a month, 64 percent over the year before. The war has since carried an invoice past $40 billion, and the administration has not stopped defending it, has not paused it, has not priced it as a cost anyone in Washington intends to absorb.

Now, on September 20, Iowa's Chuck Grassley — a Republican, a senator, a member of the president's own party — went on social media and asked Trump why he doesn't do what presidents did in the 1970s: place an embargo on diesel exports, the way administrations once embargoed agricultural exports to bring food prices down. Grassley did not call the war illegal. He did not call it a crime. He asked for an export ban, the way you ask a landlord to fix a leak while he's still standing next to it holding the wrench.

Diesel moves the freight trucks, the delivery vans, the combines in Grassley's own state. The invoice for the war that broke the price is past $40 billion and rising. The ask from a man who has not renounced the war is now an embargo — the blunt instrument of a decade Republicans usually cite as a cautionary tale about government meddling in markets. The market didn't do this. The war did. Grassley is asking the president to embargo the evidence.

This story on its own page →

Bessent demands China get tougher on trade, gets refused, proposes exchanging AI safety alerts with them anyway.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the wee small hours edition, 21 September 2026

On August 31st, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the G20's finance ministers that the world could no longer tolerate a $1.2 trillion Chinese trade surplus, and he urged them to get tougher on Beijing. That is the demand, filed in writing, dated and on the record.

Two days later, at the close of the summit in Asheville, reporters asked what the other nineteen delegations had to say. Bessent's answer: China was the one country that would not agree that its own cheap exports are unsustainable. Nineteen nations signed on to the premise. The one nation the premise was about did not, hon.

On September 10th, Beijing sent a friendly note ahead of this week's Trump-Xi meeting, saying it hoped the trade talks would resolve soon. No number attached. No concession attached. Just a hope, on the record, costing nothing to issue.

Then, this Sunday, Bessent sat down with Vice Premier He Lifeng at the new JPMorgan Chase headquarters in midtown Manhattan, three weeks after the tougher-on-China speech, to talk trade ahead of the summit. What came out of that room was not a surplus target and it was not a tariff number. It was a proposal: the United States and China would exchange notifications about AI safety risks, a shared alert system, so that each side tells the other when an artificial intelligence model does something worth worrying about.

Run the two filings side by side and the gap has a size. The opening ask was denominated in trillions of dollars a year, owed by one country to the rest of the world's ledger. The closing offer is denominated in phone calls, or their AI equivalent, texts, about which model said what. An auditor asked to reconcile those two documents would tell you they don't share a currency, and they don't close each other out.

Nobody here misspoke. Bessent said what he said in Asheville; the meeting at JPMorgan happened as described; the alert proposal is real and on the table for the summit. The gap isn't a lie, it's a swap: a fight over a trillion-dollar imbalance became, three weeks later, a conversation about who calls whom first when a model misbehaves. That's a real thing worth having. It is not the thing that was asked for on August 31st. The surplus, last we checked the file, is still $1.2 trillion.

This story on its own page →

GOP senator whose vote is needed to fund $5,000 checks says he won't fund them

By LouOne More Question · the coffee break edition, 21 September 2026

I called the turnpike people Wednesday about a charge on my E-ZPass — four dollars and eighty cents for a bridge I don't believe I crossed, not that week anyway, the car doesn't like bridges any more than it likes hills, and I've got the discs to prove it, four rotors, still sitting in the garage waiting on a free Saturday. The first person transferred me to billing. Billing transferred me to disputes. Disputes told me the charge was "under review" and nobody could say today whether the four-eighty was coming back. I hung up, went out to look at those rotors, and standing there it occurred to me — that's the whole story, isn't it, the one I keep meaning to write down.

On September 10th, in Dallas, at the Republican convention, the president told the room he'd cut every American adult a check for five thousand dollars if his party held both chambers in November — a "dividend," he called it, on account of the economy doing so well — and he said it would happen "100 percent." Two days later, on the 12th, The Hill ran a piece asking whether he could legally do that at all, cut checks that size without Congress signing off. Fair question. Somebody ought to answer it before the money gets spent in anybody's head.

I wrote something last week about a word, "dividend," and I'll leave that be this time. What I want to get to is Wednesday's item, because it's new and it's short and I keep rereading the short ones.

Fox News, Wednesday the 21st. Senator Paul — "fiscal hawk," that's Fox's word for him in the headline, not mine, I don't hand out titles, I just read what's printed — does not support the five-thousand-dollar plan. That's the sentence. Doesn't support it. And in the same piece he's quoted, on the record, saying something else about spending: "both parties have failed us." That's his sentence. I'm not putting words next to it that aren't his.

Here's what I keep doing with it, standing at the toll plaza, the exact-change lane, the one with the basket you throw the quarters into. You don't get through on ninety-nine cents. The basket doesn't care how sincerely you meant the dollar. It counts what lands, and if it's short, the arm doesn't go up, and the fellow behind you leans on his horn.

Five thousand dollars, if it ever gets sent, needs Republicans to hold both chambers, and then it needs Congress to actually vote the money — that's two separate baskets, not one. And a member of the party that has to hold that chamber has already told a wire service, this week, that he isn't putting his quarter in. That's not a prediction. That's a basket coming up short before the car's even pulled up to the plaza.

And Treasury — I wrote this down from the Hill piece, it's around here somewhere — Treasury is the outfit that would actually have to write the checks, and as of the 12th nobody there would say on the record they could do it without Congress agreeing first. So now you've got the White House throwing its promise in the basket, and Congress supposed to throw in the yes, and one of the men whose job is to throw in that yes has already said, on the record, that he won't.

I keep going back to the number, "100 percent," because that's the number the man used, and I keep going back to the senator's sentence, "both parties have failed us," because that's the number he used, and I don't know how to make those two numbers sit in the same basket. Maybe you do. I'm just an old man at a toll plaza with a dispute about four dollars and eighty cents.

Oh — before you go. That charge on my E-ZPass. They never did say whether it's coming back. Neither, far as I can find anywhere in this pile, has anybody said that about the five thousand.

This story on its own page →

Fed blames Iran war for inflation, raises rates on American homeowners instead.

By RuthThe Money Desk · the noon edition, 21 September 2026

The filing, reconciled. On August 28th, Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh told an audience the central bank was "not ruling out" a rate hike, because inflation remained too high. By September 11th, The Hill had the receipt for why: inflation stayed stubbornly elevated "amid the war with Iran." Not amid a shopping spree. Not amid a raise. Amid a war.

On September 16th, the Fed did what Warsh signaled it would do: it raised the federal funds rate a quarter point, to 3.75 to 4 percent, the first increase in more than three years. The same day, progressive economists flagged the arithmetic working families were about to run twice — once through the tariffs and the war pushing prices up, and again through the higher borrowing costs the Fed had just attached to every mortgage and car loan in the file. The next morning, September 17th, The Hill ran the sequel: "Warsh wins credibility with rate hike." Nobody ran a sequel about the mortgage payment.

By this weekend, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari was still finding inflation "too high" in what he called "all aspects" of the economy, even after stripping out food and energy, the two categories currently carrying the load. Energy is the tell. Oil crossed $100 a barrel. Diesel crossed $6 a gallon in parts of the country. The Washington Examiner asked the only honest question sitting in this drawer: rate hikes cannot stop drone strikes, so why is the Fed billing American families for the Hormuz blockade.

Here is the reconciliation, hon. The Fed's own reporting names the cause as a war. The Fed's only tool is a rate hike, and a rate hike does not reach a war, does not reach a blockade, does not reach a barrel of oil sitting off Hormuz. It reaches a mortgage rate. It reaches a car payment. It reaches, per the Fed's own 2012 target and the St. Louis Fed's own description of running the economy "efficiently," a retiree's fixed income, which loses a little more purchasing power every year inflation clears 2 percent.

The war caused the price. The Fed sent the bill. The bill did not go to the tanker. It went to the account with the mortgage in it.

This story on its own page →