Many expect the Trump administration to enact lower taxes, lighter regulations, and reverse many signature programs of the Biden administration, including the government-mandated transition from fossil fuel energy to wind and solar, and from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to electric vehicles (EVs).

“I think a lot of CEOs in the country said enough is enough,” Andy Puzder, former chief executive of CKE Restaurants, told The Epoch Times.

“Just look at the stock market on the day after the election and you can see exactly how American CEOs and American businesses felt about Trump winning the presidency.”

Cutting Regulations

Regulatory policy is likely the area where the incoming administration could have the most immediate impact on businesses.

According to an analysis by the American Action Forum (AAF), as of August this year, the Biden administration has handed down 994 new regulatory rules, adding an estimated $1.69 trillion in costs to American businesses. By comparison, during Trump’s first four years in office, his administration wrote 1,084 new rules that mostly eased regulations and reduced costs by $99.9 billion.

“Agencies like the EPA and Department of Energy regularly acknowledge in their cost-benefit analyses how energy efficiency regulations will raise up-front product costs,” AAF director of regulatory policy Dan Goldbeck told The Epoch Times.

A July study by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan calculated that the present value of the cost of regulations imposed by the Biden–Harris administration amounted to $47,000 for each American household, while deregulation during the Trump administration reduced costs by nearly $11,000 per household.

The new fuel economy standards set by the Biden administration, for example, are predicted to add $3,400 to the cost of new cars, trucks, and SUVs. The Biden administration similarly imposed tough new emissions restrictions on electric utilities, as well as new efficiency regulations on furnaces, water heaters, central air conditioners, dishwashers, and other household appliances.

Trump, by contrast, pledged during a campaign rally in October to “sign an executive order directing every federal agency to immediately remove every single burdensome regulation driving up the cost of goods.”

Trump has also toyed with appointing Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk to run a newly-proposed Department of Government Efficiency, with the goal of cutting $2 trillion or more from the federal budget.

“If what President Trump says about establishing a government efficiency agency with Elon Musk is in fact going to happen, and they have the fortitude to start taking a chainsaw to government bureaucracy, that would be positive for the economy long-term, but there will likely be some added pain over the short-term,” Tim Schwarzenberger, portfolio manager with Inspire Investments, told The Epoch Times.

While Schwarzenberger predicts a recession in early 2025, he says that Trump’s policies “could make that downturn less severe as he will be cutting taxes and regulations and opening up energy production, while at the same time reducing green energy programs and possibly reforming Medicaid.”

Boosting Oil and Gas Production

America’s energy industry will be the sector most heavily impacted by the change in administrations, analysts say.

“Trump is likely to remove regulations and other limits on fracking and other forms of energy production, which would be good for oil drillers, refiners, and sectors that use a lot of energy products: transportation, manufacturing, aviation and others,” Peter Earle, senior economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times.

Despite efforts by the Biden administration to restrict drilling on federal lands, U.S. oil and gas production continues to break records. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in March that “the United States produced more crude oil than any nation at any time, according to our International Energy Statistics, for the past six years in a row.”

However, given America’s abundance of energy resources, analysts say there is a lot of room to expand domestic production further.

“We’ve got record production of energy, but it’s all happened despite the administration, and on lands that the administration cannot control,” Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Epoch Times. “We just don’t think there’s any reason to have a scarcity of affordable and reliable electricity or energy of any kind in the United States.”

Expanding energy production, particularly in oil and gas, has been a cornerstone of Trump’s economic platform.

“One of the major proposals in energy has been to ease the permitting process of drilling on federal land and encouraging new natural gas pipelines, which will ultimately create greater supply and should reduce consumer costs and have positive economic impacts,” Ryan Yonk, an economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times.

Coal plants, which are facing closures due to new emissions regulations, could also benefit under a Trump administration. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), nearly one-third of existing U.S. coal plants are scheduled to be shut down by 2035. But that may change.

Brian Savoy, CFO of Duke Energy, an electricity utility that serves the Carolinas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky, said his company might keep its coal plants running if the Trump administration cuts back EPA emissions regulations that were enacted under the Biden administration.

However, while it is one thing to get oil and gas companies to produce more from existing wells, it is quite another to get them to invest significant capital into exploration and building new wells and refineries. It is not only regulatory uncertainty that is holding them back, it is also the over-investment that led to a glut, which drove prices down a decade ago. By reducing the cost of regulation and providing some assurance that the industry will not be targeted by climate mandates, analysts say the incoming Trump administration might reduce the cost structure enough to entice the industry to begin investing again.

“What President Trump did in his first term, and what President Biden has been unable to do, is to get the price of oil down and have oil production continue at an increasing pace,” Puzder said. “That’s when you see an impact on inflation overall; it’s when oil companies can make a profit at a lower price per barrel.”

Many analysts predict that if a second Trump term can bring lower energy prices, this will have a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy.

Retail gasoline prices, which were already coming down during the final years of the Obama administration, hit a low of less than $2 per gallon during the first Trump administration and remained under $3 per gallon throughout his term. Gas prices shot up to more than $5 per gallon during the Biden administration before falling back to the current range of between $3 and $4 per gallon.

“All of these things that have gone up in price significantly are affected by the input costs of energy,” Kish said. “Everything that goes into the price of eggs is affected by the price of energy—it’s heating the hen house, it’s the energy consumed in making food to feed the chickens, it’s the transportation of the eggs, it’s the refrigeration.”

Renewable Energy May Retreat

One segment of the stock market that has not responded well to Trump’s victory, however, is renewable energy.

The stock price of Sunnova Energy, a solar energy developer, tumbled from $6.90 per share on election day to $3.96 per share the following day, and continued to fall to just over $3 per share at the end of the week. More broadly, the Solar Energy Index CFD, which tracks the performance of publicly traded companies in the solar energy sector, fell from $42 before the election to $36 by week’s end.

Anticipated headwinds regarding federal regulations and subsidies that support this industry are the likely cause.

“Trump has pledged to kill the offshore wind industry on his first day in office,” Robert Bryce, energy analyst and author, told The Epoch Times. “There’s no reason to doubt that he will do just that, which will be good news for whales and ratepayers.”

In addition, “the Biden administration has opened huge tracts of land in the Western U.S. to development [for wind and solar plants],” Bryce said. “I expect Trump and his appointees will backtrack on that and may even withdraw some of the permits that have already been granted.”

Reaching net zero has been a central goal of the Biden–Harris administration, which committed in April 2023 to “achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.”

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 allocated approximately $400 billion in tax credits, federal loans and subsidies toward the production of “green” energy in the United States, primarily for wind and solar power, but also for nuclear energy.

However, a 2021 University of Chicago report, authored by economists Michael Greenstone and Ishan Nath, analyzed regulations, called renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which forced utilities to have at least 2 to 5 percent of their power come from wind and solar, and concluded that “electricity prices are 11 percent higher seven years after RPS passage.”

In addition, a 2021 report by Columbia University’s Climate School, found that as the share of renewables exceeds a minimal share of the energy mix, electricity bills go up.

“Continuing to push the false narrative of abundant and affordable clean energy is a huge political risk that will backfire when the public has to pony up for a bill they weren’t expecting,” the report’s author Lucas Toh writes.

Cutting Personal Taxes, Hiking Tariffs

Tax policy is another area where many expect to see significant changes under a Trump administration.

Much of the tax cutting that Trump pledged during his reelection campaign will require cooperation from Congress, and while Republicans were able to gain a majority in the Senate, they are still waiting on vote counts to see whether they will also control the House.

Particularly significant is whether Republicans will succeed in extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which is due to expire in 2025.

The TCJA cut the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, and while this rate cut has no expiry date, both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris had proposed increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent.

If the TCJA is not renewed, however, personal income tax rates will rise, standard deductions will be reduced, and the child tax credit will be reduced as well. The maximum tax bracket will go up from 37 percent to 39.6 percent; however, the $10,000 cap on deductions for state and local taxes, which largely benefitted wealthy people in high-tax states such as California and New York, will no longer apply.

To the extent keeping these tax cuts in place spurs consumption and investment, many economists favor it. Critics, however, fear it will reduce government revenue and increase the federal deficit, which is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to hit $1.9 trillion at the end of this year.

Government revenues do not always correlate to tax rates, however, and if the tax cuts lead to significant economic growth, they could end up bringing in more tax revenues. Government tax receipts have increased consistently since the passage of the TCJA, from $3.3 trillion in 2017 to $4.4 trillion in 2023, according to Statista.

Other elements of Trump’s tax plan have received less positive reviews.

This includes his pledge to impose 20 percent tariffs on most imports, and tariffs as high as 60 percent on Chinese imports, which could include EVs, wind and solar components, furniture, toys, clothes, and sporting equipment.

Import taxes at this level “would spike the average tariff rate on all imports to highs not seen since the Great Depression,” Tax Foundation economist Erica York wrote. It could hurt the retail industry and fuel inflation.

However, it is unclear how much a Trump administration will ultimately differ from his predecessor in regard to trade with China.

During his term in office, Trump imposed about $80 billion in new import taxes on thousands of products such as steel, aluminum, appliances, semiconductors, and solar panels, many of which were coming from China, according to the Tax Foundation.

The Biden administration kept most of those tariffs in place, and in May added an additional $3.6 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, including semiconductors and electric vehicles. And while the Trump administration collected $89 billion from so-called “trade war” tariffs, the Biden administration collected more than $144 billion.

In addition, Trump’s pledge to cut taxes on tips, which Vice President Kamala Harris also promised to implement, has been met with some skepticism.

“Among the most popular proposals are those to lower or stop taxation on tips and overtime wages for service workers, or eliminate taxes on social security benefits,” Yonk said.

But these piecemeal efforts would have little overall economic benefit, while further complicating the tax code and raising questions about fairness for workers outside the service industry, York said.

“Instead, extending the tax cuts from the first term and expanding them, without narrowly targeting specific groups, would yield better economic effects and create broad-based tax relief rather than special programs for narrower groups,” he said.

That’s a lot to consider so let’s unpack this a bit.

Consider history. In October 1929, the stock market crashed. Many people on Wall Street suffered but Main Street was largely unaffected. The Hoover Administration got busy with some efforts to loosen credit but without success as credit markets slowly dried up. Throughout 1931, public sentiment toggled between pessimism and denial. Many people thought it was a temporary blip that would go away.

No one called it the Great Depression. That came much later.

By the election of 1932, enough people were concerned about the economic situation but the campaigns did not really focus entirely on that. The big issue was Prohibition. Hoover did not have a strong opinion but Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke out loudly for repeal. His fiscal policy pushed frugality and balanced budgets, and he decried Hoover as a big spender.

FDR won of course. But before the inauguration, the economic environment became dramatically worse. A banking crisis developed, and FDR used emergency powers to impose a bank holiday and repeal the gold standard. As part of this, he imposed a ban on private gold ownership. It was enforced with fines and jail terms.

Central planning then ensued with massive fiscal stimulus, crazed agricultural policies that required digging up crops to create artificial shortages, and price and wage controls.

All of this unfolded over the course of four years, the first three of which were not at the time thought to be much of a crisis generally speaking. Today it is obvious that 1929 marked the beginning but that was not apparent at the time.

It is not discernible in our time that we are already in recession but that is due to some brittle statistical measures. If you extend the inflation numbers to include housing and interest, plus extra fees and shrinkflation, minus hedonic adjustments, and then adjust the output numbers by the result, you end up in a recession now.

Do you remember the two successive quarters of declining GDP in 2022? At the time, it was said that this was not a recession, even though every definition of recession was two declining quarters of GDP. It was said at the time that the data was not enough to declare it because labor markets were strong.

Trouble was that this too was an illusion. Most of the job gains were in fact in part-time jobs and multiple job holders, and those gains went to foreign-born workers and not natives. Overall, jobs held by native-born workers that are full-time are down relative to four years ago. No one in the mainstream press admitted this.

The jobs report that came out last week was the first glimpse of truth because it was brazenly awful, underperforming every prediction. It also chronicled major job losses in manufacturing and professional services. Those are hard-core recession signs that are likely going to worsen.

All this data will start to be revised next year as the conventional wisdom will change. It will be widely admitted that the economy is weaker than we previously supposed. This will happen regardless of who wins. For one winner, it will serve as an attack and for another winner, it will serve as pretext for extreme intervention like the promised price controls on rents and groceries.

Meanwhile, we will be revisiting the inflation problem. The Fed has already added $1.1 trillion to the money stock over the last 12 months plus lowered interest rates. The effect of this easing has not affected mortgage rates because investors are expecting higher rates in the future. The Fed can control overnight lending but the shape of the yield curve is determined on the bond market.

If major changes are proposed in terms of spending cuts, the bond market will freak out and the United States could repeat the experience of the UK just a few years ago. New prime minister Liz Truss was quickly hounded out of office on grounds that her spending cuts had spooked the bond markets.

U.S. creditworthiness is already on a hair trigger as the debt pileup has reached astronomical levels. The entire purpose of this wild spending has been to balloon the GDP as much as possible to prevent a recession from being declared already. The debt-to-GDP level is now higher than it was in the Second World War, and getting worse by the day.

(Data: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), St. Louis Fed; Chart: Jeffrey A. Tucker)

The easy solution is dramatic spending cuts but that won’t happen if the bond market starts panicking with quality downgrades. There are only two private institutions that grade U.S. bonds and both are subject to being muscled by political concerns. Such an event could easily overwhelm a new administration. The political people will go into overdrive and demand that the Fed accommodate the bond market, fueling more inflation.

I truly wish that none of this would happen but the truth is that economic forces are always and everywhere more powerful than political ones. There are structural problems alive in U.S. economic life today that are not easily solved by policies of any sort.

But in U.S. political culture, whatever takes place under one president’s watch is blamed on the officeholder regardless. That the circumstances have been created by the previous administration or have nothing to do with existing policy has no relevance in the political culture. That alone makes it nearly impossible for a sitting president to plead with the public for patience.

In 1981, Reagan did make a plea for patience, and lost a great deal of Congressional support in the midterm elections of 1982. He was fortunate that the economic recovery came in time for the 1984 election that granted him a second term. But that was a very close call, and that was also under conditions that were not as structurally dire as conditions today.

As a result, the new administration will encounter pressure to achieve the impossible: immediately improve American living standards without imposing any pain at all. Such a demand is impossible to grant. As a result, whatever happens in this election will likely be reversed in the midterms of 2026, meaning that we cannot count on any kind of policy consistency for many years to come.

Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so. But from what I’m looking at, I don’t see how a frank acknowledgement of current conditions can be put off for another year.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

“North Carolina’s reliable for me,” Trump said at Dorton Arena in Raleigh, the first of four stops on Election Day Eve. “Never lost. And I don’t think we’re going to start now.”

The Trump campaign emphasized early voting across the country. In North Carolina, in-person early voting started in all 100 counties on Oct. 17 and ended on Nov. 2 at 3 p.m.

The State Board of Elections reported that more than 4.2 million residents cast early voting ballots—a record number.

The previous high for early voting happened in 2020, when more than 3.6 million ballots were cast.

Including absentee voting, 4,465,548 voters—or 57 percent of the state’s 7.8 million registered voters—cast ballots in the general election as of Nov. 3, according to the state board.

Official turnout could be even higher because of a lag between when ballots are turned in and when data is uploaded.

Lorena Castillo-Ritz, chair of the Mecklenburg County GOP in a region anchored by left-leaning Charlotte, said that the Trump campaign, conservative PACs, and her organization embarked on a “strong ground game” that targeted “low-propensity voters” who are registered to vote but did not cast their ballot in 2020.

“When we get people to vote who didn’t vote in the last election, that adds up and makes a significant impact in the overall numbers statewide,” Castillo-Ritz told The Epoch Times.

“We’re hopeful that getting the low-propensity voters to the polls in our area, and other urban areas across North Carolina, elevates President Trump to a win here.”

First in Line

Tony Caraccio is a 21-year-old HVAC professional in Asheboro. He was first in line at the Election Day eve rally in Raleigh, arriving at midnight for Trump’s scheduled 10 a.m. address. He believes that early voting numbers will benefit Trump when the ballots are counted.

“There was a widespread grassroots movement for early voting that we haven’t seen in the last few cycles. The campaign learned from its mistakes and focused on getting absentee ballots and early voting so that the election is too big to rig,” he said.

“I was too young to vote in 2020 and thought I’d never have a chance to vote for Trump. I wish the circumstances didn’t lead to him not winning then and running now, but at least I had the chance to vote for him this time.”

Turnout in the 25 western North Carolina counties impacted by Hurricane Helene was 58.9 percent—around 2 percent higher than the statewide total, the state board said.

Over the weekend, at a rally in Kinston, Trump praised the people who voted early in areas where homes and businesses were swept away by mudslides and flooding from Helene.

“Many of these people don’t even have a house anymore. The devastation is like something never seen. It’s largely areas where people like Trump that were affected, and even with all of that devastation, they turned out in record numbers early,” Trump said.

“The people of your state, the people of North Carolina, are amazing. I thought we would get 50 percent of the number that voted in 2020. [Instead] they broke the record,” he added.

Holding 16 Electoral College votes, North Carolina is a battleground state that both candidates covet.

Barack Obama became the first Democrat presidential candidate to win North Carolina in 30 years when he defeated John McCain in 2008. Trump prevailed in 2016 and then edged Biden by 1.3 percent of the vote in 2020.

Roy Cooper, who has served as governor since 2017, is a Democrat. He spoke in Raleigh before Harris took the stage as did attorney general Josh Stein, who is running for governor against Republican nominee Mark Robinson.

On Election Day eve, Trump held a 1.3 percent lead over Harris in the Real Clear Politics average of polls.

The western portion of the state was severely impacted by flooding and mudslides from Hurricane Helene, displacing many residents. The mountains of western North Carolina are considered a Republican stronghold.

The 25 counties that compose the disaster area have 1.3 million registered voters. In 2020, Trump won 604,119 votes to Joe Biden’s 356,902 votes in those counties, according to political analyst Ray Bonifay, who highlighted the importance of the region in an Oct. 18 commentary on RealClearPolitics.

Amid the surge of Republican early voters, the Harris campaign canceled $2 million in ad reservations in North Carolina media markets on Oct. 29, according to AdImpact. The previous day, the campaign reserved $2.7 million for an ad blitz.

The Carolina Journal reported that Harris was not abandoning the state but that she was shifting her focus to the Raleigh-Durham market.

In Charlotte on Nov. 2, Harris courted conservatives who are reluctant to support the former president.

“We know we have an opportunity in this election to turn the page on a decade of Donald Trump, who has been trying to keep us divided and afraid of each other,” Harris said.

Harris said that she will “represent all Americans, including those who don’t vote for me” and that “the vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us.”

Trump, she said, is focused on revenge and personal interests while she will put country over party.

“Donald Trump will walk in with an enemies list” if he is elected, Harris added.

“When I am elected, I will walk in with a to-do list, full of priorities I will get done for you the American people,” she said.

Voting Habits

Nathaniel Scripa moved to North Carolina from Syracuse, New York to live in a state that was more conservative, he told The Epoch Times.

“Now a lot of people from New York and other blue states are moving here and bringing with them their voting habits, which doesn’t make sense because the liberal policies that made their states so terrible are what led many of them here,” he said.

“That makes early voting, and getting people who usually don’t vote to get to the polls, important in this election,” he added.

Harris held rallies centered around the “When We Vote, We Win” motto. Trump believes that, in North Carolina and nationwide, the increase in Republican early voting combined with a traditional strong showing at the polls on Election Day will result in his victory.

“It’s ours to lose,” Trump said in Raleigh. “If we get everybody out and vote, there’s not a thing they can do.”

The ruling came as a recent Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll forecast Vice President Kamala Harris leading in Iowa by three points over former President Donald Trump, while other polling organizations estimate that Trump is still ahead in what has been a safely Republican state in recent years.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa filed a lawsuit on behalf of four naturalized citizens on Oct. 30, alleging that Pate’s directive to check registered voters’ citizenship status violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On Oct. 22, Pate directed Iowa county auditors to challenge the ballots of voters who had previously identified themselves as noncitizens to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT).

In its lawsuit, the ACLU argued that Pate’s list of voters whose ballots would be challenged was based on outdated DOT records, and that many of those listed have already been proven to be citizens.

It alleged that the secretary’s directive places “severe burdens” on the voting rights of the affected voters by keeping the list secret, which it said could undermine their ability to resolve their eligibility.

Pate responded that voters will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot instead, which will be counted if they can prove their citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher declined to grant a preliminary injunction, citing the finding that “some portion” of the registered voter names on Pate’s list have indeed been confirmed to be non-citizens.

“This portion appears to be relatively small—no more than 12 percent—but, still, the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs effectively would force local election officials to permit those individuals to vote,” Locher stated in a Nov. 3 ruling.

The plaintiffs had argued that Pate’s directive violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires that states complete any program for removing ineligible voters within 90 days before an election.

However, Locher ruled that the NVRA was not implicated in this case because the state had not removed any voters from the voter rolls, and was only requiring them to cast provisional ballots.

“Secretary Pate’s letter is likely to impose a modest additional burden on at least some voters who should not have to bear that burden. All the same, those voters are still permitted to vote and have their ballots counted. The harm is therefore not irreparable,” the judge stated.

Pate last week had blamed the federal government for blocking his office from meeting the 90-day rule, saying that the audit was delayed to October by a lack of cooperation by the Department of Transport, which did not grant access to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database for confirming citizenship.

In a statement, Pate hailed the court’s ruling as a “win for Iowa’s election integrity,” emphasizing the importance of ensuring that only eligible voters can participate in Iowa’s election process.

He said that his office would continue to seek clarity on the citizenship status of voters who had previously self-reported to be noncitizens, while urging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office to allow the Iowa field office to release information about those voters.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird stated on X that the ruling ensured that Iowans’ votes will not be canceled out by illegal votes.

“I was glad to lead the fight in court to defend Iowa’s long-standing election integrity laws. Only American citizens can vote in Iowa elections,” she said in a statement.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the ACLU for comment but did not hear back by publication time.

Over the past month, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp, which trades as DJT, has surged by 220 percent, or about $35 per share. As of Wednesday, DJT is trading at around $51 per share.

The company is now valued at more than $10 billion after its shares more than quadrupled since late September.

Meanwhile, X Holdings is valued at around $9.4 billion, based on the most recent value the investment group Fidelity assigned to its stake in the company formerly known as Twitter.

Since it went public in March, Trump’s company stock has been especially volatile, often depending on news updates related to the former president. When a jury convicted him on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York on May 31, the company’s shares also saw a drop.

Meanwhile, in mid-September, the stock plunged to a low of about $12 per share, which put the company at a value of about $3 billion. But since then, it has posted steady gains on a daily basis.

After the attempted assassination of Trump on July 13, the company’s stock jumped by more than 60 percent.

The recent surge in the company’s stock could be attributed to the proximity of the Nov. 5 election between Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, and his Democratic challenger, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump owns around 115 million shares of the company, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. With the stock surge, Trump’s net worth has also been on the upswing, according to Forbes magazine, and he’s now worth about $8 billion.

When Musk took over Twitter in October 2022, the company was valued at around $44 billion. At that time, Fidelity Investments valued its stake at $19.7 million. In a recent regulatory filing, Fidelity’s Blue Chip Growth fund said its stake in X Holdings was worth about $4.2 million.

Other companies that Trump Media is now bigger than include Caesars Entertainment, Match Group, Walgreens Boots Alliance, and Hasbro, the maker of the Monopoly game.

Musk has become one of Trump’s most prominent supporters in the former president’s bid to get reelected. Musk has committed more than $70 million to boost Trump and has recently held a number of town halls in support of the former president.

Trump launched Truth Social in 2022, months after his Twitter account was suspended by Twitter’s previous management before Musk took over and renamed the platform X. The former president often uses Truth Social to deliver updates on his campaign, provide endorsements to Republican candidates, and provide his commentary on his legal and civil court cases.

But in recent months, Trump has returned to X and is now heavily using the site to promote his campaign. Musk endorsed the former president in July and has been campaigning for him, namely in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

Based in Sarasota, Florida, Trump Media has been losing money and struggling to raise revenue, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It lost more than $16 million in the quarter ending June while generating only $837,000 in revenue, according to the filings.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As of Sunday afternoon, data provided by the University of Florida’s Election Lab shows 41.2 million voted by mail or early in person in the vast majority of states, with only a few states not reporting data.

Compared with four years ago, Republicans are returning more mail-in ballots and voting early in-person. Party affiliation does not mean that voters cast ballot for their party’s nominated candidate, meaning there is no way to definitively know what presidential candidate is ahead.

In states that report votes by party, registered Democrats have a 3.8 percent lead over registered Republicans, with 40 percent to 36.2 percent, respectively. Independent or minor party voters make up about 23.8 percent of the remainder, according to data provided by the lab.

Republicans have a 9-point advantage over Democrats during in-person early voting, while Democrats have a more than 11-point lead over Republicans for mail-in ballot returns, the data show.

As of Oct. 25, only 24.5 percent of mail-in ballots returned were from Republicans, while about 52.3 percent of Democrats did so, according to the Election Lab. Some 22.6 percent of returned mail ballots were from independents or those registered with minor parties.

Republicans in 2020 also had a smaller lead voting in-person early, the data show. At the time, some 40.2 percent of Republicans voted in-person early, while 37.5 percent were Democrats.

States that have reported no data so far include New York, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.

Swing-State Breakdown

In Nevada, Republicans have a 5.1 percent early voting lead—or 31,000 votes—over Democrats, the Election Lab’s data show. That state was called for President Joe Biden over Trump in 2020.

Meanwhile, Republicans have a 6.9-percent advantage over Democrats in Arizona, a state that only reports mail-in ballots. Biden was also certified the victor in Arizona by a slim, 10,000-vote margin four years ago.

Voting by mail is extremely popular in Arizona, with nearly 90 percent of voters having cast their ballots early, most by mail, in 2020. Election officials in Arizona can begin processing and tabulating mail ballots upon receipt, but results cannot be released until one hour after polls close.

Late last week, Republicans pulled ahead in North Carolina, a state won by former President Donald Trump in 2020. By Sunday, the lead increased marginally to about 1.1 percent, or about 30,000 votes, over Democrats, data show.

Earlier this month, Trump visited areas in North Carolina that were ravaged by Hurricane Helene, saying that some Americans in the region “felt helpless and abandoned and left behind by their government.”

“In North Carolina’s hour of desperation, the American people answered the call much more so than your federal government,” he said.

And in mid-October, Vice President Kamala Harris held a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, and told a crowd that she wants to “fight for the ideals of our country and to fight to realize the promise of America.”

Pennsylvania has only reported mail-in ballots as of Oct. 27, showing that Democrats have taken a more than 330,000-vote lead over Republicans. However, Democrats’ lead has narrowed in recent days, down about 19,000 votes since Oct. 24, data show.

Pennsylvania did not have a clear winner in 2020 for four days after Election Day, as officials sifted through a huge backlog of mail ballots. The state is among only a handful that do not permit election workers to process or tabulate mail ballots until 7 a.m. ET on Election Day, which means it will likely again take days before the outcome is known.

Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin do not report party affiliation via the Election Lab website.

Reuters contributed to this report.

(The Epoch Times)—Who doesn’t know them: the blood-sucking vampires, the eerie undead, immortalized in countless films, and inspired primarily by Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula” (1897). Just think of iconic movies like the silent film “Nosferatu—A Symphony of Horror” (1922), “Dracula” (1958) with Christopher Lee, Roman Polanski’s parody “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (1967), or “Nosferatu—Phantom of the Night” (1979), starring Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula.

Vampires are demons who rise from their graves at night, seeking to drain the blood of innocent victims. Not only do they steal the life force that sustains them, but they also spread their curse. Many victims, bitten by vampires, are “turned,” becoming undead themselves, thus joining the vampire’s dark domain.

The enemies and hunters of vampires face a formidable challenge: vampires can disguise themselves, transforming into creatures like wolves or bats, and often display immense, superhuman strength. They can only be repelled by traditional defenses—garlic cloves, rosaries, holy water, or the Christian cross. But truly destroying a vampire requires decapitation, driving a wooden stake through its heart, or bright sunlight that turns them to dust.

The vampire is an ancient and widespread myth. The image of a blood-sucking undead creature, or similar concepts, has existed across many cultures. This demon embodies superstition—acting as a projection of primal fears, the inexplicable, and evil as the counterpart to good. The notion of a creature that emerges at night, drains its victims’ blood, and draws them from light into darkness is undoubtedly a profoundly threatening one.

When you reflect a little longer on the horror story of the vampire demon, you will inevitably begin to see parallels (or at least points of contact) with the fiat money system that exists worldwide today.

Under Cover of Darkness

It takes place under the cover of darkness: It is fair to say that the vast majority of people are unaware of how today’s fiat money system is structured, how it operates, or what its effects are. Students in schools and universities are, for the most part, left in the dark about it, and the consequences of the fiat money system, therefore, take most people by surprise—unprepared and relentless. Indeed, how many people know that our current fiat money system is a system in which the state’s central bank holds a coercive monopoly on the creation of fiat central bank money, while commercial banks issue their own fiat commercial bank money based on central bank fiat money.

Who knows that fiat money is literally created out of thin air, representing a form of money creation that has no connection whatsoever to “real savings”? And who explains to people that, from an economic perspective, expanding the fiat money supply is inflationary, leading to uneven higher prices for goods and services compared to a situation where the money supply had not been increased? It is also unknown to many that the issuance of fiat money via the credit market causes a misallocation of capital, initially triggering a boom, only to be followed by a bust; that it drives economies into excessive debt; and that it allows the state to grow ever larger at the expense of the freedoms of citizens and entrepreneurs.

In short, for most people, the damage caused by fiat money is unknown; it creeps upon them under the cover of darkness, like a vampire.

Vulnerable Victims and Life Sucked Away

The victims are often helpless and unaware, with the fruits of their labor effectively being siphoned away. Fiat money has something vampire-like about it, enabling one group (those allowed to create fiat money) to live at the expense of others (those forced to use the monopolized money). The first recipients of newly-created fiat money are the beneficiaries. They can use the new money to purchase goods and services whose prices have not yet risen, making them wealthier.

As the money changes hands, it increases demand, and prices of goods rise accordingly. As a result, the late recipients of the new money can only buy goods at higher prices, leaving them at a disadvantage. The first recipients improve their position at the expense of the late recipients. The most severely affected are those who receive nothing from the newly-created money supply—they are, in effect, the ones “sucked dry.”

The vampire-like redistributive effect of fiat money, which operates in the shadows, particularly benefits commercial banks that create fiat commercial bank money, as well as those in a position to take out new bank loans in fiat money.

First and foremost, it is the state and those who benefit from it who are among the biggest winners of the vampire fiat money system. The state finances a significant portion of its expenditure with newly-created fiat money, using it to pay its representatives, employees, and their pensions, as well as the companies from which it purchases goods and services. The state and its beneficiaries are among the early recipients of the newly-created fiat money, making them the primary beneficiaries at the expense of the many who are not closely connected to the state.

One might argue that a redistribution of income and wealth, brought about by the increase in fiat money, would also occur in a commodity or precious metal money system. This is true in principle, but the increase in, say, a gold money system, would be less pronounced than in a fiat money system. The fact is that the latter was deliberately chosen for its vampire-like nature. It benefits the state, banks, and big business at the expense of the general population, keeping them below their economic potential.

Creating Minions

Like a vampire, fiat money infects its victims, turning them into accomplices of the fiat money system. Fiat money quite literally enslaves its users, making them dependent. For instance, fiat money incentivises firms and private households to incur debt and live beyond their means, made possible through artificially low interest rates. People are also encouraged to invest in assets (such as houses and companies) because the chronic inflationary nature of fiat money ensures a continual rise in asset prices. Once people are lured into exposure to fiat money, their economic and financial well-being becomes dependent on the continuation of the inflationary fiat money system and on it being “rescued” by the state and its central bank during times of crisis—even at the expense of those who do not benefit from the system, or benefit much less.

Politicians, bureaucrats, bank employees, and companies that receive government contracts all develop a vested interest in ensuring that the fiat money system is maintained. In this sense, they become fiat money vampire thralls, feeding off the lifeblood of those engaged in productive work by claiming a share of their income.

Moreover, holders of fiat money are the ones who lose out, as fiat money continually loses its purchasing power. In a fiat money system, the central bank ensures that interest rates are kept artificially low—often negative after accounting for inflation—so that savings in time deposits, savings accounts, and bonds are effectively eroded.

Aversion to Light

The vampire and the fiat money system cannot withstand the bright light of day; both will crumble to dust when exposed to sunlight. If people truly understood the negative effects of fiat money and the damage it causes to the world, they would likely reject it—along with the production and employment structures it creates. This is likely why so little is taught about fiat money in schools and universities. Its darker aspects are concealed, with the statist education system as particeps criminis ensuring the bright light of knowledge does not shine on the fiat money system.

Remember that central bank councils are typically referred to as “the guardians of the currency,” and it is said that they “fight” inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth—much like a vampire who welcomes his guests and engages in witty conversation without revealing his true nature. Just as sunlight kills a vampire, sound economic knowledge would destroy the fiat money system, especially when coupled with a simple, well-understood ethic like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Until that day comes, investors should be aware of the serious economic and ethical flaws of fiat money. The uncomfortable truth is that long-term prosperity and peace cannot be sustained under a fiat money system. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest for the bright light of truth to expose and thus end the fiat money system. But how can this be achieved?

By proactively and honestly informing people about the evils of fiat money; by advising them to reduce their dependence on it, both in their lives and their savings; and by promoting a free market for money, while encouraging technological innovations in the monetary sphere that lie beyond the state’s control. Together, these efforts will act like a ray of sunlight striking the vampire-like fiat money system—ultimately causing it to crumble to dust.

The foreign influence campaigns, which include the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate divisive content, are expected to intensify as Election Day nears—and persist after polls close through Inauguration Day in January, according to an Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) security update and a National Intelligence Council declassified memo, both announced on Oct. 22.

“Foreign actors—particularly Russia, Iran, and China—remain intent on fanning divisive narratives to divide Americans and undermine Americans’ confidence in the U.S. democratic system consistent with what they perceive to be in their interests, even as their tactics continue to evolve,” reads the security update.

Social media posts, some of which are likely to be enhanced or entirely generated by AI, were identified as the most common type of election-related influence operation by foreign adversaries.

As an example, the ODNI pointed to Russian influence actors manufacturing and amplifying inauthentic content claiming that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was engaged in illegal activity during his earlier career. While the report did not go into specifics, it could relate to claims circulating on social media that Walz sexually assaulted a student while he was a high school teacher.

“Breaking: Tim Walz’s former student, Matthew Metro, drops a shocking allegation-claims Walz s*xually assaulted him in 1997 while Walz was his teacher at Mankato West High School. Metro was a senior at the time. If this is true, it’s a political earthquake,” reads an Oct. 16 post on X, which shared a since-deleted video of a man making the sexual assault allegations. The real Matthew Metro told The Washington Post that the speaker in the video was not him and that no such interaction with Walz had taken place. Further, the man’s brother, Micheal Metro, told AFP that the circulating video was “definitely not him.”

Darren Linvill, co-director at Clemson University’s media forensics hub, told WIRED that the video appeared to be a deepfake bearing the hallmarks of Storm-1516, a group that Microsoft described as a “Kremlin-aligned troll farm” that has put out various deepfakes, including one about Vice President Kamala Harris’s supposed involvement in a hit-and-run accident.

Microsoft’s threat assessment team issued an Oct. 23 report that dovetails with the ODNI update but provides more details about disinformation campaigns from China, Iran, and Russia, including an AI-enhanced deepfake video linked to Storm-1516 that accuses Harris of illegal poaching in Africa.

Despite the heightened influence efforts, the ODNI security update stressed that there is no evidence that foreign actors have attempted to interfere with vote tabulation or election administration processes.

“Even if they decided to try, foreign actors almost certainly would not be able to manipulate election processes at a scale that would materially impact the outcome of the Presidential election without detection,” states the security update.

This message is consistent with earlier remarks made by Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), who said at the beginning of October that U.S. election systems are so secure that foreign adversaries won’t be able to manipulate the outcome of the 2024 presidential election in a “material” way.

Further, the intelligence community assessed that foreign actors will at minimum conduct information operations after Election Day through Inauguration Day, according to both the ODNI security update and the National Intelligence Council declassified memo.

“They might also consider stoking unrest and conducting localized cyber operations to disrupt election infrastructure,” the memo states. “However, we judge that operations that could affect voting or official counts are less likely because they are more difficult and bring a greater risk of US retaliation.”

Foreign adversaries, which the memo says are “better prepared” than in previous election cycles to undertake influence operations after Election Day, are expected to “almost certainly” conduct such operations after polls close.

Their overarching aim is to sow doubt about the integrity of the November election, and create confusion and friction more generally around democratic processes in the United States. Other aims include acquiring voter registration data and nonpublic information on local election officials, which they could exploit in future cyber or influence operations.

“US adversaries’ longstanding interest in undermining American democracy suggests it will be difficult to dissuade them from engaging during the post-election period,” the memo reads.

The warnings contained in the ODNI security update and National Intelligence Council memo echo those made by the FBI and CISA on Oct. 18, which raised the alarm on AI-assisted influence operations targeting U.S. elections.

The FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said they have “no information suggesting cyber activity against U.S. election infrastructure” that has “compromised the integrity of voter registration information, prevented an eligible voter from casting a ballot, impacted the integrity of any ballots cast, or disrupted the ability to count votes or transmit unofficial election results in a timely manner.”

But the two agencies said that foreign adversaries still might promote “false or misleading narratives” to sway the election or to undermine American confidence in its election systems and processes.

Specifically, the two agencies warned of election-related content produced by artificial intelligence (AI) that has lowered the guardrails for malicious or foreign actors to create more advanced schemes to influence the election.

“We are seeing foreign actors use these tools to develop and distribute more compelling synthetic media messaging campaigns and inauthentic news articles, as well as synthetic pictures and deepfakes (video and audio) at greater speed and scale across numerous U.S.- and foreign-based platforms,” their joint bulletin said.

“These efforts to develop content are designed to undermine voter confidence and to entice unwitting consumers of the information to discuss, share, and amplify the spread of false or misleading narratives.”

In one example of AI-aided content produced by foreign actors ahead of the election, the agency said that Russian groups have “created and deliberately designed” web pages “to look like legitimate mainstream news websites” such as The Washington Post or Fox News.

“Russian malign influence actors also created fake social media profiles posing as U.S. citizens to direct users to these fake news websites and purchased social media advertisements to drive traffic to the specific fake articles on the fake news site,” the two agencies cautioned.

The PSA highlights specific examples of tactics we have seen used by Russia and Iran during the 2024 election cycle to target all Americans. These include things from mimicking national level media outlets like The Washington Post and Fox News and creating inauthentic news sites posing as legitimate media organizations to using paid influencers to hide their hand.

In late September, three Iranian government employees were charged and identified by the Department of Justice for a wide-ranging hacking conspiracy that targeted both current and former U.S. officials as well as political campaigns.

The bulletin was referring to an indictment that was returned last month that accused Masoud Jalili, Seyyed Ali Aghamiri, and Yasar Balaghi of trying to hack the campaign of a presidential candidate, without providing names. But in a news conference last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland confirmed that they were targeting the campaign of former President Donald Trump.

Iran-backed hackers who breached the Trump campaign in June and July sent emails with hacked campaign materials to people associated with President Joe Biden’s campaign as well as various media outlets, said the FBI, CISA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence last month.

But the agencies said that the the campaign of Biden, who suspended his presidential bid in late July, was not interested in the hacked materials. There is also no evidence the Biden campaign even responded to the emails, which were described by the intelligence and cybersecurity agencies as unsolicited.

“It is important for voters to critically evaluate information sources, particularly as disinformation campaigns evolve to use AI-generated content,” both CISA and the FBI said in a news release accompanying the bulletin. “Both agencies urge the American public to rely on trusted information from state and local election officials and to verify claims through multiple reliable sources before sharing them on social media or other platforms.”

Data from the Federal Reserve, released on Oct. 17, showed a 0.3 percent decline in industrial output, following a downwardly revised 0.3 percent gain in August. Analysts had predicted a smaller drop of 0.2 percent for the month.

According to the Fed, the larger-than-expected decline was due in part to disruptions from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, along with the ongoing Boeing machinists’ strike. The aerospace sector, in particular, took a significant hit, with production of aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment falling by 8.3 percent, dragging down the overall index.

The broader picture also looks bleak, with industrial output for the third quarter down 0.6 percent. This aligns with other recent indicators pointing to ongoing challenges in the U.S. manufacturing sector.

The latest S&P Global U.S. Manufacturing PMI, a key survey-based measure, showed the sharpest contraction in factory activity in over a year for September. Factory output and new orders dropped sharply, driven by weakened demand.

“The September PMI survey brings a whole slew of disappointing economic indicators regarding the health of the U.S. economy,” Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement. “Factories reported the largest monthly drop in production in 15 months in response to a slump in new orders, in turn driving further reductions in employment and input buying as producers scaled back operating capacity.”

The deepening decline in U.S. manufacturing, highlighted by the S&P Global report, was reinforced by the Fed’s latest industrial production data. It showed a 0.4 percent month-over-month fall in manufacturing output for September and a 0.5 percent drop compared with the previous year.

Similarly, the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) reported a contraction in U.S. manufacturing for September, marking the sixth straight monthly decline and the 22nd contraction in the past 23 months. Timothy Fiore, chair of the ISM’s Manufacturing Business Committee, noted that demand remains sluggish, with companies hesitant to invest in capital and inventory.

The ongoing slump in U.S. manufacturing has become a key issue on the presidential campaign trail, with both major candidates offering plans to revive the sector.

Speaking in Michigan in late September, former President Donald Trump vowed to “reclaim America’s manufacturing power,” promising tariffs on foreign imports and pledging to provide domestic manufacturers with lower energy costs, taxes, and regulatory burdens.