WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve this week held interest rates steady, a shock to observers who assumed geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices may have moved the board to cut rates. Fed Chair Jerome Powell stressed in a Wednesday briefing that the board was holding steady as events in the Middle East played out. “In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation,” Powell said, “but it is too soon to know the scope and duration of the potential effects on the economy.” Fed Governor Stephen Miran, a Trump appointee, dissented from the decision, favoring a rate cut rather than maintaining the current range of 3.5% to 3.75%.  “The thing I really want to emphasize is that nobody knows,” Powell added. “The economic effects could be bigger, they could be smaller or they could be much smaller or much bigger. We just don’t know.” Stressing the unusually high level of uncertainty facing policymakers became a theme of Powell’s press briefing.  Powell said the Federal Reserve is guided by past oil price spikes, which have typically been temporary and had little lasting impact on inflation. However, after five years of inflation running above its 2% target, he added that the Fed remains vigilant for signs of more persistent price pressures. He also noted that the United States’ position as a net energy exporter could help offset some negative impacts. Higher oil prices may weigh on consumers worldwide, but they also boost profitability for domestic energy companies, potentially leading to increased drilling and investment. Over the longer term, sustained elevated oil prices could drive further expansion in domestic energy production, as firms respond to stronger incentives to increase supply. One moment of certainty was the continued pattern of the Federal Reserve fighting persistent inflation and a weakening labor market. Since September, Powell has emphasized the challenge of balancing the Fed’s dual mandate which is maintaining price stability while maximizing employment. “We are balancing these two goals in a situation where the risks to the labor market are to the downside which would call for lower rates and the risks to inflation are to the upside which would call for higher rates and not cutting.” Ultimately, the Federal Reserve chose to leave rates unchanged in an effort to balance these competing pressures. Powell’s March meeting marked his second-to-last as Fed chair before his successor, Kevin Warsh, is sworn in. Powell confirmed that he will serve out the remainder of his term until Warsh is officially confirmed as chair.

Planned Parenthood’s Illinois chapter has agreed to pay $500,000 after the federal government investigated allegations that the branch discriminated against its white employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said there is reasonable cause to believe the organization segregated its employees by race into “affinity networks.” Many firms have “affinity networks,” which allow employees to join employee groups with those to whom they feel similar. However, at other companies, these networks are voluntary, not mandatory. Planned Parenthood had mandatory “affinity caucuses” segregated by race, and employees of other races were not allowed to participate. Every week, staff were required to attend one- to two-hour sessions of segregated racial affinity caucuses or DEI training. At DEI training sessions, white employees were reportedly the target of harassment and derogatory statements such as: they “are white and do not feel racism the same way that non-white patients feel” and “white supremacy is exerted at every level of oppression.” EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said, “Segregating employees by race violates the core promise of our nation’s civil rights laws.” Lucas added in her statement that Title VII guarantees equal treatment for every employee and “those protections equally apply to white workers.” Planned Parenthood employees alleged that the company even restricted the benefits of white employees. “Planned Parenthood also denied white employees access to time off that it granted only to black employees,” the report read. Along with the $500,000 settlement, Planned Parenthood fired the manager responsible for the misconduct that the investigation uncovered. The EEOC says the investigation was prompted after multiple employees brought forward their concerns. The Daily Wire obtained a press release from the Illinois Planned Parenthood affiliate that may have been the start of the organization’s discriminatory practices. Planned Parenthood of Illinois said in a response to a BuzzFeed News article, “despite not having the details of this particular incident, we recognize that Planned Parenthood has been complicit in upholding systemic racism. Moving forward, Planned Parenthood of Illinois is deeply committed to being anti-racist and ensuring that our work is not performative, that there is no divide between our words and actions.” They added, “As part of this work, we’ve created spaces for honest conversations about race and are providing multiple channels through which staff have opportunities to share their lived experiences with leadership.” The Illinois Planned Parenthood is not the only affiliate to release statements on racism in their organization. Nineteen out of the 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates have issued statements. Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest said, “We must confront how white supremacy of the past and present continues in the institutions we are a part of today including our own organization.” The Virginia affiliate said that they acknowledge “our past and our present participation in white supremacy and are committed to stopping, learning, growing and living our values through the hard and uncomfortable work of progress.” None of the statements released by the Planned Parenthood chapters specifically addressed discrimination allegations against white employees or white patients.

A University of Pennsylvania professor who was sanctioned by a court for acting in “bad faith” is set to teach a course on “misinformation” next year. Michael Mann, a prominent climate activist and director of Penn’s Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, announced that he will again co-teach a course on climate change communication alongside Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The course, previously offered at the University of Pennsylvania, focuses in part on combating what Mann describes as a “surplus of misinformation” surrounding climate change. “The problem isn’t so much a deficit of information; it’s a surplus of misinformation,” Mann said at a journalism conference, arguing that outright climate denial is fading and being replaced by what he calls “doomism, division, deflection, and delaying action.” Mann recently confirmed the course’s return on a university podcast, describing it as a “real pleasure” to collaborate across Penn’s School of Arts and Sciences and the Annenberg School for Communication. But Mann’s role as an authority on misinformation should draw scrutiny given his own legal history. A District of Columbia judge previously sanctioned Mann and his legal team, finding “by clear and convincing evidence” that they had acted in bad faith by presenting erroneous evidence and making false representations related to damages claims. “Here, the Court finds… that Dr. Mann… acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court,” the ruling stated. The court ordered Mann to pay more than $28,000 in legal fees. The controversy adds to a broader pattern of inflammatory rhetoric and political activism from Mann, who has repeatedly targeted conservatives in public statements and on social media. Mann has compared prominent figures such as Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, and Rupert Murdoch to the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, and previously wrote that the Republican Party should be “destroyed.” He deleted the posts, but they were saved in screenshots. Michael Mann has been trafficking in violence-justifying (wink wink) Tweets for a long time He is celebrated and rewarded for it in the climate community His latest won’t change that pic.twitter.com/YMpnmxAdWX — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) September 12, 2025 As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Mann faced backlash for amplifying a social media post referring to conservative activist Charlie Kirk as “Hitler Youth,” a controversy that preceded his resignation as vice provost at Penn. He remains on faculty and continues to lead his research center. The resignation came after Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) called on the university to take “immediate, decisive action.” Mann has also drawn criticism for comments interpreted as invoking political violence, including a post referencing “second amendment territory” in relation to President Donald Trump, he has since deleted the post, but it was digitally archived to verify. The course’s co-instructor, Jamieson, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, which has itself faced scrutiny over its handling of climate-related materials. Critics have pointed to the academy’s refusal to remove a controversial climate chapter from its judicial reference manual, even after the Federal Judicial Center declined to include it, citing concerns about bias. Mann has also recently praised the late biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” famously predicted mass starvation and societal collapse due to overpopulation — predictions that failed to materialize. Despite that track record, Mann continues to position himself as a leading voice on climate communication and misinformation. The announcement of the course raises broader questions about credibility, academic standards, and whether individuals with documented histories of misleading claims should be tasked with defining “misinformation” for the next generation of students.

Former intelligence official Joe Kent is suspected of leaking classified information to “disaffected MAGA media” personalities like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — and FBI Director Kash Patel may be poised to declassify information regarding a probe into former intelligence official Joe Kent in an effort to prove that the investigation was not retaliation for his resignation. A report published Thursday by NOTUS also stated that FBI Director Kash Patel was considering declassifying as much information as possible in order to show that the investigation into Kent was already underway when he announced his plan to leave the administration. A law enforcement source told NOTUS that FBI counterintelligence had already begun a criminal investigation into Kent’s alleged actions long before he announced his resignation. An administration official told the outlet that Kent had “leaked classified information from a server to a member of the media.” Kent, according to a Wednesday report first published by Semafor, was already under the FBI’s microscope before he abruptly resigned on Tuesday and stated that he could no longer support President Donald Trump’s administration as it waged war against the Iranian regime. The Green Beret veteran declared on Tuesday that he could not remain on the job — as director of the National Counterterrorism Center — as long as the Trump administration continued military action alongside Israel against Iran. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” he claimed. But shortly after Kent tendered his resignation, several sources revealed that he had not been part of the planning with regard to Iran — and had not been briefed on the intelligence that led President Trump to determine that Iran was, in fact, an imminent threat. By Wednesday evening, reports began circulating that Kent was being investigated by the FBI — and a strategic declassification of the relevant information could provide evidence that the investigation predated Kent’s exit from the administration.

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * Val Kilmer is dead. Hollywood now wants to put him in another movie anyway. Not through footage he had already completed. Not through a role he finished before his death. Through artificial intelligence. We are told this is a tribute. It is not a tribute. It is necromancy. Yes, necromancy. And no, that is not just a melodramatic way of saying I dislike the technology. Taking a dead actor, reconstructing his face and voice with AI, and then putting words in his mouth is not ordinary filmmaking. It is an attempt to conjure a human presence from beyond the grave. Not the man himself, of course, but his image, his shade, his likeness. That is exactly what makes it so grotesque. I know the objection. No, it’s not. Necromancy would mean literally bringing someone back from the dead. This is just technology. This is just creating an image that looks and sounds like him. No. That is not really what necromancy has ever meant in practice. When people go to a psychic and try to conjure the dead, they are not expecting a flesh-and-blood man to walk back into the room. They expect a voice, a shadow, a movement, a shape, an apparition. They expect an image that gives the illusion of presence. That is what they are after. And that is exactly what this technology offers: not resurrection, but simulation. Not life, but a convincing imitation of it. That is why the distinction does not save it. It condemns it. A human being is not merely a face, or a voice, or a recognizable pattern of speech. A man is not reducible to a catalog of gestures and expressions that can be fed into a machine and reproduced on command. A man is body and soul. A body without a soul is a corpse. A soul without a body is a spirit. A digital imitation is neither. It is not the man. It is not Val Kilmer. Val Kilmer lived, and then he died. That is the truth. And when you start creating AI performances that ask audiences to forget that truth, you are doing more than making a movie. You are teaching people to deny death. That is one of the deepest temptations of modern life. So much of liberal modernity is about denying mortality, denying limits, denying the fixed realities of the human condition. It is about gathering to ourselves powers that do not belong to us. It is about pretending we can master time, history, memory, identity, even death itself. It is about maximizing human autonomy until man no longer receives the world as a creature under God, but tries to re-engineer it as his own private project. Paramount Pictures/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images That is what makes this more than a Hollywood gimmick. This is not just another strange special effect or another morally neutral technological advance. It is part of a much larger effort to flatten reality and replace it with manipulation. It invites us to believe that the dead are not really gone, that personhood is just data, that memory can be commercialized into presence, and that all boundaries exist to be crossed so long as the software is good enough. And it will get good enough. That is part of the problem. If the technology improves, people will look at that screen and think, on some level, that they are really seeing Val Kilmer. Maybe not literally. Maybe they will know, abstractly, that it is AI. But emotionally, imaginatively, culturally, the effect will be the same. The dead man will appear to live again. And when that happens over and over, decade after decade, it will change the way we think about death itself. It will teach us that death is not a real rupture, merely a technical inconvenience. It will teach us that the dead remain available for reuse. It will teach us that a person can be broken down into commercially exploitable fragments and then reassembled whenever a studio wants one more performance. That is dehumanizing enough when done to the living. Done to the dead, it becomes something darker. We should not do this. There are living actors — plenty of living actors. If you want a performance, go find a living man to give one. If you want to honor the dead, then honor them as dead. Remember them. Pray for them. Be grateful for the work they already gave the world. But do not digitally ventriloquize them and call it art. And this applies beyond Hollywood. The same impulse that says we should build AI versions of dead actors is the impulse that refuses to accept mortality at all. It is the same impulse that wants to summon, recreate, simulate, and control what ought to be received with humility. It is the refusal to let the dead remain dead, and the refusal to let the living remain creatures rather than aspiring gods. So no, I do not think this is harmless. I do not think it is merely clever. And I do not think Christians, or anyone with a sane understanding of human dignity, should shrug and accept it as inevitable. Don’t talk to your dead father as though he were still here. Pray for him. Don’t ask a machine to conjure the likeness of the dead so that you can pretend mortality has no claim on us. Speak to the living. Love the living. Live among the living. Leave the dead in peace.