September 10, 2026 Insider Report

REAL ID Goes Live. Who’s Really Being Tracked?

Twenty years after Congress passed it, the REAL ID Act finally has teeth. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is now enforcing compliant identification at every domestic security checkpoint, and travelers without it face a $45 fee and mandatory biometric or biographic verification through a new system called TSA ConfirmID before they’re allowed to fly. TSA frames the rollout in security terms: Identity verification, the agency says, is what “keeps terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens out of the skies.”

However, for years the agency operated by an entirely different standard for a specific class of traveler.

In January 2018, Judicial Watch reported that foreigners in the country illegally were being quietly flown to cities throughout the United States on commercial flights, escorted by government chaperones in plain clothes specifically to avoid drawing attention. That story built on an earlier 2014 Judicial Watch report describing how TSA at the El Paso airport was letting unaccompanied minors bypass standard security with nothing more than a slip of paper. By January 2022, Joe Biden’s administration had formally admitted that TSA had been accepting arrest warrants as a valid form of ID for illegal immigrants to board commercial aircraft, prompting Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to point out the obvious absurdity: An arrest warrant exists to catch someone, not clear them for a flight.

The agency now enforcing strict identification on ordinary American travelers spent the better part of two decades running a parallel, far laxer standard for people with no verified identity at all. If REAL ID enforcement is genuinely about closing security gaps, that double standard is the first place reform should have started. Reporting suggests the Department of Homeland Security is now, at least on paper, working to align TSA and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) more closely to stop that pass-through.

Regardless, the stated rationale is a ruse. REAL ID is accompanied by a nationwide expansion of license-plate-reader cameras provided by Flock Safety, which operates more than 120,000 cameras under contract with roughly 7,000 law-enforcement agencies, producing more than 20 billion vehicle scans a month. Flock has already been caught sharing data with ICE through informal, one-off local arrangements (despite the company’s public claim that it has no direct federal contract), and reporting has documented officers misusing the network to track more than immigration cases. Several dozen communities have canceled their Flock contracts in the past year alone, and some residents have taken to physically dismantling the cameras themselves.

Put REAL ID and Flock side by side, and immigration enforcement starts to look less like the destination and more like the doorway. A national biometric ID standard at every airport, layered onto a nationwide vehicle-tracking camera grid, layered onto the data-center buildout now underway across the country, isn’t a system that only watches foreign nationals — it’s infrastructure that, once built, watches everyone equally, indefinitely, and without a warrant. — Rebecca Terrell

Colorado to Vote on Trans Mania & Other Abuse in Historic Victory for Grassroots

In a historic victory for grassroots forces, an all-volunteer team of churches and activists has secured enough petitions to get three major issues on the ballot for Colorado voters to decide: transgender surgeries for children, males in girls’ sports, and proper punishment for those who buy and sell children for sex.

Leading the charge was Protect Kids Colorado Founder Erin Lee, whose own daughter was recruited into the “transgender” movement by school faculty during an “art” club at a government school in northern Colorado. When the family resisted, everything changed, and Lee vowed to protect other children too.

In an interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman on Conversations That Matter, Lee noted that this is the first time in Colorado history that ballot initiatives have been successful in getting measures on the ballot with no funding. Polling suggests all three issues resonate with voters across the spectrum.

While some GOP states have similar measures in place, Colorado’s Democrat-controlled political establishment has refused to protect children from the transgender movement. Even the Republican establishment refused to help. But by building a broad coalition, Lee and her team have made history.

Catch the full interview at TheNewAmerican.com. — The Editors

Mission Creep in Law Enforcement

Mission creep is the quiet mechanism by which institutions justify their own permanence. A narrow mandate gradually widens until the original purpose is barely recognizable. By the time anyone objects, the apparatus is already entrenched.

The clearest current example is unfolding in Washington, D.C. National Guard troops were federalized in August 2025 under an emergency order citing a “crime emergency,” with roughly 2,600 troops eventually stationed in the capital. Their mandate has since drifted far from law enforcement. Task-force updates reported troops clearing 1,150 bags of trash, spreading over 1,000 cubic yards of mulch, removing 50 truckloads of plant waste, painting fencing, and pruning 400 trees, while a memo signed by then-Army Secretary Dan Driscoll extended the deployment through the end of 2026. What began as an emergency crime-suppression order has become an open-ended municipal beautification detail, with no clear off-ramp and no renewed public debate about its scope.

Other examples abound. Local police departments have quietly drifted from crime prevention toward revenue collection. The Justice Department’s 2015 investigation of Ferguson, Missouri, found that the city’s “focus on revenue generation” had “fundamentally compromise[d] the role” of its municipal court, which functioned less as a neutral arbiter of law than as a mechanism “to compel the payment of fines and fees that advance the City’s financial interests.” Officer evaluations and promotions were tied to ticket “productivity,” and the court issued thousands of arrest warrants annually for minor code violations. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder called it “revenue generation through policing.” Ferguson wasn’t unique; cities from Montreal to Atlanta have faced similar exposures of ticket quotas tied to bonuses, budgets, and pay raises, turning traffic enforcement into a fiscal lifeline for strained municipal coffers rather than a public-safety tool.

At the far end of this spectrum sits an institution whose “peacekeeping” mandate metastasized into something monstrous. In postwar Bosnia, UN-affiliated police monitors and DynCorp contractors, hired to help stabilize a country still reeling from wartime mass rape, were themselves implicated in buying, selling, and trafficking women and girls through the brothels that sprang up around the peacekeeping presence. Whistleblower Kathryn Bolkovac was fired after reporting the abuse, and The Washington Post later reported the UN quashed an internal investigation into whether its own police were complicit. Bosnia was not isolated. An Associated Press investigation found nearly 2,000 sexual-abuse and exploitation allegations against UN personnel over a 12-year span, including a Haiti child-sex ring involving 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers, of whom none was ever jailed. Alex Newman of The New American has spent years documenting this record as part of his broader case for getting the United States out of the UN.

Once an institution is granted physical presence, funding, and authority for one purpose, that authority tends not to remain within its original scope — it expands to fill whatever space is left unguarded. Vigilance about mandate creep is important so that the public does not become the slave of institutions that were founded to serve it. — Rebecca Terrell

How Far Can the AfD Go Before Berlin Tries to Ban It?

The “far right” is on the march in Germany with an electoral victory for the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). And the mainstream media alarms are ringing at maximum decibels.

“The far-right Alternative for Germany party surged to a resounding victory in a regional election Sunday, but fell a little short of winning a majority in its quest to form the country’s first far-right state government since World War II,” is how CBS News reported the news this week.

The AfD won in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt with almost 44 percent of the vote, another sign of the party’s continued rising popularity. Germans are increasingly seeing past the media propaganda and ignoring the warning from its domestic spy agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), which classifies the AfD as an extremist organization.

If it weren’t for women and people over 70, the AfD would have obtained an absolute majority. The party did well with younger people and men. A majority (52 percent) of 35- to 59-year-olds voted for the AfD. It also did very well with workers and the self-employed, notching 59 percent of the votes from that group. And it racked up 65 percent of the votes among “those who, according to their own assessment, are in a poor financial situation,” per a German-language post-election analysis.

If it weren’t for the “firewall” cooperation among other political groups, the AfD would likely have more power in German politics. Among those cooperating alliances is the one comprising Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. Whereas the AfD won 43.8 percent of the vote on September 6 — more than double what it gained five years ago — Merz’s party lost about half its support.

In response to these results, Merz vowed to work on his “much-criticized communication style,” as the folks at The New York Times put it. As if that’s the problem. Interestingly, Merz doesn’t seem too interested in making policy changes. Instead, it appears his party’s strategy is to talk AfD supporters into dropping their standards. “There is this yearning for disruption, for fundamental change,” Merz said. But implementing it will require “compromises.” What’s really needed is “to emphasize, explain and advocate for that more strongly.”

AfD supporters would beg to differ. A post-election analysis summarized the concerns of AfD voters this way:

AfD supporters are particularly shaped by material and identity-related concerns. Concerns about being overrun by foreigners (91 percent) and that “the way we live in Germany is changing too much“ (85 percent) are not so strong in any other following. Eighty-nine percent fear that prices could rise so sharply that they can no longer pay their bills and another 80 percent believe that they can no longer maintain their standard of living. Given that the AfD is particularly successful with voters who do not have a higher education qualification and describe themselves as workers, it is reasonable to assume that these concerns are linked to actual material shortages. Likewise, there is the feeling of being disadvantaged. Sixty-six percent of AfD supporters say they receive much less/slightly less than their fair share. This is accompanied by the feeling that East Germans are, in many places, still second-class citizens. With an approval rating of 83 percent, this feeling is particularly formative for supporters of the AfD.

The AfD’s platform is not much different from that of other emerging populist parties in Europe. At the top of its wish list is secure borders. Germany has taken in the most refugees and “asylum seekers” of any European country, at nearly three million. Germany’s foreign population rose from “0.65 million refugees and asylum-seekers in 2010 to 2.95 million in 2025, with a peak of 3.10 million in 2024,” according to a Rockwool Foundation analysis.

The AfD not only wants secure borders, it wants to close the welfare spigots that draw foreigners. It seeks to tighten asylum laws, and would like to see Germany withdraw from the European Union’s asylum system. Germans want their government to run asylum procedures outside Germany, reject EU relocation quotas, and turn people without papers back at the German border.

The AfD also opposes the green initiatives that have increased the energy bills of Germans and proposes common-sense energy policies. According to the AfD platform:

Subsidies and support programs for “climate protection” and the [Renewable Energy Sources Act] surcharge must be abolished without replacement. We will herald the end of the expensive “energy transition” and the exit from EU “climate policy.” For affordable and reliable energy, Germany must return to nuclear power and maintain its coal-fired power plants.

On that same front, the party wants to abolish the CO₂ tax and reduce energy taxes.

Perhaps one of the AfD’s biggest sins is that it is not a big fan of German intervention in the Ukraine-Russia war. It believes Germany should stay neutral, end financial and military support for Ukraine, lift sanctions on Russia, and restore the Nord Stream pipeline that used to transfer natural gas from Russia to Germany before someone (America?) blew it up.

And what’s a right-wing populist platform without a dig at taxes? The AfD wants lower taxes across the board — lower income, consumption, and corporate taxes.

In addition to its growing number of supporters, among those who back the AfD is the world’s richest man. “You are lying by calling AfD ‘far-right’,” Elon Musk said in response to mainstream media’s incessant screeching.

The “far-right” label appears to be a coordinated attack by Western media as a whole. It seems the intent is to convince the world that there is something extreme about rational policy positions, and it’s as if a memo went out to the Mockingbird Media outlets ordering them to use the term as often as possible. “A Far-Right Win Puts New Pressure on Germany’s Leader,” announced The New York Times. “Far-right win leaves Germany’s Merz shaken as AfD plots path to power,” read a Reuters headline. “Mass deportations and separate schools for refugees: The far-right AfD’s vision for Germany,” screeched CNN. And “AfD party’s landslide win in eastern Germany tests country’s ‘firewall’ against the far right,” read an Associated Press headline.

The mainstream fear is palpable. And if you ask the folks at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the rise of the AfD threatens to upend the unity among the powerful nations of Europe. This is especially problematic since Germany is in the middle of a military buildup likely intended to confront Russia. “In 2025, Germany spent more on defense than any other European country in absolute terms,” wrote CFR senior fellow Liana Fix earlier this year. “Its military budget today ranks fourth in the world, just after Russia’s.” But what happens with all that budding power in the hands of a party that is more loyal to Germany than the international order? Fix again:

Today’s Germany has pledged to use its outsize armed power to help all of Europe. But left unchecked, German military dominance might eventually foster divisions within the continent. France remains uneasy about the fact that its neighbor is becoming a major military power — as are many people in Poland.… Such nightmarish outcomes are especially likely if Germany ends up being governed by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is rising in the polls. The intensely nationalistic party has long been critical of the European Union and NATO, and some of its members have made revanchist claims about the territory of neighboring countries.

And herein lies another problem (for the globalists) — likely the biggest problem — with members of the AfD: They’re not internationalists.

The above is part of an article by Paul Dragu. To read the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.

Stablecoins, Sovereignty, and the New Currency Wars

While Washington has quietly shelved the idea of a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) until 2030, it has embraced something arguably more consequential: a federally blessed private-sector alternative built entirely on U.S. debt.

Last year’s GENIUS Act requires dollar-pegged stablecoins to hold reserves in cash or short-term Treasury bills. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the stablecoin market could grow toward $2 trillion or more in the coming years, creating a substantial new buyer for the short-term government debt Washington is issuing at record pace as the national debt closes in on $40 trillion. A Brookings Institution st u dy puts the plausible range at $400 billion to $2.3 trillion in new Treasury-bill demand by 2030. The government has found a way to make crypto adoption finance its own borrowing, without ever calling it a CBDC.

Meanwhile, the BRICS bloc is moving in the opposite direction. All BRICS member nations are exploring their own central bank digital currencies, and several are already piloting cross-border digital-currency links explicitly designed to settle trade without touching the dollar. India has floated linking member states’ digital currencies for exactly that purpose. The result is a bifurcated global monetary order: Washington leaning on privately issued, dollar-backed stablecoins to extend the dollar’s reach, and a rival bloc building state-run digital currencies to escape it.

That contrast has fueled a theory by Santiago Capital’s Santiago Velez and journalist Whitney Webb: U.S. policy (e.g., sanctions threats against countries trading with Iran, tariff shocks, and other sources of global instability) is being deliberately used to trigger dollar shortages abroad, forcing nations to burn through reserves and drive up demand for dollar-denominated assets and stablecoins. Proponents note that Bessent’s history is well documented: As a young analyst at Soros Fund Management, he played a central role in the 1992 “Black Wednesday” sterling crisis, and helped engineer a large bet against the Japanese yen in 2013.

That résumé is a matter of record. Whether it amounts to evidence of a deliberate, present-day strategy to engineer instability abroad is a separate and far-more speculative claim. What is documented, though? Federal policy is now structurally intertwined with the growth of the stablecoin market, a sitting Treasury secretary has a track record of profiting from currency instability abroad, and rival powers are actively building infrastructure to reduce their dependence on the dollar. Outside observers can draw their own conclusions about intent, but the underlying facts alone raise real questions about who benefits, and at what cost to nations with fewer options, when the dollar system comes under strain. — Rebecca Terrell

Does Iceland’s EU Rejection Signal EU Demise?

As we reported in last week’s Insider Report, Icelanders narrowly rejected membership in the European Union in an August vote. The vote asked only whether Iceland should resume membership negotiations (i.e., accession talks it froze in 2013), not whether to join outright. But Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir’s coalition had pledged to treat the result as a mandate. Rural constituencies voted overwhelmingly against the measure, driven largely by fears that EU membership would strip the country of control over its economically vital fishing waters.

Iceland adds its name to the list of high-income Western European countries that have declined full EU membership while maintaining close economic ties with the bloc. Norway rejected membership in referendums in 1972 and 1994, primarily over concerns about fisheries, oil and gas resources, and sovereignty. It participates in the European Economic Area (EEA), granting single-market access in exchange for adopting certain EU rules and contributing financially, but keeps independent control over key sectors and its own currency.

Switzerland rejected EEA membership in 1992 and later withdrew its EU application. It relies on a dense network of bilateral agreements for market access while remaining outside the EEA and eurozone. Liechtenstein follows a similar EEA path. These countries have prioritized flexibility and resource control over political integration.

Economically, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland rank among the world’s wealthiest nations per capita. International Monetary Fund data for 2026 place Switzerland’s nominal GDP per capita at approximately $126,000, Norway’s around $106,000, and Iceland’s near $110,000 — figures that exceed those of most EU members and place them near the global top. Switzerland’s performance rests on finance, pharmaceuticals, precision manufacturing, political neutrality, low debt, and high productivity. Norway benefits from North Sea energy resources and the world’s largest sovereign-wealth fund. Iceland’s economy draws on fisheries, tourism, renewable energy, and data centers. All three maintain high living standards, low unemployment relative to many peers, and close trade links with the EU without ceding full sovereignty.

For decades, the European Union’s economic model rested on an implicit bargain: Germany, as the bloc’s largest and most productive economy, would generate the growth, exports, and fiscal strength to anchor the whole system, while poorer and more fiscally fragile member states (e.g., Greece, Italy, Portugal, and much of Eastern Europe) gradually converged toward Western European living standards under Brussels’ oversight. The assumption was that everyone would play along, but the bargain has come under real strain.

Germany endured two consecutive years of recession followed by near-zero growth of less than 0.3 percent in 2025, marking roughly four to six years of stagnation — one of the weakest recoveries among advanced economies, with real GDP in 2024 barely above its 2019 level. The loss of cheap Russian gas after 2022 permanently raised energy costs for German industry; the auto sector, long the country’s signature export, has lost ground to Chinese competitors; and industrial production remains roughly 15 percent below its 2017 peak. Some economists have described the trend as structural deindustrialization rather than a temporary downturn. A renewed energy shock tied to the Iran War pushed the German government to slash its 2026 growth forecast from one percent to just 0.5 percent in April, and the European Central Bank has warned that a prolonged conflict could tip Germany and Italy back into technical recession by year’s end.

While Iceland is not the iceberg that will sink the European Union, Icelanders have chosen not to book passage on the Titanic, so to speak. — Rebecca Terrell

Global Trade Growth Cut Nearly in Half as Hormuz Choke Point Grinds Traffic to a Halt

World trade entered 2026 running hot. Chinese exports grew more than 20 percent year-over-year in January and February, global air cargo expanded by double digits, and seaborne cargo grew 5.3 percent. Much of the growth was driven by AI-related hardware such as servers and semiconductors, which accounted for roughly three-quarters of U.S. nominal import growth in 2025. In late February, though, military escalation in the Middle East upended the picture almost overnight.

According to UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the resulting disruption to the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most critical maritime choke points, carrying roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade along with major volumes of liquefied natural gas and fertilizer — has been severe enough that the agency now describes the strait as “practically closed.” The average number of ship transits collapsed from about 129 per day in February to just six per day by late March, a drop of roughly 95 percent. Brent crude has traded above $90 a barrel since the escalation began, while tanker freight rates, marine fuel costs, and war-risk insurance premiums have all risen sharply.

The cumulative effect on global trade forecasts was predictable. UNCTAD now projects that world merchandise trade growth will fall from about 4.7 percent in 2025 to less than 2.5 percent in 2026, a potential cut of one-half. The agency’s 2026 world GDP growth forecast sits at 2.6 percent, with developed economies expected to grow only 1.5 percent and developing economies 4.1 percent. Other major forecasters have registered similar downgrades: The World Bank now projects global growth slowing to 2.5 percent for 2026, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s latest outlook flags the “energy supply shock from the evolving conflict in the Middle East” as actively testing global economic resilience, projecting G20 inflation at 4.0 percent for the year.

This post-World War II model of finished products being the result of an elaborate global supply chain is not the original “American System,” as Henry Clay called it in the 1840s. Under its earlier economic model, the United States produced the overwhelming majority of its goods domestically. The British resented the titanic productive capacity of America and worried about the “balance of trade” issue that this represented. English economist Frederick Soddy openly worried in the 1920s that America had the ability to produce all its own goods. While it had an endless capacity to sell exports to the world, it didn’t require any imports. This created a magnet for gold, which flowed into the United States, and the British did not find that prospect agreeable. Soddy wrote, “When one contemplates a country like the United States, which it has been computed could easily supply almost the entire wants of the whole world without over-exerting herself, a country which has few real wants which it could not as well supply within its own territory, and therefore with little use for imports, but an almost infinite capacity for exports, the problem looks frankly insoluble.”

The British needed a way to make the gold flow back out. The solution was to discourage manufacturing in America and make the United States reliant on imports — thus metaphorically shaking the coins out of the American piggy bank and into the international trade corridors (which the British controlled).

In the 21st century, the model that British economists such as John Maynard Keynes induced the Americans to sign onto is eroding, and this is forcing America to consider producing things domestically again.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick signaled this fact at the World Economic Forum, saying, “Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America.” He added, “It is what the WEF has stood for, which is export, offshore, far-shore, find the cheapest labor in the world, and the world is a better place for it. The fact is, it has left America behind.” He framed “America First” not as retreat, but as an alternative model other nations should consider adopting for themselves: prioritizing domestic industry, border control, and national sovereignty over dependence on interconnected global supply chains. — Rebecca Terrell

Trevor Loudon: Inside DSA’s Takeover of the Democratic Party

Why is it that longtime Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are allowing literal communists into their party?

On Behind the Deep State with Alex Newman, legendary anti-communist researcher, writer, and speaker Trevor Loudon exposes how the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has infiltrated American politics. According to Loudon, the DSA controls the unions, which control the Democrats.

“If you control the unions, you control the Democrats,” he explained. It’s that simple.

For America to heal and be restored, Loudon said, illegal immigration must end, mass deportations are needed fast, and communist organizations must be investigated and prosecuted.

Watch the full interview at TheNewAmerican.com. — The Editors

Global Bond-market Sell-off Drives Yields Higher Amid Fiscal Pressures

A sharp sell-off in government bonds pushed yields to multi-decade highs across major economies in early September. Investors are dumping sovereign debt as concerns mount over persistent inflation, surging energy prices, and large fiscal deficits. Yields move inversely to bond prices, so the decline in prices has driven borrowing costs upward worldwide.

In the United States, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield recently reached approximately 4.8 percent, its highest level since late 2023. Japan’s 10-year yield climbed above three percent for the first time since 1996. German 10-year Bund yields hit their highest point since 2011, while U.K. 10-year gilt yields approached levels last seen in 2008. Similar pressure has appeared in Australia and other markets.

Certain factors are fueling the phenomenon. For instance, energy shocks linked to the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict have driven oil prices higher. Crude oil has traded near or above $95 per barrel, and European natural-gas prices have also risen sharply. Such increases raise expectations of broader inflation, prompting markets to price-in possible interest-rate hikes by central banks.

For the United States, the rise in yields is foreboding. Higher Treasury yields increase the cost of refinancing existing debt and issuing new securities to cover deficits. Interest payments on the federal debt already represent a significant and growing share of the budget. Sustained higher yields would raise those costs further, potentially crowding out other spending or requiring additional borrowing in a feedback loop.

Elevated Treasury yields also influence consumer borrowing costs. Mortgage rates, auto loans, and corporate credit typically move in tandem with government yields. Higher rates can slow housing activity, raise household expenses, and increase financing costs for businesses.

An illustrative anecdote is seen in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, written in 1913 by historian Charles Beard. He argued that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was shaped substantially by the interests of men holding depreciated Revolutionary War bonds. As the bonds came to maturity, they didn’t want to be paid back in worthless state fiat. At the time, each individual state within the Union had its own unique currency, and most were devalued by overprinting. Beard wrote, “But it must be remembered that at the time the new system went into effect, the public had no credit, and financiers were not willing to forego their gains and profits for an abstraction.” Bond-holders didn’t like the setup created by the Articles of Confederation, and wanted a central government strong enough to tax and honor their bonds at full value. Hence these creditors sent the Founding Fathers back to the drawing board to create a new Constitution that pegged a federal U.S. currency to gold.

The international sovereign-bond market has similar deep roots in state power. London’s Barings Bank, founded in 1762, effectively pioneered sovereign lending as a global business, using the issuance of bonds to finance the British government, underwriting the Louisiana Purchase, and becoming so central to European finance that the Duke of Richelieu reportedly named the Barings merchant bank a “sixth great power” alongside Europe’s monarchies.

Over time, the pattern recurs: When empires fragment or states consolidate, new sovereign borrowers emerge. The Ottoman Empire’s collapse produced a dozen new debt-issuing nations; the Soviet Union’s dissolution created more than a dozen more; and European integration created supranational borrowing through EU institutions.

Now, as investors dump Treasuries around the world and weaken the bond market, there will be significant repercussions for many — from individuals wanting to obtain a home loan to giant supranational polities such as the European Union. — Rebecca Terrell