The Morning Sixpack stays free because the news that shapes your life should not be hidden behind a paywall. Paid subscribers are not paying for access. They are helping fund the research, writing, and independent voice that goes into every issue. Become a paid subscriber and help keep smart, honest news analysis free for everyone.
DHS is investigating after a federal immigration officer shot a Venezuelan man in Austin, leaving local officials demanding answers while the basic question—what exactly prompted the gunfire?—remains unanswered.
Federal Immigration Officer Shoots Venezuelan Man in Austin as DHS Opens Investigation
The Department of Homeland Security is investigating the shooting of 28-year-old Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a Venezuelan man who was wounded by a federal immigration officer during an enforcement operation in Austin, Texas. Garces Perez was reported in stable condition Monday and remained in federal custody pending removal, according to DHS.
What led a federal officer to open fire still has not been publicly established—and that’s the rather important part.
Garces Perez’s attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, said he called his wife after being shot inside his car and was yelling in pain. She said his wife had been unable to get information about his condition at the hospital. Austin Councilmember Mike Siegel said he saw at least two bullet holes in the passenger side of the vehicle. Reporting from the scene also documented protests following the shooting.
Austin Mayor Kirk Watson said he was angry and disappointed about the shooting, while Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, called for an independent investigation. Casar said, “We can see the lies with our own eyes. We will demand truth, transparency, and accountability.” His accusation referred to previous DHS accounts of immigration-enforcement shootings; it is his characterization, and the circumstances of Sunday’s Austin shooting remain under investigation.
The incident follows other fatal encounters involving immigration officers in Texas, including the July killing of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston. Investigations into that shooting remain ongoing. With the Austin case now under investigation, the central facts—including what happened immediately before the officer fired—have yet to be publicly established.
Editor: There are plenty of political speeches available already. What Austin needs now is considerably less spin and considerably more evidence.
Source: NPR
The White House barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters after President Trump objected to their coverage, and now all three outlets are heading to court—apparently the press badge has become the latest battlefield in Washington.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Trump Administration Over White House Press Ban
CNN, MS NOW and Politico said Monday they are filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the White House revoked their journalists’ credentials, alleging that the government violated their First Amendment and due-process rights because President Donald Trump objected to their reporting. Reporters from the three organizations were denied entry Saturday after Trump announced Friday that he was barring the outlets over coverage he described as “fake news.”
This has moved beyond another Trump-versus-the-media argument—the courts are now being asked whether a president can deny White House access to news organizations because he objects to their coverage.
The outlets said their reporters’ credentials were revoked “without notice or process.” In their joint statement, they said they were suing “to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.” The White House had not immediately responded to AP’s request for comment early Monday.
The lawsuit alleges that the administration engaged in unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination” by excluding the organizations based on their reporting. The White House Correspondents’ Association also called for the outlets’ access to be restored, with president Jacqui Heinrich warning that a standard used against one organization because of its coverage could eventually be applied to others.
The dispute escalated further Monday when CNN was removed from its White House pool duties. The lawsuit will put the administration’s justification for the bans before a federal court and test the constitutional limits on restricting journalists’ access to the White House based on the content of their reporting.
Editor: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee reporters unlimited access to the president. The lawsuit now asks a more specific question: whether the government can pull credentials because it dislikes what those reporters publish. That’s one for a judge, not a press secretary, to sort out.
Source: AP News
White House TV Pool Will Not Cover Trump
Six Nobel-winning economists are backing California’s Proposition 40, a one-time billionaire wealth tax that has attracted heavyweight supporters, billionaire-funded opposition, and enough campaign cash to make “tax the rich” considerably more expensive than it sounds.
Nobel Economists Back California’s 5% Billionaire Tax as November Fight Heats Up
Six Nobel Prize-winning economists—including Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Diamond, Daron Acemoglu, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Paul Krugman—have endorsed Proposition 40, California’s November ballot measure imposing a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. Supporters say the money would help fund healthcare and other public programs, while opponents argue the measure could drive wealthy residents out of California and reduce other tax revenue.
California voters aren’t just deciding whether to tax billionaires—they’re stepping into a very expensive argument over whether billionaire wealth itself should become a new source of state revenue.
The economists argue the measure could become a model for wealth taxation elsewhere. In their letter, they wrote: “If the state that houses some of the country’s most powerful billionaires votes to tax their wealth, it will kick-start a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states.” The proposal was developed with help from economists who have advocated wealth taxes and was sponsored by a healthcare union seeking revenue in response to federal spending cuts.
Opponents include prominent Silicon Valley figures, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin financing a campaign against Proposition 40, according to the Financial Times. Opponents contend the tax could encourage wealthy taxpayers to leave California and ultimately cost the state revenue. Gov. Gavin Newsom also opposes the state-level proposal, arguing that wealth taxation should instead be pursued nationally.
The race remains close. A September Public Policy Institute of California survey found a slim majority of likely voters saying they would vote yes on Proposition 40, with most of the rest opposed and a small share undecided after respondents were read the ballot title and label. PPIC notes that the initiative could temporarily generate substantial revenue while potentially reducing annual income-tax revenue from billionaires. Those estimates—and the competing economic arguments—will now get their ultimate California treatment: millions of dollars in advertising between now and Election Day.
Editor: Proposition 40 has economists arguing about growth, billionaires spending fortunes fighting a billionaire tax, and voters sitting almost evenly divided. California has apparently discovered a way to make a tax debate even more California.
Source: Financial Times
The Houthis are pressing deeper into strategic terrain in Yemen while a reported U.S. bombing mission was halted at the last minute—because apparently the Middle East needed another front with oil tankers caught in the middle.
Houthis Push for Strategic Yemen Heights as Trump Reportedly Calls Off U.S. Airstrikes
Iran-aligned Houthi forces pushed Monday to capture strategic highlands in Yemen that could strengthen their position around the Bab al-Mandab Strait, while the New York Times reported that President Donald Trump called off planned U.S. airstrikes against the group at the last minute. Reuters said it could not independently verify the report; U.S. Central Command referred questions to the White House, which had not responded to Reuters at publication time.
The geography here matters enormously: the Houthis are fighting around one of the world’s most important shipping chokepoints while another critical oil route, the Strait of Hormuz, is already under severe wartime pressure.
Yemeni military sources told Reuters that Houthi forces were trying to seize the Kahboub Mountains in Taiz and Lahij provinces, potentially helping them protect recently captured positions near the Bab al-Mandab and open additional fronts against Saudi-backed forces. Hundreds have been killed in the latest fighting, tens of thousands have been displaced within Yemen, and thousands more have fled across the Red Sea, according to figures cited by Reuters from the United Nations.
The escalation is also squeezing energy markets. Saudi Arabia has sharply increased oil shipments through Hormuz after disruptions to its Red Sea export route, with satellite data cited by Reuters showing a dramatic jump in flows through the strait in recent days. Brent crude has retreated after nearing multi-year highs last week, but U.S. diesel prices climbed sharply Monday.
Trump also spoke Sunday with Rashad al-Alimi, president of Yemen’s internationally recognized, Saudi-backed government. Sources told Reuters that al-Alimi requested U.S. support, but Trump made no direct commitment of military assistance. For now, Washington remains outside the renewed Saudi-Houthi fighting even as the battle moves closer to waterways carrying a significant share of global trade and energy supplies.
Editor: Whatever happened inside the White House before those reported strikes were halted remains unconfirmed. What’s plainly visible is the map: Houthis, Saudi forces, oil routes, and two strategic straits are now tangled together in a conflict where a few miles of Yemeni mountains can have consequences thousands of miles away.
Source: Reuters
The Trump administration has pledged at least $410 million to build a network of agreements allowing the U.S. to deport migrants to countries that aren’t their own, turning a State Department refugee bureau into an operation increasingly focused on removals.
Trump Administration Pledges $410 Million for Global Third-Country Deportation Network
The Trump administration has authorized or pledged at least $410 million for agreements with dozens of countries—mostly in Africa and Latin America—to accept migrants deported from the United States despite having no prior connection to those countries, according to internal government records reviewed by The Washington Post. The effort is being coordinated through a small State Department unit called the Office of Remigration, housed inside the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.
A bureau historically associated with helping refugees resettle is now helping arrange where deportees will land—the organizational chart has taken quite a turn.
The Post reports that the commitments include direct payments to foreign governments as well as substantial funding for the International Organization for Migration and the U.N. Refugee Agency, with additional funds going elsewhere. The international organizations told The Post they do not negotiate or participate in U.S. deportation decisions; the administration says third-country removals are necessary for people with final removal orders who cannot be returned to their home countries.
The administration has deported thousands of people to numerous third countries, according to the Post’s analysis of several independent data sources, with the majority going to Mexico. Critics, including immigration attorneys, contend the arrangements can expose migrants to mistreatment or eventual return to countries where they fear persecution. On September 18, a federal appeals court ruled the administration’s third-country deportation policy unlawful in a class-action case, finding that deportees had not received sufficient notice and an opportunity to make fear-based claims regarding their destinations.
The administration defends the program as a way to remove people who have no legal right to remain in the United States when their countries of origin will not accept them or when deportees have asked not to return there. The Post’s investigation, part of a collaboration involving more than two dozen news organizations, found the new system has expanded into a worldwide network of negotiations, financial incentives, and deportation flights—and turned a relatively obscure corner of the State Department into a significant part of the administration’s immigration strategy.
Editor: Whatever one thinks of the immigration policy, hundreds of millions of dollars and negotiations with dozens of countries aren’t bureaucratic housekeeping. The administration has built an international deportation infrastructure, and now the courts, Congress, and the public get to examine how it operates.
Source: The Washington Post (no paywall)
America’s apartment landlords are staring at more than $1.8 trillion in debt coming due over the next decade after borrowing heavily when money was cheap—and refinancing at today’s rates is turning yesterday’s real-estate boom into today’s very large invoice.
Apartment Landlords Face a $1.8 Trillion Debt Reckoning as Cheap-Money Loans Come Due
U.S. apartment owners face more than $1.8 trillion in debt maturities over the next decade, as loans made during the era of ultra-low interest rates increasingly must be refinanced at much higher rates. A substantial share comes due in 2026 alone, following a record year for maturities last year, according to Mortgage Bankers Association figures cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The apartment boom was built partly on 3% money; refinancing around 6% has a nasty way of changing the math.
Multifamily properties became a darling of commercial real estate during the pandemic as rents surged and investors piled into apartments while offices, hotels, and retail properties struggled. Then developers built aggressively, particularly in Sunbelt markets such as Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, and Austin. More supply, slower rent growth, and higher borrowing costs have left some owners facing losses, restructuring debt, or handing properties back to lenders. As Newmark’s Mike Wolfson put it: “There was a sense of relative euphoria. But things turned very quickly.”
The stress is becoming harder to postpone. Delinquencies on multifamily loans packaged into commercial mortgage-backed securities have climbed sharply over the past few years, according to a Morgan Stanley report cited by the Journal. Apartment values are also well below their 2022 peak, according to Green Street. Even major investors have been caught up in the squeeze: Blackstone defaulted in June on a loan tied to a North Dallas apartment property it purchased in 2021.
Distress can eventually reach renters through higher fees, attempted rent increases, or reduced maintenance as landlords try to cut costs. Meanwhile, investors with plenty of cash see an opportunity: Cityview CEO Sean Burton told the Journal his firm is buying properties from lenders again and recently secured a newly renovated Dallas-area apartment complex at a steep discount. In other words, one landlord’s refinancing nightmare can become another investor’s clearance aisle.
Editor: Cheap debt made everybody look clever when rates were 3%. At 6%, the spreadsheet starts remembering who actually bought the building at the top of the market.
Source: The Wall Street Journal (no paywall)