China's Rare Earth 'Monopoly' - And Why Markets Will Break It

Authored by Walter Donway via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Commentary

With its recent announcement of a trade deal with China, the White House intended to reassure markets, manufacturers, and the military that China would not sever the supply lines of “rare earths” to the United States. Among other concessions, Beijing committed itself to avoid restricting exports of rare earth elements and related critical minerals essential to advanced manufacturing, clean “green” energy, and modern weapons systems. The agreement was described as a win for American economic strength and national security. But the very need for such a promise reveals an uncomfortable truth: the United States, long the world’s leading industrial power, has become dependent on the goodwill of a strategic rival for materials central to its economy and its defense.

Environmental impact is visible near an industrial plant in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China, on Feb. 4, 2016. ebenart/Shutterstock

That dependence did not arise because rare earth minerals are scarce. They are not. Nor did it arise because China alone possesses the technical capacity to mine or refine them. It arose from a long chain of economic and political decisions—made largely in free societies—that concentrated production in a country willing to accept costs others would not.

Understanding how that happened is essential to understanding why China’s apparent monopoly is far less “coercive,” and far less durable, than it looks.

Not Rare, Just Hell to Process

Rare earth elements are a group of seventeen metals mostly in the first row below the main periodic table in the lanthanide series (elements 57–71), plus Scandium (Sc, #21) and Yttrium (Y, #39), which share similar properties and are found in the same deposits as the lanthanides. They are “transition metals” with distinctive magnetic and fluorescent characteristics. The first was identified in 1787, and by 1947 all had been identified. (“Earths” is an archaic term for oxides, the form in which these elements are found.)

Think of these elements not as bulk materials but as metallurgical spices, used in tiny quantities to produce dramatic improvements in performance. Add neodymium to iron and boron and get the strongest permanent magnet known. Add yttrium to turbine alloys and jet engines can tolerate extraordinary heat. Europium makes modern display screens possible; terbium enables efficient electric motors; samarium strengthens guidance systems and sensors.

Despite their name, rare earths are widespread. Significant deposits exist in the United States, Australia, Brazil, India, and elsewhere. What makes them challenging is not their scarcity but their processing. The essential problem is that they are chemically almost identical, so how do you devise subtly different processes to separate them? More generally, they are chemically stubborn—for example, often intermingled with radioactive materials, and require dozens—sometimes more than a hundred—separation and purification steps. Each step consumes energy and produces toxic waste, making rare earth refining among the most environmentally punishing metallurgical processes in the modern economy.

The crux of the matter is straightforward. Mining rare earths is manageable. Processing them cleanly and at scale is hard, expensive, and politically fraught.

How China Built Dominance

China’s rise to dominance in rare earths was neither accidental nor inevitable. Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s, China’s one-party dictatorship made a deliberate choice to invest heavily in mining and processing capacity. It did so under the conditions of a command economy that differed starkly from those in the West. Environmental controls were lax or poorly enforced. Local opposition carried little weight. State support absorbed losses and encouraged long-term specialization.

The outcome was leadership—at a price paid largely by Chinese communities and ecosystems. In Inner Mongolia, the world’s largest rare-earth mining region, toxic tailings ponds and contaminated water became infamous. Workers there suffered severe health issues from chronic exposure to toxic dust, heavy metals, and radioactive materials. There were—and are—high rates of respiratory, bone, and other diseases, compounded by environmental devastation and working conditions in the heavily polluting industry. Those costs, however, paid by workers and nearby communities for decades, translated into lower global prices. Western manufacturers benefited as consumer electronics became cheaper, and electric motors became smaller and more efficient. Companies like Apple could embed rare earth magnets throughout their products because the marginal cost was low. Magnets made of rare earth alloys like neodymium, the strongest by weight we know, give that satisfyingly decisive “click” when your laptop closes—and have uses in EVs, phones, and defense systems.

Over time, markets adapted rationally to these price signals. Western processing facilities closed. The United States, once a major producer, allowed its separation capacity to disappear. Even when rare earths were mined in California or Australia, the ore was shipped to China for refining. By the early 2020s, China accounted for roughly 70 percent of global rare-earth mining and more than 90 percent of processing and finished metal production.

Laissez-faire indifference did not produce this concentration. It owed as well to asymmetric regulation. Western governments imposed strict pollution controls and heavy liability that raised domestic costs, while China tolerated environmental and human damage in pursuit of strategic advantage. Markets responded to prices and rules as they existed, and production flowed—over time—to where it was cheapest and easiest to operate, even when that ease was politically manufactured. In this sense, China’s dominance was market-mediated, but politically orchestrated.

(In fact, a few analysts warned for years that China’s tolerance for environmental damage and state-directed investment would translate into strategic leverage. They included Jack Lifton of Technology Metals Research, Dudley Kingsnorth of Industrial Minerals Company of Australia, and researchers at the Congressional Research Service and RAND Corporation—warnings that were widely noted but largely discounted at the time.)

From Specialization to Vulnerability

For years, this arrangement appeared stable. Rare earths are used in surprisingly small quantities, even at scale, and the total global market is modest—comparable in value to the North American avocado market. Shortages were rare. Prices generally trended downward. Supply chains became hyper-specialized, optimized for cost rather than resilience.

The strategic implications were visible, but easy for businessmen and politicians alike to ignore—until China began to test its leverage.

In 2010, during a diplomatic dispute with Japan, Chinese rare-earth exports suddenly slowed. Prices spiked. Panic followed. Although China denied imposing a formal embargo, the message was unmistakable.

A decade later, amid rising trade tensions with the United States, Beijing made its intentions clearer. Export controls were tightened. Licensing requirements expanded. Restrictions on rare-earth processing technologies were imposed.

By 2025, China was openly treating rare earths as a strategic asset, one that could be weaponized in response to tariffs, sanctions, or military pressure. The risks could no longer be ignored. Modern defense systems depend heavily on rare earths. An F-35 fighter jet contains hundreds of pounds of rare-earth materials. Missiles, radar, satellites, and secure communications systems all rely on specialized magnets and alloys for which there are no easy substitutes.

And 2026 continues the uncomfortable dilemma. The United States has the resources, capital, and technical expertise to rebuild domestic capacity—but not quickly. Processing facilities take years to permit and construct. Skilled labor must be trained. Supply chains must be reassembled. In the short run, dependence remained. Trump’s sudden tariff war, framed by Beijing as yet another affront to China’s long-promised redemption from its “century of humiliation,” sharpened the confrontation between what the Chinese Communist Party perceives as a resurgent Middle Kingdom and a declining hegemon.

All of this helps explain the White House’s eagerness to secure Chinese assurances. The deal bought time. It did not solve the problem.

Coercive Monopolies Are Fragile

It is tempting to describe China’s position as a market failure or a natural monopoly. Neither description is quite right. China’s dominance is better understood as a coercive monopoly—one sustained not by insurmountable efficiencies, but by political and regulatory asymmetries. It exists because the command economy of one country accepted environmental and social costs that others rejected, and because governments elsewhere constrained domestic production without fully accounting for strategic consequences.

Coercive monopolies are inherently unstable. They persist only so long as the costs of entry exceed the perceived risks of dependence. Once that balance shifts, the monopoly begins to erode. China’s own actions are now accelerating that shift.

Export restrictions and licensing regimes raise prices and introduce entrepreneurial uncertainty. Those effects are painful in the short term, but they also activate powerful counterforces. Higher prices make alternative supply economically viable. Unreliable supply makes diversification valuable. Strategic risk becomes something investors and manufacturers are willing to pay to avoid. This is the market logic that China cannot escape. By tightening its grip, Beijing invites others to loosen it.

From the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 20:55

Sixth Circuit Throws Out DOJ Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Boasberg

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a Department of Justice misconduct complaint targeting U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has been under fire from the right for multiple partisan rulings against the Trump administration and for approving warrants in former special counsel Jack Smith's Arctic Frost investigation that allowed investigators to seize the phone records of Republican members of Congress, a decision widely seen as a politically motivated assault on lawmakers aligned with the president.

The misconduct complaint stemmed from remarks Boasberg reportedly made at the March 2025 Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, he warned Chief Justice John Roberts that the Trump administration intended to “disregard rulings of federal courts” and provoke “a constitutional crisis.”

The Trump administration argued those comments crossed ethical lines and violated the judicial code of conduct.

The complaint also pointed to Boasberg’s 2025 ruling blocking Trump’s plan to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador’s CECOT prison under the Alien Enemies Act. That decision fueled accusations that Boasberg harbored an ideological bias against Trump’s immigration enforcement priorities.

Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton formally dismissed the misconduct complaint on December 19, 2025, though the decision did not become public until this week. 

In his decision, Sutton emphasized that the federal government provided no credible evidence of the alleged comments. He wrote that the allegations lacked any corroborating source, and "a recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them." Sutton added that "a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint."

Even if the comments attributed to Boasberg were verified, Sutton argued, the Trump administration failed to demonstrate how they violated the Codes of Judicial Conduct. He described the Judicial Conference of the United States as "the policymaking body for the judiciary," composed of a diverse group of federal judges from across the country appointed by different presidents. The conference addresses a broad spectrum of judicial issues, from budgets and courthouse maintenance to workplace conduct, judicial security, and judicial independence.

Sutton noted that candid discussions among federal judicial leaders on matters of common concern are a core function of the Judicial Conference. "A key point of the Judicial Conference and the related meetings is to facilitate candid conversations about judicial administration among leaders of the federal judiciary about matters of common concern," he wrote. 

"Confirming the point, the Chief Justice's 2024 year-end report raised general concerns about threats to judicial independence, security concerns for judges, and respect for court orders throughout American history," Sutton added. That report, in his view, validated the appropriateness of similar concerns being voiced at the Judicial Conference.

The White House was not happy with the ruling.

"Left-wing, activist judges have gone totally rogue," a White House official told Fox News Digital. "They're undermining the rule of law in service of their own radical agenda. It needs to stop. And the White House fully embraces impeachment efforts." 

The White House official also argued President Donald Trump needs the freedom to “lawfully implement the agenda the American people elected him on.” The official argued that judges who repeatedly hand down partisan rulings cross a line from interpreting the law to shaping policy, turning the bench into a political weapon. In doing so, the official said, those judges undermine public trust and surrender any legitimate claim to impartiality. The administration has made clear it views activist judges as a fundamental threat to its ability to govern. 

The dismissal of the misconduct complaint hardly ends Boasberg’s troubles. The White House may still pursue other avenues, and he could still face impeachment. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Sen. Ted Cruz urged the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Boasberg over his controversial gag orders in 2023. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 20:30

RFK Jr. Announces $100 Million Program Aimed At Homelessness And Addiction

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Feb. 2 announced a new $100 million program that he said will help homeless people find jobs and treat drug abuse.

Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 16, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The $100 million investment is aimed at assisting homeless people and drug users in recovering from addiction, finding employment, and locating stable housing.

Kennedy told an event on Prevention Day—which is sponsored by the government and dedicated to preventing drug abuse—in Washington on Monday that the health care system under the previous administration was designed to cycle people who suffer from mental illness and drug addiction “between sidewalks, emergency room visits, jails, mental hospitals, and shelters.”

“No one took responsibility for the whole person. No one stayed long enough to help them recover, to help them reestablish their links, and teach them the lessons of how to live in a community,” he said. “That system is neither humane nor effective.”

Kennedy, who has said his addiction to heroin ended with help from 12-step programs, said that the $100 million would fund pilot initiatives that are crafted to resolve long-term homelessness and reduce opioid addiction by expanding treatment regimens that emphasize recovery and self-sufficiency. The program is known as Safety Through Recovery, Engagement, and Evidence-based Treatment and Supports, or STREETS.

“STREETS will engage people continuously, from first contact on the street through recovery, through employment, and through self-sufficiency,” Kennedy said. “Law enforcement, first responders, courts, housing providers, and health care systems will work as one team, so people will no longer fall through the cracks.”

Anyone else rewatching The Wire rn?

STREETS follows an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January that says drug addiction is a chronic disease and that the administration needs to prioritize addiction treatment and recovery.

The new program builds on an investment federal health officials awarded in 2025 to boost homes for recovering addicts. Kennedy says he knows many people who have recovered in such homes.

Kennedy also announced the government will be providing $10 million through an assisted outpatient program to help adults designated as having serious mental illness, which he said will reduce hospitalization, incarceration, and homelessness.

Officials also said that the Department of Health and Human Services will, moving forward, let states use federal funding to pay for addicted parents to receive Food and Drug Administration-approved medications.

And they said that they would be giving faith-based organizations that meet certain standards funding to help with drug addiction recovery.

“This is a chronic disease. It’s a physical disease, it’s a mental disease, it’s emotional disease, but above all, it’s a spiritual disease,“ Kennedy said. ”And we need to recognize that, and faith-based organizations play a critical role in ... helping people reestablish their connections to community.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 20:05

Why Skyrocketing Premiums Were Inevitable With Obamacare's Design

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

The Affordable Care Act would “bend the cost curve” in health care, “moving the health care system toward higher quality and more efficient care.” So said a White House statement in 2013.

Many people now agree that didn’t happen.

“We pay more than any other country in the world for worse health care,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said while campaigning for office in 2024.

“Families pay more, get less, and we’re left with few choices,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) testified in a December 2025 committee hearing.

A combined 70 percent of Americans believe the U.S. health care system is either in crisis or has major problems, according to a 2025 Gallup poll.

Health insurance premiums have more than doubled since Obamacare began in 2014, rising twice as fast as inflation. And satisfaction with the cost of health care registered a record low in 2025, at 16 percent.

How did that happen?

Many consumers believe insurance companies are responsible. Insurers shift the blame to hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies say pharmacy benefit managers are at fault. Political parties blame each other.

Some independent observers agree that the rise in premiums, especially recently, is largely driven by external forces, including the increased use of expensive medications, rising labor costs, and inflation, which reached a 40-year high in 2022.

Others see a more basic cause, one with roots in the Affordable Care Act, the federal law that created Obamacare. Some of the same policies that make Obamacare popular with consumers are actually cracks in its foundation, these observers say. Those policies all but guaranteed premium increases, especially in the program’s early years.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks to reporters as he leaves the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 17, 2025. On Jan. 8, 2026, seventeen House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a three-year extension of the expired Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Here are the key provisions of Obamacare, which some experts say undermined its success.

Foundations of Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act made profound changes in the health insurance industry. One of the changes required insurance companies to issue health insurance in the individual and small-group markets to any applicant, regardless of pre-existing illness.

Americans generally like that idea. More than two-thirds of the public says that provision is very important, according to polling by health care research group KFF. That includes 54 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents, and 79 percent of Democrats.

Known as guaranteed issue, this was one of four foundational provisions built into Obamacare to make health insurance available to more Americans.

The second foundation was community rating, which required insurers to rate, or price, their plans based on the demographic profile of a community, with only limited increases based on age and tobacco use. According to this provision, premiums for people of the same age group in the same geographic area are pretty much the same.

The third foundation was the requirement that certain essential health benefits be included in every plan, except for catastrophic health plans. This ensured that consumers would get real value for their money and not be surprised to find that services such as emergency room visits or maternity care were not covered.

The Department of Health and Human Services eventually decided on 10 essential health benefits.

The final foundation was the individual mandate. This required most adults to either buy health insurance or pay a fine. The point was to keep overall costs down by ensuring that young, healthy people, who would likely incur fewer charges, would stay in the market. The fine was $95 per adult in 2014 and rose to $695 by 2016.

Informational pamphlets are displayed during a health care enrollment fair in Richmond, Calif., on March 31, 2014. Health insurance premiums have more than doubled since Obamacare began in 2014, rising twice as fast as inflation. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Though some of these provisions were popular with consumers, they increased both cost and risk for health insurers. And though the new rules made insurance premiums lower for some customers, prices went up for some others.

And the new rules applied to all new plans for individual and small-group insurance sold in the United States, guaranteeing a shift in the entire market, not just the Obamacare exchanges.

Higher Cost, Increased Risk

As the Affordable Care Act was being considered and implemented, stakeholders warned that these sweeping changes could make insurance more expensive. At a minimum, they said, the requirement that plans cover a suite of essential health benefits could raise premiums.

The Board of Health Care Services at the National Academies warned that including too many essential health benefits could make insurance unaffordable for individuals and small businesses.

“If this occurs, the principal reason for the [Affordable Care Act]—enabling people to purchase health insurance and thus covering more of the population—will not be met,” the board wrote in 2012.

Insurers were wary too. America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, told regulators in a 2012 letter that the choice of essential health benefits would have “far-reaching implications” on the affordability of health insurance.

Increased risk was also a concern.

Insurers speculated on the legality of the individual mandate and warned that Obamacare wouldn’t be viable without it.

“The insurance market reforms cannot function as Congress intended without the mandate and therefore should be struck down if the mandate is held to be unconstitutional,” the insurance trade group argued in a brief filed with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

The old risk management strategy of medical underwriting—pricing premiums based on the underlying health risks of an individual or members of a small group—was no longer an option.

Community pricing would reduce premiums for people with pre-existing conditions or other health risks. But premiums would increase for younger and healthier people. Some observers feared that younger people might stay out of the market, then buy health insurance only when they became ill.

If that happened, it would throw off the risk predictions insurers had made, leaving them with an older, sicker population to cover. In the insurance business, this situation is known as adverse selection.

Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University School of Law, in a 2010 report for The Commonwealth Fund, called that possibility “the greatest threat facing exchanges.”

Michael F. Cannon, a health policy expert at the Cato Institute, in 2010 saw the potential for an “adverse-selection death spiral.”

Risk Mitigation

The Affordable Care Act acknowledged the increased risk for insurers and included three provisions to keep premium prices stable.

First, the law included a risk adjustment. This was meant to protect health plans that wound up ensuring an exceptionally high-risk group of people. Plans that wound up with a lower-than-average risk group would make a payment to plans having a higher-than-average risk group.

Second, the law included a reinsurance program. This was to help plans deal with unexpectedly high medical costs for an individual enrollee. All insurers paid into a reinsurance pool. At the end of the year, each could submit a claim for individual enrollee costs that exceeded a certain threshold. This program, which was intended to be temporary, ran from 2014 through 2016.

Third, the law created risk corridors. This was to help health plans whose total claim payments exceeded the predicted amount. Plans that had lower-than-expected claim totals would pay into a fund. The fund would make payments to plans with claim costs higher than their target amount. This program was also intended to be temporary and ran from 2014 through 2016.

A customer meets with a Sunshine Life and Health Advisors agent while waiting for the Affordable Care Act website to come back online to purchase a health insurance plan in Miami on March 31, 2014. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Spiral Begins

The first several years of Obamacare saw lower-than-expected enrollment, higher-than-anticipated costs, and diminishing choice in the marketplace.

Enrollment was significantly lower than expected in the early years, which observers had warned could be a sign of adverse selection.

After a shaky start due to glitches in the online marketplaces, enrollment in 2014 actually exceeded the modest Congressional Budget Office forecast.

Yet the overall market grew by just 4.2 million that year, as many of the 8 million Obamacare enrollees were people who had moved over from the commercial market, according to a report by Amanda E. Kowalski of Yale University.

By 2018, Obamacare enrollment stood at 11.8 million, nearly 1 million less than in 2016 and less than half of the 25 million predicted by that date.

Data suggest that many of the missing enrollees were young adults.

Obamacare needed an enrollment mix that included 38 percent young adults to avoid a “death spiral,” Cato Institute reported in early 2014.

At the close of its first enrollment period in 2014, Obamacare had an enrollment pool that was just 28 percent young adults aged 18–34. A Commonwealth Fund report indicated that people whose premiums increased had been slightly less likely to buy insurance in 2014. Young adults would have been among those whose rates went up.

The individual mandate, which aimed to offset this factor, faced court challenges beginning in 2010. Though it was not ultimately ruled unconstitutional, Congress set the penalty for noncompliance at $0 in 2017, effectively ending the federal mandate.

A pedestrian walks past an insurance agency that offers Affordable Care Act plans, in Miami on Jan. 28, 2021. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and enhanced subsidies approved by Congress in 2021, enrollment more than doubled, reaching a record 24.3 million in 2025. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Enrollee age was not the only indicator of adverse enrollment, Kowalski reported. Her analysis of cost data concluded that marketplaces in at least 16 states experienced adverse enrollment in 2014.

Data indicate the cost of insuring Obamacare enrollees exceeded expected levels in the early years.

The reinsurance program had obligations exceeding income by nearly $10 billion over three years.

The risk corridors program fared no better. Income was insufficient to meet obligations in 2014, so all 2015 income and at least a part of 2016 income was used to pay off the 2014 shortfall.

The increased coverage requirements had the predictable effect of increasing premium prices, according to a 2017 report by the Department of Health and Human Services.

“In most states these regulations increased insurance coverage requirements and would be expected, on average, to increase the price of [Affordable Care Act]-compliant plans relative to pre-[Affordable Care Act] plans all else equal.”

Premiums increased 22 percent in the first year and a total of 84 percent by 2018.

Insurers began to leave the marketplace. In 2015, an average of 8.8 insurers in each state participated in Obamacare, according to KFF. By 2018, that number had dropped more than one-third.

The COVID Years and Beyond

In the middle years of Obamacare, enrollment decreased, then plateaued after reaching a high of 12.7 million in 2016. Premiums decreased somewhat too, dropping about 9 percent over four years from their high point in 2018. And insurer participation ticked up slightly in 2019.

Then came COVID-19 and the enhanced premium subsidies created by Congress in 2021.

A woman wearing a face mask walks past a COVID-19 test site in Manhattan, N.Y., on Nov. 2, 2020. Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times

Those enhanced subsidies, which expired in 2025, provided financial help to Americans with higher incomes and further lowered the cost of Obamacare for low-income people. Enrollment more than doubled, reaching an all-time high of 24.3 million in 2025.

Yet as enrollment spiraled upward, so did premiums. Prices reached a new high in 2025, averaging $497 per month for a 40-year-old enrolled in the most popular plan.

What didn’t change dramatically was the age profile of enrollees. Though some young adults entered the market in the era of enhanced subsidies, their numbers never exceeded the 2014 rate of 28 percent.

And despite a rise in the number of insurers doing business in Obamacare, some of the largest companies say they find it unprofitable.

David Joyner, the CEO of CVS Health, testifying before Congress on Jan. 22,  said its costs exceeded income in the Obamacare marketplaces last year, and Gail Boudreaux, CEO of Elevance Health—the parent company of Anthem—said it did not turn a profit from Obamacare in 2025.

David Cordani of The Cigna Group said, “We lost money in the exchange all but two years since 2014.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 17:40

English Only: Florida Eliminates Foreign Language Options For Driver's License Testing

Florida announced on Friday that all driver's license exams will be conducted in English only starting Feb. 6, and will end testing in other languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Haitian Creole, Spanish, and Russian, the state's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles said.

Vehicles travel along I-95 in Miami, Fla., on May 24, 2024. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The change applies to both commercial and non-commercial driver's licenses and permits. 

The move comes after federal authorities mandated last year that all commercial drivers be proficient in English to ensure safety - leading to 9,500 commercial truckers getting booted from service by December 2025 for failing proficiency checks. 

"This is a much needed step forward to protect Floridians," said Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia in a post to social media. 

Miami-Dade County Tax Collector Dariel Fernandez agreed, writing on social media "This decision was made to strengthen roadway safety, ensure clear communication, and support consistent understanding of traffic laws across our state." 

That said, Fernandez acknowledged that this may be difficult for Floridians who don't speak English natively, writing "[As] an immigrant, I understand the challenges many in our community may face."

As the Epoch Times notes further, Florida, in recent years, has increased restrictions on the issuing of driver’s licenses, citing an effort to combat illegal immigration. In 2024, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law legislation that stripped recognition of out-of-state licenses and identity cards issued to illegal immigrants and increased criminal penalties for driving without a Florida-recognized license.

“We don’t give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, which you shouldn’t,” DeSantis remarked at an event in March 2024. “This is going to be a deterrent for illegal immigration into the state of Florida.”

Last August, an Indian national was accused of causing a deadly crash that killed three people when he made an illegal U-turn driving a semi-truck in Florida. The Department of Transportation found that Harjinder Singh, an illegal immigrant, did not pass an English proficiency exam. He was issued a commercial driver’s license by both Washington state and California.

Singh pleaded not guilty to charges of vehicular homicide in September 2025.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 17:20

Trump Says Administration Will Seek $1 Billion In Damages From Harvard

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump said on Feb. 2 that his administration would demand Harvard University to pay $1 billion in damages, labeling the university as “strongly antisemitic.”

A flag hangs on campus at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on Sept. 4, 2025. Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

“We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” the president said in a Truth Social post.

The Trump administration last year attempted to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding from Harvard following an investigation into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and claims of anti-Semitism in higher education. The White House said in April that Harvard had failed to protect its students from harassment and violence on campus.

“Harvard has been, for a long time, behaving very badly! They wanted to do a convoluted job training concept, but it was turned down in that it was wholly inadequate and would not have been, in our opinion, successful,” Trump wrote.

“It was merely a way of Harvard getting out of a large cash settlement of more than 500 Million Dollars, a number that should be much higher for the serious and heinous illegalities that they have committed.”

Trump also accused Harvard of “feeding a lot of ‘nonsense’” to The New York Times, but did not provide further details.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Harvard for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Jewish students at Harvard reported incidents of harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks against Israel by Hamas-led terrorists and the subsequent Israeli military offensive in Gaza. Students sued the school, and its former president, Claudine Gay, resigned after congressional hearings on campus anti-Semitism.

Harvard President Alan Garber arrives to speak at the 374th Harvard Commencement in Cambridge, Mass., on May 29, 2025. Rick Friedman/AFP via Getty Images

Harvard President Alan Garber, who succeeded Gay, rejected a list of conditions outlined by a federal anti-Semitism task force and filed a lawsuit against the administration in April 2025, seeking to restore $2.2 billion in grants and contracts withheld by the government.

A federal judge later reversed the funding freeze, ruling that the government violated the First Amendment through its efforts to combat anti-Semitism. The Justice Department appealed the decision in December 2025.

Trump also issued a proclamation on June 4, 2025, seeking to end Harvard’s visa program for international students, prompting the university to file another legal challenge.

Several other Ivy League schools, including Columbia University and Brown University, have reached agreements with the administration and accepted certain government demands. Columbia agreed to pay more than $220 million to the government, and Brown said it will pay $50 million to support local workforce development.

Reuters, Aaron Gifford, and Travis Gillmore contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 17:00

Third Georgia Democrat Lawmaker Accused Of Pandemic Fraud

A Democrat member of the Georgia House of Representatives was charged Friday with lying to obtain thousands of dollars in emergency pandemic unemployment assistance, according to federal prosecutors - the third Democrat in the Georgia House to be accused of doing so. 

Rep. Dexter Sharper, 54

Dexter Sharper, 54, of Valdosta, is accused of falsely claiming he was unemployed while collecting benefits intended to those who had lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sharper allegedly received $13,825 in unemployment assistance between April 2020 and May 2021, while continuing to earn income from various sources. 

"While many of his constituents and fellow citizens were losing jobs and desperately needed unemployment assistance during the pandemic, Representative Sharper allegedly pretended to be out of work to collect a share of unemployment benefits for himself," said US Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg. 

Court records reveal that Sharper certified in 38 weekly filings that he was unemployed and was actively seeking employment. Investigators say he was lying and continued to receive weekly pay from the Georgia General Assembly, as well as from his party rental business - with additional income as a musician. 

“These charges point to some disgraceful conduct at the highest level, which should shock and repulse every citizen”, said Georgia State Inspector General Nigel Lange. “The alleged activities describe a disgusting abuse by an elected official who appeared to trade his integrity for money destined for those in need. Shameful.” 

Two other Democratic state reps have been indicted on similar charges related to pandemic unemployment fraud;

In December, Rep. Sharon Henderson was charged with two counts of theft of government funds and 10 counts of making false statements, resulting in her suspension last week by Gov. Brian Kemp. 

Rep. Sharon Henderson (D)

Meanwhile, Rep. Karen Bennett resigned from office two days before she was charged and pleaded guilty to making false statements earlier in January. 

Rep. Karen Bennett (D)

Birds of a feather, eh? 

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 16:40

Mamdani NYC Housing Plan Has Insiders Curious, Skeptical

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times,

The new mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, has put forward a plan to make housing more affordable, including the government building more housing, freezing rents, and potentially taking over properties from landlords who fail to fix them up.

Affordability is indeed an issue worth addressing, several industry insiders told The Epoch Times. But they weren’t sure how Mamdani could succeed where previous administrations largely hadn’t.

“He’s proven to be really skilled at walking a fine line between opposing parties with different priorities and making each party feel like they’re being catered to,” said Devin Lynch, sales manager at Howard Hanna NYC, a real estate brokerage.

Lynch pointed to the housing ballot proposals that gave the mayor more power over approving housing projects. Many Mamdani voters opposed the measures, worrying they would strip local communities of a voice in the approval process, Lynch said.

“He couldn’t do that because he also courted the union vote, and they all needed the construction and the ‘Yes’ on those ballot proposals for their members. So he’s really threading the needle between these two different opposing goals in his constituency.”

There’s also much uncertainty about the specifics of Mamdani’s plan, given that he has just assumed office, said Michelle Griffith, a real estate agent at the New York City-based Douglas Elliman brokerage.

“We’re all trying to be as optimistic as possible. But the truth is, he’s been mayor for not even four weeks. So we still don’t know what is going to happen,” she said.

“Short term, there’s going to be a rent freeze, so that’s how he’s going to try to soften it for people immediately. And then long term, it’s building more affordable housing.”

Rent Freeze

There are significant caveats to Mamdani’s proposed rent freeze, according to Lynch.

The mayor doesn’t have direct authority to freeze rents city-wide. What he could do is to appoint members to the Rent Guidelines Board, which could freeze rents across rent-stabilized housing units. More than 40 percent of all rental units in the city, almost one million, are rent-stabilized. Their tenants pay rent that is on average about 25 percent below market.

Mamdani can appoint five members of the nine-member board this year, giving him a majority. Whatever decision the board makes would come into effect on Oct. 1 and only for leases that start on that date or later.

However, it’s not just tenants who are struggling with affordability. Costs for landlords have increased, too.

“You already have a lot of landlords that are really struggling to operate in the black,” said Seamus Nally, the chief executive at TurboTenant, a property management platform that caters to smaller-scale landlords.

Maintenance costs have increased by some 40 percent since 2019 and insurance costs skyrocketed by 150 percent, according to a report by the Furman Center, New York University’s housing think-tank.

Meanwhile, New York’s 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act not only made it nearly impossible to release rental units from rent-stabilization, but also capped how much landlords can hike rents, regardless of how much they need to invest in renovations.

Since then, net income from rent-stabilized units has dropped by some 12 percent, according to the Furman Center.

Mamdani’s rent freeze would add yet another squeeze.

“The landlords we’ve got an opportunity to talk to in the area, they’re very concerned,” Nally said.

There also appears to be a growing phenomenon in the city, where landlords leave vacated rent-stabilized apartments empty.

There are now estimated 50,000 to 100,000 such empty units in the city now, Lynch said.

Landlords used to be able to release such homes from rent-stabilization and thus have a prospect to recoup the substantial capital investment many require. In some cases, however, that led to abuse where landlords harassed tenants into leaving so they could hike rents. The 2019 law put a stop to that.

However, it now appears that some landlords are stuck with dilapidated apartments that are not worth fixing.

“You’re looking at non-compliant electric, non-compliant plumbing, potentially structural issues that need to be addressed. And that’s in addition to the standard stuff, like replacing floors, replacing appliances,” Lynch said.

Rather than sinking capital in such projects, some landlords bank on the building going up in price over time or that the law will eventually change, he said.

Government Intervention

Mamdani tapped Cea Weaver, a tenant activist, to head his Office to Protect Tenants. Weaver lobbied for the 2019 state law and has proposed that the city buy “buildings where the landlord is no longer interested in ownership.”

In January, Mamdani tried to delay the sale of one such distressed landlord, Pinnacle Group, which went bankrupt after its business model of hiking rents on rent-stabilized units unraveled. However, the sale went through, and Summit Properties USA obtained over 5,000 mostly rent-stabilized housing units for less than $90,000 per unit.

Lynch doubted whether Mamdani would actually pursue the course outlined by Weaver, as it would come with political responsibility for extensive tenant complaints.

It’s easy to be the “knight in shining armor” speaking on behalf of dissatisfied tenants, but “once you directly assume those problems and the realities of addressing the problems, you learn it’s much harder,” he said.

Public Construction

Another aspect of Mamdani’s plan involves substantially increasing the quantity of affordable housing paid for with public funds. He has promised 200,000 housing units in 10 years at the cost of $100 billion.

He proposed financing this by drawing on municipal bonds and hiking taxes on richer city dwellers. Both of those proposals, however, would require state approval.

Mamdani may get some support from Gov. Kathy Hochul, who may be eager to court his voters, Lynch said.

“That will be a big part of her voting base if she runs for reelection” later this year, he said.

Still, the city already carries a substantial debt burden with its interest expenses having risen by more than 20 percent since 2023.

Mamdani promised to expedite approvals of affordable housing projects, while at the same time promising to use all union labor, which would significantly limit capacity.

There’s still much uncertainty about how the plan will look and what aspects of it will materialize, Griffith said.

Mamdani promises that the public will pay, while the previous mayor, Eric Adams, promised the private sector would pay. And before that, Mayor Bill DeBlasio was “somewhat in the middle of those two,” she said.

“And where are we at now? We still have an affordability crisis,” Griffith said.

The next big question is what will happen with whatever housing Mamdani manages to build. The city’s public housing projects have been notorious for slow and inadequate maintenance, even as the city’s housing expenses nearly doubled since 2022.

Nally argued it may be more effective to make it easier for the residents, rather than the government, to build housing. He gave the example of Austin, Texas, where easing regulations helped to spur a housing construction boom.

“I’m skeptical that what will work is more government involvement when some of the petri dishes that we’ve seen work across the United States have actually used less government involvement,” he said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 15:20

Gabbard Defends Presence At Fulton County Election Warrant Execution

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2 defended her presence at a Fulton County elections office while FBI agents executed a search warrant there, saying President Donald Trump had requested that she go to the Georgia office and that she has the authority to take action related to election integrity and security.

“Interference in U.S. elections is a threat to our republic and a national security threat,” Gabbard said in a letter to members of Congress.

“The president and his administration are committed to safeguarding the integrity of U.S. elections to ensure that neither foreign nor domestic powers undermine the American people’s right to determine who our elected leaders are.”

She said that Trump tasked her office with taking appropriate action under the authority granted by Congress toward ensuring the integrity of elections, and specifically directed her to observe the execution of the warrant in Fulton County near Atlanta on Jan. 28.

She also said she facilitated a call in which Trump briefly thanked the agents for their work. Trump did not ask any questions during the call, and neither the president nor Gabbard issued directives, she said.

FBI officials previously described agents as executing a court-authorized warrant about a month after the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against the county seeking voting records from the 2020 presidential election. County officials have said the records were under seal and could not be produced absent a court order.

Trump has alleged that he lost in Georgia in 2020 because of election fraud.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), top Democrats on congressional intelligence committees, in a Jan. 29 letter said Gabbard’s presence was “deeply concerning.”

“The intelligence community should be focused on foreign threats and, as you yourself have testified, when those intelligence authorities are turned inwards the results can be devastating for Americans privacy and civil liberties,” they wrote.

The lawmakers asked for Gabbard’s reasoning for attending the FBI operation and legal authorities for her involvement and that of other intelligence officials.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) was among other critics of Gabbard’s actions.

“The seizure of ballots in Fulton County may trace back to Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 loss, but the danger is forward-looking. Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, and the FBI should not be seizing ballots,” he said on social media on Feb. 1.

Gabbard said in response that personnel from the National Counterintelligence and Security Center traveled with her to Fulton County but were not present during the execution of the warrant. She said that she has not seen the warrant, which is under seal, or evidence submitted to the court by the Department of Justice.

She also said that to preserve the integrity of American elections, officials must determine whether there has been malign interference and whether election systems are vulnerable to future exploitation.

“Election security is a national security issue,” Gabbard wrote.

The National Security Act gives the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the authority to coordinate and integrate national intelligence, including intelligence related to elections, Gabbard said.

She promised that the office would not “irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments” concerning election interference.

Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said on X this week that Gabbard had found 2020 election fraud. Kent, who did not elaborate, later shared Gabbard’s letter to Warner and Himes.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 14:00

Kremlin Says India Hasn't Confirmed Oil Cutoff As Modi Govt Mute, Hasn't Ratified

The Kremlin on Tuesday pushed back on Trump's claims that India is preparing to cut off Russian oil purchases following his major Truth Social announcement of a new US-India trade deal that sharply reduces tariffs on Indian exports.

"So far, we haven't heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, signaling that Moscow has received no official confirmation from India in light of Trump's assertions.

via Reuters

Peskov said Moscow is still "carefully monitoring the news" around Trump's claims, on the heels of his "wonderful" phone call with India's Modi and the tariff relief.

Trump had announced the US will trim its punitive tariff on Indian imports to 18% after striking what he hailed as a new "trade deal” with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Crucially it hinges on New Delhi having reportedly ended its purchases of Russian crude and swapping them for massive US energy and goods buys.

"Out of friendship and respect for Prime Minister Modi and, as per his request, effective immediately, we agreed to a Trade Deal between the United States and India, whereby the United States will charge a reduced Reciprocal Tariff, lowering it from 25% to 18%," Trump posted. "Our amazing relationship with India will be even stronger going forward."

And yet, 24 hours later and India's Foreign Ministry has also remained silent on the question of abandoning Russian oil.

Given all of this, and that the potential remains that Trump's statements were too out front and presumptuous in terms of anything India may have actually agreed to in a finalized way, Peskov additionally said that while Russia "respects" US-Indian relations, Moscow's priority remains its own "strategic partnership" with New Delhi.

"And we intend to continue to comprehensively develop our bilateral relations with New Delhi, which is exactly what we’re doing," he emphasized.

As recently as December, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was prepared to continue “uninterrupted shipments” of oil to India despite pressure from Washington.

Modi's learning from Trump's social media about how India will not buy Russian oil & details of US India trade deal (before any Indian announcement) is certainly a first...

Modiji has undoubtedly given many firsts to India. Learning from Trump’s X account about how India will not buy Russian oil & details of US India trade deal (before any Indian announcement) is certainly a first. Jai Modiji pic.twitter.com/Yt44xgcVeA

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) February 2, 2026

Perhaps Trump's statement was intentionally premature in order to build more leverage and pile the pressure on Modi? The 'devil is in the details' in terms of what was actually agreed to in the phone call. The coming days will likely tell.

* * *

Below is more commentary via Rabobank...

Trump also struck a trade deal with India, reducing reciprocal tariffs to 18% and dropping the additional 25% after claiming India would stop buying Russian oil in favor of Venezuelan, showing how geopolitics links up. This isn’t the FTA the EU just signed, but let’s see which proves more important over time: as a well-placed Indian source noted to me, there‘s no growth in Europe vs. the US.

The fact the US will insist on the same no-transshipment rules for Chinese goods that it has with other trade partners is a blow to Beijing; equally, it blows up European hopes of building a trade coalition without the US (and in India frictions will continue, i.e., the EU agreed on green tech collaboration with Delhi, but the US said it is going to sell it more coal). The defense component will also be key. Europe now has a strategic partnership with India in that regard, but national governments hold sway there: will they want to see their defense industries moved to South Asia(?) By contrast, the US is able to move faster, though we shall see what they are prepared to share with India. Delhi at least gets to play both sides off against the other.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 13:40

EU Pushes Rare Earth Mineral Partnership With US To Cut China Reliance

The European Union plans to propose a new critical-minerals partnership with the United States, aimed at limiting China’s influence and strengthening shared supply chains, according to Bloomberg.

According to people familiar with the talks, the EU is ready to sign a memorandum of understanding that would create a “Strategic Partnership Roadmap” within three months. The goal is to coordinate efforts to secure key minerals needed for modern technologies and reduce reliance on China’s low-cost supplies, which currently give Beijing significant leverage.

Under the proposal, the EU and US would explore joint mining and processing projects, consider price-support systems, and develop safeguards against market manipulation and oversupply. The plan also calls for building more resilient supply networks between both sides.

Bloomberg reports that the draft agreement stresses respect for territorial integrity, an issue that gained importance after recent tensions linked to President Donald Trump’s comments about Greenland. The proposal arrives as Washington prepares to meet with allied countries to advance agreements that cut dependence on Chinese minerals.

While similar efforts by previous US administrations have had limited results, officials say this push reflects growing urgency after China imposed export controls on rare earths last year. Although some restrictions were eased following talks between Trump and Xi Jinping, US officials are now seeking faster progress.

Washington is also urging partners to adopt pricing mechanisms to protect Western producers from cheaper Chinese exports. When the US encouraged individual EU countries to sign bilateral deals, the European Commission pushed for a unified approach, receiving backing from member states to negotiate on their behalf.

Despite doubts about whether a comprehensive agreement can be reached quickly, the EU’s offer suggests negotiations are moving forward. The proposal aligns with US interest in stockpiling minerals, following Trump’s recent $12 billion stockpile initiative.

According to sources, the new draft centers on closer cooperation to strengthen supply chains, cut strategic dependencies, and improve resilience to disruptions, while also deepening industrial and economic ties through joint projects. It proposes mutual exemptions from certain export controls on critical raw materials and calls for expanded collaboration on research and innovation across the full supply chain. The plan also emphasizes sharing information on risks and market conditions, boosting transparency, and considering measures such as joint stockpiles or a coordinated response group. In addition, it outlines closer alignment on how both sides handle export restrictions involving third countries.

Recall, the Trump administration is preparing to launch a major initiative aimed at protecting US manufacturers from disruptions in the supply of critical minerals, committing about $12 billion in initial funding to build a strategic stockpile of essential materials. The project, known as Project Vault, is designed to reduce America’s dependence on China for rare earths and other strategically important metals. By creating a centralized reserve for civilian industries, officials hope to cushion companies against sudden shortages and sharp price swings that can disrupt production and strain finances.

More than a dozen major companies have joined Project Vault, including General Motors, Stellantis, Boeing, Corning, GE Vernova, and Google. Three large trading firms - Hartree Partners, Traxys North America, and Mercuria Energy - will handle sourcing and purchasing materials for the stockpile.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 13:00

Novo Nordisk Shares Sink After Sales Outlook Misses As US GLP-1 Competition Intensifies

Novo Nordisk ADRs were clubbed like a baby seal around midday after the Danish drugmaker said in an early full-year outlook release that it expects sales to shrink 5% to 13% at constant exchange rates, far worse than the expected 1.3% decline Wall Street analysts had been expecting, according to Bloomberg consensus.

Here's a snapshot of the full year forecast (courtesy of Bloomberg):

• Sees sales at constant exchange rates -5% to -13%, estimate -1.39% (Bloomberg Consensus)

• Sees operating profit at constant FX -5% to -13%, estimate -3.12%

Novo's annual sales last declined in 2017 during an insulin price war in the US market. The Danish drugmaker faces a multi-front battle, with Eli Lilly's Zepbound gaining ever-larger market share in the US and continued pressure from copycat versions of Ozempic.

Trading was halted ahead of the report. When trading resumed, Novo's U.S.-listed shares plunged 13%, the largest intra-day decline since -21% on July 29, 2025.

Since Novo ADRs peaked around $145 in mid-2024, shares have been locked in a vicious bear market, down about 64% from the highs.

Hopes for a turnaround emerged late last year (read here), but those expectations have since been erased after today's dismal outlook.

Last week, Goldman analyst Faris Mourad told clients that "obesity drugs narrative sentiment is on the rise" and "it's an opportunity to buy the dip."

More here on Mourad's call urging clients to buy into beaten-down obesity drug stocks.

And Goldman's long-time Novo bull, analyst James Quigley, is out with his first take on earnings, writing:

"At the time of writing, the Novo ADR was -14.5%, tomorrow morning we would expect the Novo shares to react broadly in line with the implied FY26 operating cuts of c.9%, as FY26 is a re-set year with respect to the pricing aspect of the GLP-1 market." 

Perhaps it's time for Quigley to just give up on Novo... 

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 12:45

US Shoots Down Iranian Drone In 'Self-Defense' In Gulf Waters

Update (1243ET): 

A highly dangerous direct first encounter between Iranian and US forces operating in close proximity in the Persian Gulf region, as an Iranian drone has been downed:

• US F-35 WARPLANE SHOT DOWN DRONE IN SELF-DEFENSE: CENTCOM

"USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) was transiting the Arabian Sea approximately 500 miles from Iran's southern coast when an Iranian Shahed-139 drone unnecessarily maneuvered toward the ship. The Iranian drone continued to fly toward the ship despite de-escalatory measures taken by US forces operating in international waters," US Central Command (CENTCOM) Spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins said.

An F-35C fighter jet launched from the carrier shot down the drone in self-defense to protect the vessel and its crew, Hawkins claimed in the official explanation. There were no reports of injuries.

There's as yet no account of the incident from the Iranian side, at a moment the Islamic Republic has said its "finger is on the trigger" while awaiting a potential Trump decision for military action. This event alone could derail the expected Friday nuclear talks hosted by Turkey.

In energy markets, WTI futures briefly spiked into $63/bbl handle and have since retreated to $62/bbl. 

Headlines from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt:

• CENTCOM ACTED APPROPRIATELY TO SHOOT DOWN IRAN DRONE

• IRANIAN DRONE WAS UNMANNED

The comment above was enough to hit oil after the spike... 

Here is what one X slueth is saying (read thread). 

*  *  *

UK Maritime Trade Operations warned of a "suspicious activity" on Tuesday morning at the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most critical energy chokepoint, after numerous small armed boats attempted to stop a U.S. oil tanker.

This is what UKMTO has reported so far:

• Location: about 16 nautical miles north of Oman, within the inbound traffic separation scheme

• Incident: a merchant vessel was hailed on VHF by multiple small armed boats

• Response: the vessel ignored requests to stop and continued on its planned route

• Status: authorities are investigating

• Guidance: all vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO

Here's the UKMTO Advisory:

The Wall Street Journal provided more color on the situation, including the U.S. tanker:

Maritime-security firm Vanguard Tech said in a message to clients that six Iranian gunboats armed with 50-caliber guns approached the tanker as it entered the strategic waterway and ordered it to kill the engines and prepare to be boarded. Instead, the vessel sped up and was later escorted by a U.S. warship.

U.S. officials confirmed armed Iranian boats tried to stop a U.S.-flagged ship and that it was escorted to safety.

The incident occurred at the critical maritime chokepoint where 20% of oil trade and a large share of LNG flows pass daily.  

At its narrowest, shipping lanes are only about 2 miles wide in each direction...

Brent crude prices are marginally higher on the session, trading around $66/bbl handle.

UBS analyst Dominic Ellis provided clients with his assessment of the crude oil market early Tuesday: "The Lowdown: Oil At Risk Of Near-Term Pullback But Risks Remain."

Ellis continued:

In the near term, UBS strategists are expecting a pullback in oil, which is running ahead of their assumptions for the quarter and the year. They see the market as oversupplied this quarter and in the full year, which should pull Brent back down into the low $60s. It is now in the mid $60s having touched low $70s very recently.

What is challenging their view is that the U.S. is building up a presence in the Middle East, and there is a perceived risk of direct intervention in Iran, which could impact Iranian supply and potentially if things spill over into the wider region, affect the 20% of global crude flows that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent crude prices...

US-Iran tensions appear to be simmering down:

• Oil Prices Tumble 5% Amid Signs Of US-Iran De-escalation

This comes as the U.S. has been building up naval forces in the region for a possible strike on Iran.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 12:43

Watch: Viral Video Exposes Democrats' Staggering Hypocrisy On Immigration Enforcement

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A viral video compilation circulating on X has laid bare the dramatic reversal in Democratic positions on immigration, showcasing top party figures advocating for robust border security measures that they now vehemently oppose.

This shift comes amid growing public demand for deportations, exposing a calculated pivot away from policies that once aligned with American interests.

The video, posted by @WesternLensman on X, features archived clips of prominent Democrats articulating views on immigration that echo today’s America First agenda. It underscores how border security was once a bipartisan consensus before the party’s radical elements took over.

NEW VIDEO: For decades, border security and immigration enforcement weren’t controversial or radical ideas.

The only thing that changed?

Democrats. pic.twitter.com/h1MHLdRIn3

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 2, 2026

In one clip, former President Barack Obama states, “Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.”

Obama continues in another segment: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.”

He adds, “We’ve had five million undocumented workers come over the borders. It has become an extraordinary problem.”

Former President Bill Clinton echoes this sentiment: “All Americans not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.”

Clinton asserts, “And we must do more to stop it.”

Joe Biden, in an older clip, is asked, “Yes or no, would you allow sanctuary cities to ignore the federal law?”

He responds, “No. Any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security.”

Hillary Clinton criticizes sanctuary policies: “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.”

Clinton also says, “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”

She further declares, “We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens.”

Clinton emphasizes, “We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explains, “People say, well why can’t you stop illegal immigrants from coming here? And the number one answer we give is when they come here they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.”

Schumer states plainly, “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple,” further warning “Open borders, you’re doing away with a concept of nation state.”

Senator Bernie Sanders affirms, “Our nation like all nations has the right and obligation to control its borders.”

Finally, Obama reinforces accountability: “No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

This compilation arrives as Democrats ramp up efforts to undermine ICE and DHS operations. Recent reports highlight Senate Democrats threatening to block government funding over demands for reforms to immigration enforcement following incidents in Minneapolis, including fatal shootings by federal agents. They seek measures like requiring warrants for arrests and ending roving patrols, moves that would hamstring border security.

Such positions mark a stark departure from their earlier stances, prioritizing open borders and globalist priorities over national sovereignty.

This hypocrisy is all the more glaring given the overwhelming public support for mass deportations. As we previously reported, multiple polls confirm that 55% to 64% of Americans favor deporting all illegal immigrants, with sentiments hardening against unchecked influxes.

The video serves as a potent reminder that secure borders were once uncontroversial—until Democrats decided otherwise to chase votes and advance agendas that erode American communities.

With President Trump poised to ramp up enforcement, these past admissions from Democratic leaders only strengthen the case for restoring law and order at the border, putting America first once more.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 12:25

'SaaSpocalypse' Strikes As Private Credit-Software Stock Vicious Cycle Accelerates

Yesterday, in a must read report for everyone, we highlighted the shocking reality of the circular firing squad evolving between private credit providers (BDCs) and software companies as the latter suffers from artificial intelligence's domination and the former's pain grows from the massive exposure it faces to those very same software entities.

“Software is the largest sector exposure for BDCs, at around 20% of portfolios, making the industry particularly sensitive to the recent decline in software equity and credit valuations,” Barclays analysts including Peter Troisi wrote in a note available to pro subs.

The total exposure was about $100 billion in the third quarter of last year, the analysts said, citing PitchBook data.

Read the full report here...

Today the vicious cycle is accelerating as the details of the report hit the mainstream with Bloomberg reporting that sentiment has gone from bearish to doomsday lately with traders dumping shares of companies across the industry as fears about the destruction to be wrought by artificial intelligence pile up.

“We call it the ‘SaaSpocalypse,’ an apocalypse for software-as-a-service stocks,” said Jeffrey Favuzza, who works on the equity trading desk at Jefferies.

“Trading is very much ‘get me out’ style selling.”

The anxiety was underscored Tuesday after AI startup Anthropic released a productivity tool for in-house lawyers, sending shares of legal software and publishing firms tumbling.

Hedge funds have already been exiting the 'software' building en masse, as noted over the weekend, Goldman's Prime Brokerage showed a stunning chart: the divergence between hedge fund exposure in semiconductor companies (broadly seen as beneficiaries of the AI supercycle) and software companies (increasingly seen as the biggest losers of AI), has never been greater.

It appears that the rest of the market is now waking up to that pain trade.

Goldman Sachs Software stock basket is collapsing, now back near Liberation Day lows from last year...

Perceived risks to the software industry have been simmering for months, with the January release of the Claude Cowork tool from Anthropic supercharging disruption fears.

“I ask clients, ‘what’s your hold-your-nose level?’ and even with all the capitulation, I haven’t heard any conviction on where that is,” Favuzza said.

“People are just selling everything and don’t care about the price.”

All told, the S&P North American software index is on a three-week losing streak that pushed it to a 15% drop in January, its biggest monthly decline since October 2008.

Simply put, fears of an AI-induced wave of obsolescence have left investors wondering which industries will be left behind.

“The draconian view is that software will be the next print media or department stores, in terms of their prospects,” said Favuzza at Jefferies.

“That the pendulum has swung so far to the sell-everything side suggests there will be super-attractive opportunities that come out of this. However, we’re all waiting for an acceleration, and when I look out to 2026 or 2027 numbers, it is hard to see the upside. If Microsoft is struggling, imagine how bad it could be for companies more in the path of disruption, or without its dominant position.”

FactSet notes that 75% of companies have beat on EPS and 65% beat on revenue. That’s not great by hit-rate standards.

Instead, as Bloomberg reports, the lift is coming from magnitude - fewer companies are clearing the bar, but the ones that do are clearing it by enough to keep the aggregate results looking healthy.

But, as we noted in detail previously, and briefly at the start of this note, the pain in software is not staying there as BDCs are suffering significantly.

Private credit could see default rates surge to as high as 13% in the US if artificial intelligence triggers an “aggressive” disruption among corporate borrowers, UBS Group AG strategists wrote in a separate note on Monday.

And today we see that fear contagiously accelerate in the BDCs, including Blue Owl, Blackstone, and Ares...

The central issue facing investors who want to buy software stocks is separating the AI winners from the losers. Clearly, some of these companies are going to thrive, meaning their stocks are effectively on sale after the recent rout. But it may be too early to determine who they are.

“The fear with AI is that there’s more competition, more pricing pressure, and that their competitive moats have gotten shallower, meaning they could be easier to replace with AI,” said Thomas Shipp, head of equity research at LPL Financial, which has $2.4 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets.

“The range of outcomes for their growth has gotten wider, which means it’s harder to assign fair valuations or see what looks cheap.”

For now, traders are selling first as the threat of falling software equity prices prompts painful balance sheet reflection at private credit shops (which don't report until late Fed/early March), triggering less availability of credit (or pulling existing lines), feeding back into lower growth potential for software companies (which already face existential threats from AI).

Much more on this whole fiasco in the full Barclays note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 12:10

Heavy Metal(s) And Concepts

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Markets have shrugged off heavy metal(s) even though their plunge Friday was staggering. We are up around 5% in gold this morning following reports of queues of Singaporeans buying the dip yesterday. Yet note that this happened to an asset seen as a “safe-haven”, and as the foundation of a new global system - even as nobody anywhere is close to demanding gold as payment for exports, or is able to do so if needed. Indeed, there are whispers that a key driver of, and much of the worst damage from, the pump-‘n’-dump was centered in China (whose neo-mercantilism is ironically a key reason for fractures in fiat currency and the liberal world order). One wonders how long generic ‘markets’ can stay calm in a world in which so many people are so unenamoured of fiat FX; and how metals can cope with “because markets!” HFT speculation that make them trade like an NFT or meme stock.

Then again, markets seem to have put the extraordinary recent volatility in JGBs behind them  when nothing has been resolved there. PM Takaichi seems set for a landslide victory on 8 February that will lead us back to where we were - save the US suggesting there’s no bailout from it coming for Japan. That leaves the world’s third largest economy, the $7.8 trillion JGB market, and JPY all on edge as Tokyo deals with rising geopolitical tensions with China over Taiwan.

Going back to Friday, a meme is that metals were heavy as Fed Chair nominee Warsh was seen as a hawk: yet there’s as much likelihood of that being true as that he was picked for his looks. US rates are going to fall, but Warsh just looks hawkish. Moreover, a hawk/dove framing is arguably now irrelevant. What I dub ‘reverse perestroika’ implies a shift to a Treasury- not Fed-centric system and to industry from financialisation: logically that implies different interest rates by sector, so hawkish and dovish. As @mnicoletos puts it, it means changes to encourage banks to lend more into productive sectors. And as @ctindale points out, it requires abandoning abstract economist models of aggregate supply and demand -- useless vs shocks like rare earths -- to address specific material constraints in each sector, e.g., funding stockpiles to release rather than raising rates. If Warsh wants a ‘regime change’ at the Fed (as do Bessent and Trump), then that’s the form it will take, comrades, not just ‘hawk/dove’.

That’s too late for those who ended up having to raise rates after cutting them, i.e., the RBA. Australia’s property-addled economy and Reserve Bank are the first to U-turn on “because (property) markets” rate cuts, hiking to 3.85%, because of “materially” higher inflation, rather than the low inflation their abstract model had told them was looming. It looks like another hike is also going to have to follow. As the Aussie financial press put it, “Chalmers and Bullock both messed up on inflation – the RBA is finally trying to fix its inflation mistakes. When will the federal government follow suit?” Equally, when will abstract models follow suit? And when will markets grasp that is what logically follows on from all of this?

Oil slumped 4.5% Monday on the view Iranian threats of regional war are overblown. The US and Iran will talk Friday, yet the US wants a deal to end its nuclear program, which it bombed last year, and its ballistic missile program and support for terrorist proxies; Iran may float handing over enriched uranium, but says it will only act within its “national interests.” Don’t just read the financial press: follow the logistical build-up of US military power; consider reports Trump favors regime change following as many as 30,000 Iranian protestor deaths; and see there is no geostrategic logic in the US moving weapons into place then allowing Iran to carry on (including selling oil to China).

That’s also as the START US-Russia arms control agreement STOPS on Thursday, kick-starting a new nuclear arms race. Europe might have to join this time. In which case, the politics are very complex --as Draghi called for an EU “federation” to avoid being “picked off one by one” by the US and China-- and as a nuclear trifecta could cost from hundreds of billions to a trillion euros. Add it to the Strategic Autonomy bill, as Europe finds that: it’s struggling to coordinate defence efforts; even replacing the US-backed internal communication system for defence data will take until at least 2030; and as it was warned that its efforts to diversify critical minerals supplies have “incomplete foundations” due to their “nonbinding” targets.

By contrast, President Trump will launch Project Vault --$12bn in seed capital, $1.7bn private, the rest from a 15-year US Export-Import Bank loan-- to build a US strategic critical minerals stockpile. This is separate from the Pentagon’s and is for the civilian economy. The intention is to insulate it from wild price swings in key inputs --something China has long done for key goods, but which the West has eschewed because of its brilliant intellectual conceit of “because markets” as the answer to everything -- as well as economic coercion - which China has again been able to threaten in rare earths “because markets.”

Trump also struck a trade deal with India, reducing reciprocal tariffs to 18% and dropping the additional 25% after claiming India would stop buying Russian oil in favor of Venezuelan, showing how geopolitics links up. This isn’t the FTA the EU just signed, but let’s see which proves more important over time: as a well-placed Indian source noted to me, there‘s no growth in Europe vs. the US. The fact the US will insist on the same no-transshipment rules for Chinese goods that it has with other trade partners is a blow to Beijing; equally, it blows up European hopes of building a trade coalition without the US (and in India frictions will continue, i.e., the EU agreed on green tech collaboration with Delhi, but the US said it is going to sell it more coal). The defense component will also be key. Europe now has a strategic partnership with India in that regard, but national governments hold sway there: will they want to see their defense industries moved to South Asia(?) By contrast, the US is able to move faster, though we shall see what they are prepared to share with India. Delhi at least gets to play both sides off against the other.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 11:10

House To Vote On Package To End Partial Shutdown

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday will take up a bill to fund several sectors of the federal government as a partial shutdown enters its fourth day.

Many Democrats - including leaders - have vowed to withhold support from the package.

On Monday evening, the House Committee on Rules advanced the measure - which would fully fund five sectors of the government while extending funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until Jan. 13 - in a party-line 8–4 vote following a more than four-hour committee hearing.

As Jopseph Lord and Nathan Worcester report for The Epoch Times, with Democratic leaders indicating that they won’t give their backing to the measure, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will need to rely mostly on his narrow Republican majority to pass the measure.

In a full vote of the House, Johnson can spare only one defection in a party-line vote, though some Democrats are expected to back the measure.

However, some issues with the Senate proposal could lead Republicans to oppose the measure.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a longtime budget hawk and a particular opponent of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which falls under DHS, voted against the previous funding measure due to its funding for CISA, and could oppose the stopgap measure as well.

Other Republicans have pushed leadership to attach the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act to the measure.

Leadership has resisted these demands, which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says would make the bill dead on arrival in the upper chamber. The bill reported out of the Rules Committee didn’t include the SAVE Act.

Nevertheless, the passage of the legislation through the Rules Committee—which includes conservative skeptics of the bill such as Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas)—is a good sign for Republican leaders on the funding package’s prospects.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) downplayed the difficulties in comments to reporters on Monday.

“They all come down to the wire, and then we get our business done,” Scalise said.

The bill at issue would provide full-year funding for the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development.

Democrats are demanding reforms to DHS and its subsidiary immigration enforcement agencies before they’ll support a full-year funding measure, though many House Democrats—including leadership—have expressed opposition to extending DHS funding at all before these reforms are addressed.

Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), meanwhile, voiced opposition to the measure at the hearing.

“I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” he said, referencing ongoing disputes related to the executive branch’s use of self-issued administrative warrants, rather than court-issued judicial warrants, to enter homes.

However, one Democrat—House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)—indicated at the hearing that she would break with her party to back the measure.

“I will support this package,” DeLauro said at the hearing, referencing the five full-year funding bills attached to the package that have Democratic support.

She said that without the funding extension for DHS, Democrats “won’t be able to bring the kinds of pressure” needed to add reforms to the full-year DHS funding package.

McGovern explained his opposition in response to a question from The Epoch Times outside the hearing room.

“Personally, [I] cannot bring myself to go for one more cent for ICE without some serious guardrails put in place, and I think the leverage we have is now more so than two weeks from now,” McGovern said.

Johnson has said he is “confident” that the partial shutdown will end with the Tuesday vote, despite indicating that House Democrats haven’t given their support to pass the Senate-passed measure.

“We have a logistical challenge of getting everyone in town, and because of the conversation I had with Hakeem Jeffries, I know that we’ve got to pass a rule and probably do this mostly on our own,” Johnson told NBC News’s “Meet the Press.”

House Democratic leadership has not indicated support for the measure publicly, despite it having been backed by Schumer and other Senate Democrats.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told ABC’s “This Week” that it’s clear that the “Department of Homeland Security needs to be dramatically reformed.”

“Masks should come off,” he said. “Judicial warrants should absolutely be required consistent with the Constitution, in our view, before DHS agents or ICE agents are breaking into the homes of the American people or ripping people out of their cars.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 10:55

'Turnaround Tuesday'?: FundStrat's Lee Says "All The Pieces Are In Place For Crypto To Be Bottoming"

Bitcoin remains under pressure this morning, stalling after a brief rebound from a 10-month low as trader caution persisted in options activity.

Trading was mostly flat, with the biggest cryptocurrency hovering below $78,500 a day after bearish sentiment nearly pushed it to the lowest level since President Trump returned to the White House just over a year ago.

The Bear Traps Report's Larry McDonald laid out the following as some of the reasons for the relentless decline in Bitcoin?

1. We know that Oct 10 (Billions $$ lost overnight in crypto) was a pivotal moment when some glitches Binance triggered a sell-off, exacerbated by Trump's tariff tweet that day (100% on China) and MSCI reviewing DAT company eligibility (MSTR, etc.).

2. Also during Q4, bitcoin suffered from market makers deleveraging, the government shutdown, and the liquidity drain (overnight funding stress), which forced the Fed to restart QE in Dec.

3. Late in Q4 Mt Gox started to sell again. They still have about 40K bitcoin that they periodically sell, but anytime they show up, it weighs on bitcoin.

4. The cold spell in mid-January forced a lot of bitcoin miners offline to preserve electricity. This led to a drop in the hash rate, which also put pressure on prices.

5. Also in January, it became clear that the CLARITY Act (pro bitcoin) was going to be delayed because Trump wants to prioritize housing affordability first. So all the pumpers trying to front-run legislation just got carted off the field. 

6. Simultaneously, bank excess reserves started to bleed lower again as Bessent filled up the TGA to prepare for big tax refunds in Q1 and the Fed was slow to expand its balance sheet in January.

7. More recently, the appointment of Warsh as Fed chair has triggered a plunge in precious metals on concerns of balance sheet contraction, and this selloff spilled over on bitcoin as well.

However, amid all that, CoinTelegraph reports that market and derivatives data suggests Bitcoin may find support around YTD lows...

1. Resilience in Bitcoin derivatives suggests that professional traders have refused to turn bearish despite the 40.8% price decline from the $126,220 all-time high reached in October 2025. Periods of excessive demand for bearish positions typically trigger an inversion in Bitcoin futures, meaning those contracts trade below spot market prices.

Bitcoin 2-month futures basis rate. Source: Laevitas.ch

The Bitcoin futures annualized premium (basis rate) stood at 3% on Monday, signaling weak demand for leveraged bullish positions. Under neutral conditions, the indicator usually ranges between 5% and 10% to compensate for the longer settlement period.

2. Even so, there are no signs of stress in BTC derivatives markets, as aggregate futures open interest remains healthy at $40 billion, down 10% over the past 30 days.

“The BTC options market is showing signs of stabilizing as extreme downside fear begins to mean-revert,” said Sean McNulty, APAC derivatives trading lead at FalconX.

“However, a weekly close below $75,000 would invalidate the current bounce higher, and potentially open a vacuum toward that $69,000 to $70,000 zone.”

3. Traders grew increasingly concerned after spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded $3.2 billion in net outflows since Jan. 16. Even so, the figure represents less than 3% of the products’ assets under management. Additionally, after 10 straight days of outflows, BTC ETFs saw a large $561mm inflow yesterday...

Bitcoin US-listed spot ETFs daily net flows, USD

“For crypto specifically, ETF flow stabilization is the key signal to monitor,” said Timothy Misir, head of research at digital asset analytics firm BRN.

4. Strategy (MSTR US) also fell victim to unfounded speculation after its shares traded below net asset value, fueling fears that the company would sell some of its Bitcoin.

Beyond the absence of covenants that would force liquidation below a specific Bitcoin price, Strategy announced $1.44 billion in cash reserves in December 2025 to cover dividend and interest obligations. MSTR announces earnings on Thursday, so that could be a trigger for better or worse.

Bitcoin’s price may remain under pressure as traders try to pinpoint the drivers behind the recent sell-off, but there are strong indications that the $75,000 support level may hold.

“Turnaround Tuesday seems to be in effect,” said Jeff Anderson, head of Asia at STS Digital.

“Markets got over their skis selling risk assets, and now that everyone has calmed down a bit, things rally off the lows.”

Fundstrat Global Advisors’ Tom Lee is sounding a cautious yet optimistic note for crypto investors, arguing that recent turbulence in Bitcoin and Ethereum may be temporary.

“Investors appear more selective, waiting for clearer signals on macro conditions, liquidity, and whether Bitcoin can sustainably hold above prior highs before adding exposure,” said Sean Rose at digital-asset data firm Glassnode about flows and investor appetite.

“A similar slowdown in accumulation momentum among public and private companies reinforces this pattern.”

Despite near-term headwinds, Lee sees signals that crypto may be bottoming. Fundstrat advisor Tom DeMark believes “time and price” alignment has been reached, with Bitcoin back above $78,000 and Ethereum nearing $2,300.

Today @Fundstrat's Tom Lee on @CNBC: “All the pieces are in place for crypto to be bottoming right now"

Access Tom Lee’s market views and outlook with a 30-day free trial of premium Fundstrat research: https://t.co/sX6DE4NjMP pic.twitter.com/XscZBQLxGb

— FS Insight (@fs_insight) February 2, 2026

“All the pieces are in place for crypto to be bottoming right now,” he said, contrasting price weakness with network activity, confirming what Goldman pointed out yesterday, that in contrast to the declining price performance, on-chain activity painted a different picture, especially for the Ethereum and Solana networks.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 10:40

Mandelson Resigns From House Of Lords Over 'Embarrassing' Epstein Scandal

Update(1023ET): One welcome immediate repercussion to the fresh Epstein dump of millions of files is that things have finally started happening in terms of a real domino effect in elite circles...

Lord Mandelson, ex-ambassador to U.S., resigns from Labour over Epstein.

Still, all of this might be happening slower than what one might want to see, but it's something when for example NPR is actually doing segments on the Epstein scandals surrounding Bill Gates and others, for example.

On Mandelson, to review one key aspect to what we detail below, he gave Jeffrey Epstein advance notice of a €500bn bailout to save the Euro, messaging Epstein about the bailout on the evening of May 9, 2010 - after which it was formally announced the following morning.

Then Labour's Business Secretary had forwarded No. 10 documents on economic assessments, asset sales, an EU bailout tip - among other interactions with his "pal". To review, something big was expected amid the "embarrassing" scandal and confirmation of corrupt insider wrongdoing: 

By Sunday, a shocked Mandelson (he was not expecting the release) has quit the Labour party, citing a desire to prevent “further embarrassment”. Labour says that disciplinary action was already “under way”. By phone that night, the grandson of the party grandee Herbert Morrison tells me of his decision it “wasn’t easy”, but he feels “better for it as I need to reset”.

His resignation might be the start of further legal action, as MPs are already lobbying that he never be able to return to government or positions of power:

Baroness Harriet Harman, who was leader of the Commons when Lord Mandelson was business secretary, says Mandelson has "cast a stain over not just this government, but over politics as a whole".

She tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm sure the government are in absolutely no doubt about the seriousness of it, and will be taking action and Peter Mandelson will be held accountable."

* * *

Former U.K. Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson - who was fired last September from his new role as ambassador to the United States due to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein - is facing mounting political and legal pressure following disclosures that he may have shared market-sensitive government information with Epstein during the global financial crisis.

Keir Starmer, right, with Peter Mandelson, left. The prime minister is likely to face renewed questions over his judgment in appointing Mandelson as US ambassador.

Documents released Friday by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the so-called Epstein files appear to show that Mandelson, then business secretary in the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, forwarded confidential policy discussions and draft plans to the disgraced financier while the government was grappling with the collapse of global credit markets.

As the Guardian notes, emails forwarded to Epstein from the very top of the UK government include:

• A confidential UK government document outlining £20bn in asset sales.
• Mandelson claiming he was “trying hard” to change government policy on bankers’ bonuses.
• An imminent bailout package for the euro the day before it was announced in 2010.
• A suggestion that the JPMorgan boss “mildly threaten” the chancellor.
• Epstein asked Mandelson to confirm a €500bn bailout – which the then business secretary said would be announced that evening. The following day, Mandelson also appeared to give Epstein an early tipoff about Gordon Brown’s resignation.

The revelations have prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to order an investigation by the cabinet secretary and to demand that Mandelson resign from the House of Lords. Brown has separately asked the cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, to investigate the alleged disclosures.

Opposition parties have escalated the matter further. The Scottish National Party and Reform UK have reported Mandelson to police, alleging misconduct in a public office. Emily Thornberry, Labour’s chair of the foreign affairs select committee, said the allegations should be examined as a potential criminal matter.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed it had received several reports relating to alleged misconduct and was assessing whether they meet the threshold for a criminal investigation.

“The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation,” said Commander Ella Marriott. “As with any matter, if new and relevant information is brought to our attention we will assess it, and investigate as appropriate.”

Sensitive Information Shared

According to the disclosures, emails forwarded to Epstein from senior levels of the British government included a confidential document outlining £20 billion in potential asset sales, discussions about changing policy on bankers’ bonuses, details of an imminent eurozone bailout package ahead of its public announcement in 2010, and references to pressuring the chancellor through senior banking executives.

In one email sent on June 13, 2009, Nick Butler, then a special adviser to Brown, circulated a memo detailing policy measures under consideration and suggesting that the government had £20 billion in saleable assets. Mandelson forwarded the message to Epstein, writing, “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”

Epstein replied asking, “what salable (sic) assets?” A response from a redacted email address stated: “Land, property I guess.” Four months later, the government announced plans to sell surplus real estate in a bid to raise £16 billion.

Butler said he was considering reporting the matter to police. “We worked on the basis of trust, which allowed us to float ideas,” he told the Times. “I am disgusted by the breach of trust, presumably intended to give Epstein the chance to make money.”

Another email from May 9, 2010 shows Epstein asking Mandelson to confirm a €500 billion eurozone bailout, which Mandelson indicated would be announced that evening. The following day, Mandelson appeared to give Epstein advance notice of Brown’s impending resignation.

"he was a great FX trader" https://t.co/1U0adiK71z

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 2, 2026

In separate correspondence days later, Epstein asked whether JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon should contact the chancellor, Alistair Darling. Mandelson replied that Dimon should “mildly threaten” him.

BBC economics editor Faisal Islam said he understood from discussions with Darling that such calls from senior bankers, including Dimon, did subsequently take place.

Financial Ties Under Question

The disclosures have also revived questions about Mandelson’s financial relationship with Epstein. Documents released earlier this week suggest that Epstein paid a total of $75,000 into bank accounts of which Mandelson, then a Labour MP, was believed to be a beneficiary. It is also alleged that Epstein sent £10,000 in September 2009 to Mandelson’s partner—now his husband—Reinaldo Avila da Silva, to help fund an osteopathy course and other expenses.

A former adviser described Mandelson’s conduct to the Guardian as “treacherous,” adding: “You can imagine the sense of betrayal that those of us who worked every hour of the day during that crisis are feeling.”

Brown said he had previously asked the cabinet secretary to investigate potential leaks in September but was told there was insufficient evidence at the time. “This is shocking new information that has come to light,” Brown said Monday, calling for “a wider and more intensive enquiry” into the disclosure of government papers during the crisis.

Political Fallout

Starmer, who has no direct authority to strip Mandelson of his peerage, is facing renewed scrutiny over his decision to appoint Mandelson as U.S. ambassador and his proximity to senior Labour figures, including chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Mandelson resigned his Labour Party membership on Sunday.

Downing Street has written to the House of Lords authorities urging urgent reform of disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers in cases of serious misconduct. A Lords source said there is currently little guidance on how such reforms would be implemented, despite their inclusion in Labour’s manifesto.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones told Parliament that “no government minister of any political party should have, nor ever should behave in this way,” and suggested Mandelson may have misrepresented his interests before taking up his ambassadorial role. “When someone lies in their declaration of interests, there must be a consequence,” Jones said.

There is no modern precedent for removing an individual from the House of Lords, a step that would require primary legislation. The last such action occurred during the First World War, when a group of peers aligned with Britain’s enemies were stripped of their titles.

No timetable has been set for the Cabinet Office review, and Downing Street has not confirmed whether its findings will be made public. The inquiry may involve examining archived government documents and interviewing Mandelson and other senior officials who served in Downing Street during the period in question.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 10:23

Pepsi Cuts Some Prices As Much As 15% As K-Shaped Economy Squeezes Consumers

Readers already know the K-shaped economy is not going anywhere, even as the Trump administration attempts to correct the imbalance ahead of the midterms. For the junk-food-hungry U.S. consumer, there was a small win on Tuesday morning.

PepsiCo announced it will cut prices by 15% on snack brands like Lay's and Doritos to restore affordability and help revive sales.

"PepsiCo is taking a meaningful step to lower the price on many of our most loved snacks by up to nearly 15%. This includes iconic favorites like Lay's, Doritos, Cheetos, Tostitos and more," PepsiCo wrote in a statement.

Rachel Ferdinando, CEO, PepsiCo Foods U.S., said her team has spent the "past year listening closely to consumers, and they've told us they're feeling the strain" from elevated processed food prices.

"Lowering the suggested retail price reflects our commitment to help reduce the pressure where we can. Because people shouldn't have to choose between great taste and staying within their budget," Ferdinando said.

The announcement comes just days before the Super Bowl this weekend, as consumers rush to supermarkets to stock up on junk food for the big game, with this year's main event featuring the Seattle Seahawks against the New England Patriots.

We must note, and can't help but wonder, whether activist investor Elliott Investment Management, which built a $4 billion position in the stock and aimed to overhaul PepsiCo toward greater affordability in late 2025, had any say in the latest decision to trim prices ahead of the Super Bowl.

Pepsi shares were marginally higher in premarket trading in New York. Shares remain -20% from their peak, when they nearly topped $200 per share in mid-2023.

Bloomberg noted that PepsiCo has accelerated its cost-reduction efforts, including reducing headcount, closing three plants, and consolidating several manufacturing lines, with "additional actions planned for the near future." It also announced a product portfolio that would be slashed by 20% in the coming months.

It really does seem like Paul Singer's team at Elliott is busy at work with PepsiCo...

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/03/2026 - 10:00