Individual Economists

Trump Effect: LA Bends The Knee, Will Reopen Pacific Palisades To Residents Starting Monday

Zero Hedge -

Trump Effect: LA Bends The Knee, Will Reopen Pacific Palisades To Residents Starting Monday

Two days after President Trump scolded Los Angeles for refusing to allow residents affected by the recent fires to return to their homes, Mayor Karen Bass announced that Pacific Palisades will be completely reopened to residents during daylight hours, starting Monday, Jan. 27.

During a Friday roundtable, Bass told Trump that it was unsafe for residents to return. After residents at the meeting decried the slow response, Bass compromised - saying they could return "within a week."

Trump replied: "That’s a long time, a week. I’ll be honest, to me, everyone standing in front of their house, they want to go to work and they’re not allowed to do it. … They’re safe. They’re safe. You know what? They’re not safe. They’re not safe now. They’re going to be much safer. A week, a week is actually a long time the way I look at it."

Residents of the Palisades began trying to their homes and lots on Saturday - some of whom were able to talk their way past police, according to Breitbart's Joel Pollak, a Palisades resident whose house was spared. Pollak has been reporting from the ground since the fires began.

The county's decision to allow residents to return on Monday came with a caveat; weather permitting, and only until 5:00 p.m., which will allow people to sift through the rubble for belongings, or grieve and make peace with their loss.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 23:20

The Most Important Week Of The Quarter: Month End, Fed, ECB, Earnings , PCE And More

Zero Hedge -

The Most Important Week Of The Quarter: Month End, Fed, ECB, Earnings , PCE And More

By Goldman trader Paolo Schiavone

Key Events - Global Week Ahead:  Fed and ECB, Lunar New Year, 20% S&P Earnings

  • Monday : China industrial profits and PMI, Germany IFO , US new home sales, Lagarde speak in Budapest, Bessent confirmation. 3rd Feb first QRA. 
  • Tuesday : US consumer confidence, durable goods, Informal dinner Lagarde and Von der Leyen. GM, Starbucks results. 
  • Wednesday : Fed, Brazil and Canada rate decision, Spain GDP, Tesla, Microsoft, Meta, ASML earnings, Reeves speech in Oxfordshire, BOJ minutes
  • Thursday : ECB, Apple, CAT, Visa, UPS Deutsche Bank, Shell earnings, US Q4 GDP; RBA Jones speaks, BOJ Himino speaks.
  • Friday : France CPI, Germany CPI, unemployment, US personal income, PCE inflation, employment cost index, Samsung earnings, Bowman remarks.

Trading markets

  1. The plethora of events suggest x-asset vol is likely to be back next week. It’s Fed vs Mag7 earnings                          
  2. Very opportunity-rich environment if you’re quick on the trigger. But also, plenty of bad volatility (in as, not fundamentally driven, hard to forecast).                                                                                                                           
  3. So, you need to be nimble, size at half-75% of normal. Strong convictions weakly held. Weak convictions expressed in a risk efficient, premium down format.

Framework: Technical, Flows, Positioning. Valuation, Sentiment. 

  • Technical 30% : Top of the channel for US Equities/ Europe Breaking out / Oil and Copper at support / Momentum in bonds sell off seem to have calmed. 
  • Flows 30% :  Global equity funds slowed (+$6bn vs +$13bn last week). Fixed income stronger demand (+$14bn vs +$11bn last week). EM negative flows. FX , USD demand. 
  • Positioning 20% : Cleaner in Equities/ FI/ FX. Tariffs, strong earnings, healthy thematic, supportive macro have left clients with limited convictions. 
  • Valuation 10% : Low Equity Risk premia / Neutral for bonds. Would say not very high for the Mag7 given the reset in EPS expectations. Bonds 
  • Sentiment 10%: AAII stretched, GS Neutral. Despite one of the largest USD weekly drawdowns in years still constructive in Equities, Short oil, Neutral bonds. 

Fed view: We are pricing, 7 for March ,14 for May 25 for June. We view “market pricing as a probabilistic statement about possible Fed paths in coming years is too hawkish”

Interesting Trades:

  1. Fed- Dovish vs pricing- Rec SFRM5Z5
  2. Rec BOC meeting on Wed- 25 or more than 0
  3. Deepseek- low quality dip on Nasdaq. Buy dips in NQH5
  4. Earnings: ASML short MSFT long/ Meta long
  5. Earnings: Oracle/ Microsoft/ Amazon vs NVDA
  6. Long Copper into Chinese seasonality and Lunar new year destocking.

Weekend News flow: 

  1. Trump ridicules Denmark and insists US will take Greenland – FT
  2. Meta's chief AI scientist says DeepSeek's success shows that "open source models better vs proprietary ones"
  3. President Trump said he wants to "clean out" the Gaza Strip and urged Jordan and Egypt
  4. German Election Taboos Broken as Merz and Musk Flirt With AfD
  5. Baltic Sea data cable damaged in latest case of potential sabotage
  6. Reeves seeks to unlock billions from UK pension schemes for investment- FT

Charts: 

Chart 1 GS Flow of funds last week:

Chart 2: Mag Seven: EPS expectations slowing- buying opportunity on a lower bar ( BBG)

Chart 3: SPX short and USD shorts capitulation was at full speed.

Chart 4: Corporate Insiders are dumping shares at the fastest pace in history (data going back to 1988) 

Chart 5: Gold continues to be one of the highest conviction/ trend trades out of the gates in 2025. (Goldman)

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 23:13

Will Any Federal Officials Pay For What They Did?

Zero Hedge -

Will Any Federal Officials Pay For What They Did?

Authored by James Bovard via The Brownstone Institute,

The biggest scientific con of the century is finally being exposed. But will any politicians or government officials ever be held responsible for the carnage they unleashed on Americans?

In early 2020, when the Covid pandemic was starting to ravage America, federal bureaucrats and politicians rushed to suppress any suggestion that the pandemic originated from a Chinese government lab bankrolled by US government agencies. Key Biden administration officials effectively exonerated the Chinese government even though the Chinese completely stonewalled any outside investigation into the origin of the Covid virus, as the Wall Street Journal recently revealed in a front-page scoop. 

The FBI’s top expert concluded that the virus leaked from the lab but he was derailed by the Biden administration, blocked from presenting his evidence at a key White House meeting in August 2021. Three scientists at the National Center for Medical Intelligence, part of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded that Covid leaked from a lab but they were muzzled. The Inspector General is conducting an investigation to determine why those experts were silenced. The Department of Energy also concluded that Covid originated in a lab. In September 2023, a senior CIA analyst told a Congressional committee that six key CIA analysts had been bribed by the agency to abandon their conclusion that Covid originated in a lab leak.

The Chinese government first admitted that a pandemic had broken out in the city of Wuhan in early 2020. Though the Chinese military-affiliated Wuhan Institute of Virology had been experimenting with bats for years, the Chinese government insisted the new virus came from a nearby marketplace. But the lead scientists involved with bat research had all been struck down by Covid-19 symptoms shortly before the Chinese government denied any responsibility. There was a deluge of circumstantial evidence quickly linking the new virus to the lab. 

The outbreak of Covid-19 spurred one of the most brazen cover-ups in modern US history. The National Institute for Health had been financing gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That type of research seeks to genetically alter organisms to enable the spread of viruses into new species. Such research is extremely dangerous; as MIT professor Kevin Esvelt asked in 2021, “Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?” The risks were compounded because the Wuhan Institute had a very poor safety rating. Two years earlier, the State Department confidentially “warned other federal agencies about safety issues at Wuhan labs studying bat Covid,” but the public disclosure of that alert was delayed until 2022.

In January 2020, top federal scientists recognized that the pandemic could obliterate their reputations. Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes for Health, wrote in an email that “a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony.” The “conspiracy” was the facts of the matter.

Anthony Fauci, the chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), speedily enlisted a handful of trusted scientists to gin up a paper supposedly “proving” that the virus could not have originated in the lab. A top NIAID scientist accepted the task of debunking the lab-leak story because, as he emailed a colleague, “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.” The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, enlisted in the cover-up with an op-ed by 27 scientists who proclaimed: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” Maybe the same scientists also sent an addendum to NIH: Keep giving us grant money or your reputation will “swim with the fishes.”

Further “proof” was provided by a torrent of accusations of racism against anyone who publicly suggested that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. The State Department’s Global Engagement Center added a federal fist to the debate, pressuring Twitter to suppress hundreds of thousands of accounts (including thousands of average Americans) in early 2020 for the crime of suggesting that Covid originated in a lab. Bureaucrats secretly decided that wildly exaggerated forecasts of pandemic mortality made the First Amendment null and void. 

If Covid-19 had been initially recognized as the result of one of the biggest government boondoggles in history, it would have been far more difficult for American politicians and government scientists to pirouette as saviors as they seized sway over daily life. 

The virus that the NIH financed provided push-button dictatorial power to politicians at every level of government. In the name of saving lives, politicians entitled themselves to destroy an unlimited number of livelihoods. Most governors responded to Covid-19 by dropping the equivalent of a Reverse Neutron Bomb — something that destroys the economy while leaving human beings unharmed. But the only way to assume people were uninjured was to presume that their lives were totally detached from their jobs, bank accounts, mortgage and rent payments, and friends and family.

A virus with a 99+% survival rate spawned a 100% presumption in favor of despotism. From the start of the pandemic, many people who swore allegiance to “science and data” also believed that absolute power would keep them safe. Doubters became dissidents who deserved to be covertly silenced. 

Shutdown advocates appealed to science like righteous priests invoking God and the Bible to sanctify scourging enemies. But the “science” was often farcically unreliable. Mandatory mask mandates became the new version of the Emancipation Proclamation. Fauci and other top officials deceived Americans into believing that cloth masks offered far more protection than they delivered. Do Americans finally recognize that the federal government was the biggest source of disinformation during the pandemic?

A century ago, historian Henry Adams declared that politics has “always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Covid-19 policies were so disruptive in part because politicians intentionally sought to maximize fear and rage against anyone who refused to submit to any dictate. After the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines collapsed, Biden responded by dictating that a hundred million American adults must get injected based on his personal decree.

A few weeks later at a CNN town hall, Biden derided vaccine skeptics as murderers who only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with Covid. A few months later, a Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Democratic voters favored house arrest for the unvaccinated, and 45% favored locking the unvaxxed into government detention facilities. Almost half of Democrats favored empowering the government to “fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing Covid-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” But hatred proved to be as ineffective as the Pfizer vaccine when it came to fighting Covid-19.

Fauci, who was also Biden’s chief medical advisor, justified Covid mandates because average citizens “don’t have the ability” to determine what is best for them. But Congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was at the center of string-pulling to shirk responsibility for the Wuhan debacle. After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested prosecuting Fauci for false testimony on bankrolling “gain-of-function” research, Fauci howled that his critics are “really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.” But not nearly as dangerous as vesting vast power in secretive federal agencies.

On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration belatedly banned the Wuhan Institute of Virology from receiving any US government research funding for 10 years as punishment for its unauthorized gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses. But why did the Biden administration omit the same condemnation and similar prohibitions from any American scientist, institute, or government officials that had any role in this debacle? 

Instead of Tony Fauci bobbleheads, the slogan “Your Government at Work” superimposed atop a million American caskets captured the reality of Covid-19. 

An earlier version of this piece was posted by The Libertarian Institute

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 22:10

CIA Admits COVID-19 "More Likely" Came From Chinese Lab

Zero Hedge -

CIA Admits COVID-19 "More Likely" Came From Chinese Lab

Having been temporarily banned from Twitter, Facebook, and Google over 'COVID conspiracy theories' (when we first suggested in January 2020 that the fact there was a Level 4 virus lab in Wuhan was likely not a coincidence to the origin of COVID), and being accused by intel officials of being a propaganda spreading site, we couldn't help but see the irony (and not rage, frustration, or desire for retribution), when the CIA itself confirmed this week that it found a lab origin “more likely” for the COVID-19 pandemic, joining two other top U.S. agencies that have previously made the assessment.

“CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting,” a spokesperson for the agency said in a Jan. 25 statement to media outlets.

More comical is the fact that, despite no actual physical evidence of a natural origin, the agency emphasized that it has “low confidence” in the assessment and still considers it plausible that the virus came from nature.

The CIA will “continue to evaluate any available credible new intelligence reporting or open-source information that could change CIA’s assessment,” the spokesperson said.

President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 15, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

As Eva Fu reports for The Epoch Times, the assessment marks a shift in stance from the intelligence agency that has for years refrained from making a conclusion on the issue, citing lack of information.

John Ratcliffe, the new CIA director, has long supported the lab leak possibility, telling a congressional panel in April 2023 that it’s the “only explanation” for the disease that has since killed millions around the globe.

After gaining Senate confirmation, Ratcliffe told Breitbart News that addressing the pandemic origin would be a “day one” priority for him.

“I’ve been on record, as you know, in saying I think our intelligence, our science, and our common sense all really dictates that the origins of COVID was a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said, adding that he plans to look at intelligence and get the agency “off the sidelines.”

The international efforts to get more clarity about the source of the virus from China have made little headway.

In late December 2024, the World Health Organization repeated a request for Beijing to share COVID-related data.

“This is a moral and scientific imperative,” the organization said. “Without transparency, sharing, and cooperation among countries, the world cannot adequately prevent and prepare for future epidemics and pandemics.”

In the years since the pandemic broke out from central Chinese city Wuhan, Beijing has silenced on-the-ground citizen journalists, doctors, and academics who sought to shed light on the issue or criticize the regime’s handling of the virus.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said he was pleased to see the CIA’s assessment.

“I’ve said from the beginning that COVID likely originated in the Wuhan labs. Communist China covered it up and the liberal media covered for them,” he said in a Jan. 25 statement “Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world.”

The FBI and the Energy Department have previously assessed that the virus had originated from a lab. The State Department, under the first Trump administration, said in a fact sheet that several researchers had fallen sick with COVID-like symptoms in the autumn of 2019, months before the pandemic exploded to a global scale.

Leaked Chinese documents that The Epoch Times obtained also show that Chinese hospitals were treating patients with COVID-like symptoms months before the regime’s official timeline.

“The Chinese government, it seems to me, has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here—the work that we’re doing, the work that our U.S. government and close foreign partners are doing. And that’s unfortunate for everybody,” then-FBI Director Christopher Wray said in early 2023.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 20:25

Crank Your Amps To 11

Zero Hedge -

Crank Your Amps To 11

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

In this industry we are always trying to decipher the signal from the noise. That is never easy, but the level of “noise” coming out of D.C. and elsewhere is making it extremely difficult to identify signals. Some weekend T-Reports write themselves (thankfully) and some are a struggle.

  • What economic data is relevant and indicative of potential trends going forward?
  • How much of the data is largely irrelevant if policies shift dramatically?

The level of noise is so high that all I could think of was Spinal Tap and how they were fortunate that their amps went to 11, while everyone else’s only went to 10.

Given all the hype surrounding the first 24 hours and all of the executive orders, I’m surprised that I am more confused, rather than less confused, by the trajectory of this administration (one week into it).

Most Surprised by…

Bitcoin. I am most surprised that Bitcoin isn’t a lot higher. This administration seems keen to embrace crypto. There is a lot of chatter about the potential for Bitcoin or crypto reserves. Is Bitcoin failing to break a lot higher because people believe that there are enough politicians in D.C. who think it isn’t a good idea (or even think that it is a bad idea) to use tax dollars to buy and hold crypto? Is there a belief that the crypto community can’t donate enough money to politicians to get some kind of a deal through? Or is the question on Kalshi too narrow and the reserve will include things other than just Bitcoin? We linked to that betting site in last weekend’s report - $Trump, TikTok, and Trea$urie$. Or, quite simply, has so much been priced in that we will need to see a lot more out of D.C. to get another big rally? If so, that has implications for the broader market.

Least Surprised by…

The number of responses on this month’s Around the World. Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group weighed in on:

  • The Ceasefire in Gaza.
  • Iran Signing a Strategic Partnership Pact with Russia.
  • The Escalation in the War between Russia and Ukraine.
  • The Chinese Cyber Threat.
  • The U.S. “Engagement” with Greenland.
Most Intrigued by…

DeepSeek. Given all the “noise” around TikTok, you would think that would be a focus, but DeepSeek caught my attention. It seems like this AI model may have been out there for some time, but it exploded in my social media timeline this weekend. On the face of it, we have an AI tool that is cheaper to build and possibly better than existing AI platforms. The “catch” is that it is a Chinese developed AI engine. Given privacy concerns and the cyber threats, I cannot help but wonder who would (or should) use it?

That is, assuming it is real. Periodically we used to get stories about some group achieving “cold fusion” that never turned out to be real, and lately, some similar claims about quantum computing have yet to pan out in reality.

In any case, if extremely good AI can be built with “old school” chips, it would have a lot of ramifications for this market. It does seem unbelievable in some ways but reminds us of the discussion we’ve been having about China’s efforts to develop chips of their own.

  • The smallest chips require state of the art tech manufacturing to be built efficiently. However, small chips can be made inefficiently using old tech. It isn’t an efficient way to make the thinnest chips, but it can be accomplished to a degree, which is presumably how China is making some of its smallest chips (assuming they haven’t figured out how to get access to state of the art tech that the U.S. and others are trying to prevent China from obtaining).
  • The “packaging” (vertically stacking multiple chips) may play a bigger role in semiconductors continuing to adhere to Moore’s Law (or some variation of it) as opposed to just creating smaller and smaller chips. While packaging is also challenging, it is not necessarily “state of the art” challenging, which would reduce “our” lead over Chinese chipmakers.

Given the importance of AI in our markets (if not yet in our economy), this “story” could be interesting (and also harkens back to the question at the end of the first section – how much is priced in already?).

A Little Concerned by…

Delinquencies. This is something we are digging into in more detail as it has become a common theme in more meetings. With student loan forgiveness becoming a thing of the past (it was never really a thing) and no real clarity on how things like not taxing tips will play out, there are more and more questions about some segments of the consumer. With hopes of much lower interest rates being dashed (for now) the concern about consumption is increasing (at least for those who didn’t load up on crypto).

We are digging through the various metrics on delinquencies to figure out if this is something that should be a larger concern or not. The fact that it is coming up more in conversations means it definitely warrants some further digging. If it is true that consumers are stretched, then it shines a different light on what policies are needed, and how quickly they are needed, to ensure that the economic data doesn’t tumble.

A recession isn’t on anyone’s mind right now, and maybe it should be? It surprised us by not showing up when everyone was talking about it, so maybe a recession will make a surprise entrance? Doubtful, but time to start digging into the data that is concerning and possibly difficult to turn around.

A Little Confused by…

Inflation. Too much to unpack here, but we are working on a chart package. Of all the economic data that will be influenced by policies out of D.C., inflation is the most significant, so maybe it is a fool’s errand to think too much about it, but here are some things that keep coming to mind:

The owners equivalent rent (OER) is once again lagging virtually any “real time” measure of rent. This time around it is overstating rent inflation in CPI data. We discussed the quandary of Making Policy on Bad Data and that remains a concern.

Can the president tell the Fed what to do? No. Can the president enact policies that reduce inflation and allow the Fed to cut? Yes, but that might be difficult.

Is inflation simply oil? No, though the president, in my opinion, is not completely wrong to focus on getting oil prices lower as a strategy to lower inflation.

What impact will tariffs and immigration policy have on inflation? We still don’t really know how these “day 1” policies are going to play out, so it is difficult to estimate. Frankly, what has been done on the tariff front and on immigration has been fairly benign. That may continue, though the risk of a hiccup on the tariff front is rising as so much (maybe too much) good news is being priced in.

It is difficult enough to form good policy when the data is noisy, but when we are surrounded by even more noise out of D.C., it will be increasingly difficult not to make policy mistakes.

Bottom Line

Set your amps to 11 and prepare to deal with the noise! Fortunately, from a T-Report perspective, noise fits our 2025 theme of “messy, but manageable.”

Expect weakness in both bonds and stocks in the coming days and weeks. So much good has been priced in that it will be difficult for bonds or stocks to surprise to the upside. We’ve been looking to Bitcoin as a “tell” and even that isn’t sending a strong buy signal any longer (even with mounting evidence that it should be).

Caution is the order of the day as we try to filter the signal from the immense amount of noise and also get back to looking for the trends that will be difficult to turn around.

Good luck and maybe before or after football today, it is worth finding and watching a good mockumentary – we could all use a laugh or two.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 19:50

The Algorithmic Age

Zero Hedge -

The Algorithmic Age

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

Having explored the physical and psychological mechanisms of control in a previous article, and their deployment through cultural engineering in yet another article, we now turn to their ultimate evolution: the automation of consciousness control through digital systems.

In my research on the tech-industrial complex, I’ve documented how today’s digital giants weren’t simply co-opted by power structures—many were potentially designed from their inception as tools for mass surveillance and social control. From Google’s origins in a DARPA-funded CIA project to Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos’ familial ties to ARPA, these weren’t just successful startups that later aligned with government interests

What Tavistock discovered through years of careful study—emotional resonance trumps facts, peer influence outweighs authority, and indirect manipulation succeeds where direct propaganda fails—now forms the foundational logic of social media algorithms. Facebook’s emotion manipulation study and Netflix’s A/B testing of thumbnails (explored in detail later) exemplify the digital automation of these century-old insights, as AI systems perform billions of real-time experiments, continuously refining the art of influence at an unprecedented scale.

Just as Laurel Cc served as a physical space for steering culture, today’s digital platforms function as virtual laboratories for consciousness control—reaching further and operating with far greater precision. Social media platforms have scaled these principles through ‘influencer’ amplification and engagement metrics. The discovery that indirect influence outperforms direct propaganda now shapes how platforms subtly adjust content visibility. What once required years of meticulous psychological study can now be tested and optimized in real-time, with algorithms leveraging billions of interactions to perfect their methods of influence.

The manipulation of music reflects a broader evolution in cultural control: what began with localized programming, like Laurel Canyon’s experiments in counterculture, has now transitioned into global, algorithmically-driven systems. These digital tools automate the same mechanisms, shaping consciousness on an unprecedented scale

Netflix’s approach parallels Bernays’ manipulation principles in digital form—perhaps unsurprisingly, as co-founder Marc Randolph was Bernays’ great-nephew and Sigmund Freud’s great-grand-nephew. Where Bernays used focus groups to test messaging, Netflix conducts massive A/B testing of thumbnails and titles, showing different images to different users based on their psychological profiles.

Their recommendation algorithm doesn’t just suggest content—it shapes viewing patterns by controlling visibility and context, similar to how Bernays orchestrated comprehensive promotional campaigns that shaped public perception through multiple channels. Just as Bernays understood how to create the perfect environment to sell products—like promoting music rooms in homes to sell pianos—Netflix crafts personalized interfaces that guide viewers toward specific content choices. Their approach to original content production similarly relies on analyzing mass psychological data to craft narratives for specific demographic segments.

More insidiously, Netflix’s content strategy actively shapes social consciousness through selective promotion and burial of content. While films supporting establishment narratives receive prominent placement, documentaries questioning official accounts often find themselves buried in the platform’s least visible categories or excluded from recommendation algorithms entirely. Even successful films like What Is a Woman? faced systematic suppression across multiple platforms, demonstrating how digital gatekeepers can effectively erase challenging perspectives while maintaining the illusion of open access.

I experienced this censorship firsthand. I was fortunate enough to serve as a producer for Anecdotals, directed by Jennifer Sharp, a film documenting Covid-19 vaccine injuries, including her own. YouTube removed it on Day One, claiming individuals couldn’t discuss their own vaccine experiences. Only after Senator Ron Johnson’s intervention was the film reinstated—a telling example of how platform censorship silences personal narratives that challenge official accounts.

This gatekeeping extends across the digital landscape. By controlling which documentaries appear prominently, which foreign films reach American audiences, and which perspectives get highlighted in their original programming, platforms like Netflix act as cultural gatekeepers—just as Bernays managed public perception for his corporate clients. Where earlier systems relied on human gatekeepers to shape culture, streaming platforms use data analytics and recommendation algorithms to automate the steering of consciousness. The platform’s content strategy and promotion systems represent Bernays’ principles of psychological manipulation operating at an unprecedented scale.

Reality TV: Engineering the Self 

Before social media turned billions into their own content creators, Reality TV perfected the template for self-commodification. The Kardashians exemplified this transition: transforming from reality TV stars into digital-age influencers, they showed how to convert personal authenticity into a marketable brand. Their show didn’t just reshape societal norms around wealth and consumption—it provided a masterclass in abandoning genuine human experience for carefully curated performance. Audiences learned that being oneself was less valuable than becoming a brand, that authentic moments mattered less than engineered content, and that real relationships were secondary to networked influence.

This transformation from person to persona would reach its apex with social media, where billions now willingly participate in their own behavioral modification. Users learn to suppress authentic expression in favor of algorithmic rewards, to filter genuine experience through the lens of potential content, and to value themselves not by internal measures but through metrics of likes and shares. What Reality TV pioneered—the voluntary surrender of privacy, the replacement of authentic self with marketable image, the transformation of life into content—social media would democratize at a global scale. Now anyone could become their own reality show, trading authenticity for engagement.

Instagram epitomizes this transformation, training users to view their lives as content to be curated, their experiences as photo opportunities, and their memories as stories to be shared with the public. The platform’s ‘influencer’ economy turns authentic moments into marketing opportunities, teaching users to modify their actual behavior—where they go, what they eat, how they dress—to create content that algorithms will reward. This isn’t just sharing life online—it’s reshaping life itself to serve the digital marketplace.

Even as these systems grow more pervasive, their limits are becoming increasingly visible. The same tools that enable manipulating cultural currents also reveal its fragility, as audiences begin to challenge manipulative narratives.

Cracks in the System

Despite its sophistication, the system of control is beginning to show cracks. Increasingly, the public is pushing back against blatant attempts at cultural engineering, as evidenced by current consumer and electoral rejections.

Recent attempts at obvious cultural exploitation, such as corporate marketing campaigns and celebrity-driven narratives, have begun to fail, signaling a turning point in public tolerance for manipulation. When Bud Light and Target—companies with their own deep establishment connections—faced massive consumer backlash in 2023 over their social messaging campaigns, the speed and scale of the rejection marked a significant shift in consumer behavior. Major investment firms like BlackRock faced unprecedented pushback against ESG initiatives, seeing significant outflows that forced them to recalibrate their approach. Even celebrity influence lost its power to shape public opinion—when dozens of A-list celebrities united behind one candidate in the 2024 election, their coordinated endorsements not only failed to sway voters but may have backfired, suggesting a growing public fatigue with manufactured consensus.

The public is increasingly recognizing these manipulation patterns. When viral videos expose dozens of news anchors reading identical scripts about ‘threats to our democracy,’ the facade of independent journalism crumbles, revealing the continued operation of systematic narrative control. Legacy media’s authority is crumbling, with frequent exposures of staged narratives and misrepresented sources revealing the persistence of centralized messaging systems.

Even the fact-checking industry, designed to bolster official narratives, faces growing skepticism as people discover that these ‘independent’ arbiters of truth are often funded by the very power structures they claim to monitor. The supposed guardians of truth serve instead as enforcers of acceptable thought, their funding trails leading directly to the organizations they’re meant to oversee.

The public awakening extends beyond corporate messaging to a broader realization that supposedly organic social changes are often engineered. For example, while most people only became aware of the Tavistock Institute through recent controversies about gender-affirming care, their reaction hints at a deeper realization: that cultural shifts long accepted as natural evolution might instead have institutional authors. Though few still understand Tavistock’s historic role in shaping culture since our grandparents’ time, a growing number of people are questioning whether seemingly spontaneous social transformations may have been, in fact, deliberately orchestrated.

This growing recognition signals a fundamental shift: as audiences become more conscious of manipulation methods, the effectiveness of these control systems begins to diminish. Yet the system is designed to provoke intense emotional responses—the more outrageous the better—precisely to prevent critical analysis. By keeping the public in a constant state of reactionary outrage, whether defending or attacking figures like Trump or Musk, it successfully distracts from examining the underlying power structures these figures operate within. The heightened emotional state serves as a perfect shield against rational inquiry.

Before examining today’s digital control mechanisms in detail, the evolution from Edison’s hardware monopolies to Tavistock’s psychological operations to today’s algorithmic control systems reveals more than a natural historical progression—it shows how each stage intentionally built upon the last to achieve the same goal. Physical control of media distribution evolved into psychological manipulation of content, which has now been automated through digital systems. As AI systems become more sophisticated, they don’t just automate these control mechanisms—they perfect them, learning and adapting in real time across billions of interactions.

We can visualize how distinct domains of power—finance, media, intelligence, and culture—have converged into an integrated grid of social control. While these systems initially operated independently, they now function as a unified network, each reinforcing and amplifying the others. This framework, refined over a century, reaches its ultimate expression in the digital age, where algorithms automate what once required elaborate coordination between human authorities.

The Digital Endgame

Today’s digital platforms represent the culmination of control methods developed over the past century. Where their researchers once had to manually study group dynamics and psychological responses, AI systems now perform billions of real-time experiments, continuously refining their influence techniques through massive data analysis and behavioral tracking. What Thomas Edison achieved through physical control of films, modern tech companies now accomplish through algorithms and automated content moderation.

The convergence of surveillance, algorithms, and financial systems represents not just an evolution in technique but an escalation in scope. This convergence appears by design. Consider that Facebook launched the same day DARPA shut down ‘LifeLog,‘ their project to track a person’s ‘entire existence’ online. Or that major tech platforms now employ numerous former intelligence operatives in their ‘Trust & Safety’ teams, determining what content gets amplified or suppressed. 

Social media platforms capture detailed behavioral data, which algorithms analyze to predict and shape user actions. This data increasingly feeds into financial systems through credit scoring, targeted advertising, and emerging Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Together, these create a closed loop where surveillance refines targeting, shapes economic incentives, and enforces compliance with dominant order norms at the most granular level.

This evolution manifests in concrete ways:

  • Edison’s infrastructure monopoly became platform ownership

  • Tavistock’s psychology studies became social media algorithms

  • Operation Mockingbird’s media infiltration became automated content moderation

  • The Hays Code’s moral controls became ‘community guidelines

More specifically, Edison’s original blueprint for control evolved into digital form:

  • His control of production equipment became platform ownership and cloud infrastructure

  • Theater distribution control became algorithmic visibility

  • Patent enforcement became Terms of Service

  • Financial blacklisting became demonetization

  • His definition of ‘authorized’ content became ‘community standards'”

Edison’s patent monopoly allowed him to dictate which films could be shown and where—just as today’s tech platforms use Terms of Service, IP rights, and algorithmic visibility to determine what content reaches audiences. Where Edison could simply deny theaters access to films, modern platforms can quietly reduce visibility through “shadow banning” or demonetization.

This evolution from manual to algorithmic control reflects a century of refinement. Where the Hays Code explicitly banned content, AI systems now subtly deprioritize it. Where Operation Mockingbird required human editors, recommendation algorithms now automatically shape information flow. The mechanisms haven’t disappeared—they’ve become invisible, automated, and far more effective.

The Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated how thoroughly and quickly modern control systems could manufacture consensus and enforce compliance. Within weeks, established scientific principles about natural immunity, outdoor transmission, and focused protection were replaced by a new orthodoxy. 

Social media algorithms were programmed to amplify fear-based content while suppressing alternative viewpoints, while news outlets coordinated messaging to maintain narrative control, and financial pressures ensured institutional compliance. 

Just as Rockefeller’s early capture of medical institutions shaped the boundaries of acceptable knowledge a century ago, the pandemic response demonstrated how thoroughly this system could activate in a crisis. The same mechanisms that once defined ‘scientific’ versus ‘alternative’ medicine now determined which public health approaches could be discussed and which would be systematically suppressed. 

The Great Barrington Declaration scientists found themselves erased not just through typical censorship, but through the invisible hand of algorithmic suppression—their views buried in search results, their discussions flagged as misinformation, their professional reputations questioned by coordinated media campaigns. This trifecta of suppression rendered dissenting perspectives effectively invisible, demonstrating how modern platforms can converge with state power to erase opposition while maintaining the illusion of independent oversight. Most users never realize what they’re not seeing—the most effective censorship is invisible to its targets.

Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter offered a crack of light, exposing previously hidden practices like shadow banning and algorithmic content suppression through the release of the Twitter Files. These revelations demonstrated how thoroughly platforms had integrated government influence into their moderation policies—whether through direct pressure or voluntary compliance—erasing dissent under the guise of ‘maintaining community standards.’ Yet even Musk acknowledged the limits of free expression within this framework, stating that ‘freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach.’ This admission underscores the enduring reality: even under new leadership, platforms remain bound by the algorithms and incentives that shape visibility, influence, and economic viability.

Perhaps the ultimate expression of this evolution is the proposed introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which transform social control mechanisms into financial infrastructure. The merger of ESG metrics with digital currency creates unprecedented granular control—every purchase, every transaction, every economic choice becomes subject to automated social compliance scoring. 

This fusion of financial surveillance with behavioral control represents the ultimate expression of the control systems that began with Edison’s physical monopolies. By embedding surveillance into currency itself, governments and corporations gain the ability to monitor, restrict, and manipulate transactions based on compliance with official criteria—from carbon usage limits to diversity metrics to social credit scores. These systems could render dissent not just punishable, but economically impossible—restricting access to basic necessities like food, housing, and transportation for those who fail to comply with approved behaviors.

What began with Tavistock’s careful study of mass psychology, tested through Facebook’s crude emotion experiments, and perfected through modern algorithmic systems, represents more than a century of evolving social control. Each stage built upon the last: from physical monopolies to psychological manipulation to digital automation. Today’s social media platforms don’t just study human behavior—they shape it algorithmically, automating mass psychological manipulation through billions of daily interactions.

Unplugging from the Matrix: A Path Back to Reality

Understanding these systems is the first step toward liberation. As the machinery of control reaches its peak, so too does the opportunity for resistance. The endgame for centralized power presents a paradox: the same systems designed to limit freedom also expose their own vulnerabilities. 

While the evolution from Edison’s physical monopolies to today’s invisible algorithmic controls may feel overwhelming, it reveals a crucial truth: these mechanisms are constructed—and what is constructed can be dismantled or circumvented.

We can already see glimmers of resistance. As I’ve observed in my investigation of Big Tech’s origins, people are increasingly demanding transparency and authenticity—and once they see these control systems, they don’t unsee them. Public backlash against obvious ideological sculpting—from corporate virtue-signaling campaigns to platform censorship—suggests an awakening to these methods of control. The public rejection of corporate news networks in favor of independent journalism, the mass exodus from manipulative social media platforms to decentralized alternatives, and the growing movement toward local community building all demonstrate how awareness leads to action.

The rise of platforms committed to free speech, even within centralized systems, shows that alternatives to algorithmic manipulation are possible. By championing transparency, reducing reliance on automated content moderation, and supporting the open exchange of ideas, these platforms challenge the status quo and push back against the dominance of centralized narratives. Building on these principles, truly decentralized networks represent our best hope for resistance: by eliminating gatekeepers entirely, they offer the greatest potential to counter hierarchical control and empower authentic expression.

The battle for freedom of consciousness is now our most fundamental struggle. Without it, we are not autonomous actors but non-player characters (NPCs) in someone else’s game, making seemingly free choices within carefully constructed parameters. Each time we question an algorithmic recommendation or seek out independent voices, we crack the control matrix. When we build in-person local communities and support decentralized platforms, we create spaces beyond algorithmic manipulation. These aren’t just acts of resistance—they’re steps toward reclaiming our autonomy as conscious human actors rather than programmed NPCs.

The choice between authentic consciousness and programmed behavior requires daily discernment. We can passively consume curated content or actively seek diverse perspectives. We can accept algorithmic suggestions or consciously choose our information sources. We can isolate ourselves in digital bubbles or build real-world communities of resistance.

Our liberation begins with recognition: these systems of control, though powerful, are not inevitable. They were constructed, and they can be dismantled. By embracing creativity, fostering authentic connection, and restoring our sovereignty, we don’t just resist the control matrix—we reclaim our fundamental right to author our own destiny. The future belongs to those aware enough to see the system, brave enough to reject it, and creative enough to build something better.

*  *  *

Essential Resources for Understanding Power and Influence

Friends and readers often ask where they can learn more about the esoteric topics I explore, particularly the intersections of culture, power, and social control. This curated list of resources has been instrumental in shaping my understanding of how power structures operate, influence, and shape public consciousness. These works span disciplines—from history and psychology to investigative journalism and cultural critique.

I share these not as a definitive roadmap but as an invitation to independent inquiry. In an era when algorithms increasingly shape what we see and think, engaging with diverse, well-researched perspectives becomes an act of empowerment. I hope the resources below serve as valuable starting points for those seeking to understand the deeper systems that shape our world.

Books:

  1. Dave McGowan, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon
    Detailed investigation of the Laurel Canyon music scene and its military/intelligence connections.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18681494-weird-scenes-inside-the-canyon
  2. John Coleman, The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
    Inside perspective on one of the key architects of mass psychological manipulation.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863459-the-tavistock-institute-of-human-relations?ref=nav_sb_ss_1_22
  3. John Coleman, The Committee of 300
    An exploration of the power structures shaping global policies, culture, and narratives.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/105897.The_Committee_of_300
  4. Miles Copeland, The Game of Nations
    Insights from a former CIA operative on covert operations and manipulation of public perception.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1344357.The_Game_of_Nations
  5. Daniel Estulin, Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses
    Contemporary analysis of ongoing influence operations.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29351771-tavistock-institute
  6. Edward Bernays, Propaganda
    A foundational work on the manipulation of public opinion and the psychology behind mass persuasion.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/191140.Propaganda
  7. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
    An exploration of how entertainment and media shape public consciousness and discourse.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/74034.Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
  8. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man
    A critical analysis of how media environments influence human perception and behavior.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61786.Understanding_Media
  9. Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
    In-depth exploration of how technology companies exploit personal data for control and profit.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26195941-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism
  10. Mark Crispin Miller, Boxed In: The Culture of TV
    A critique of television as a medium of social and psychological control.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1342360.Boxed_In
  11. Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
    Essays on the military-industrial complex and its ties to media narratives.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53078.Perpetual_War_for_Perpetual_Peace
  12. Jay Dyer, Esoteric Hollywood (Parts 1 & 2)
    A deep dive into the occult, intelligence connections, and symbolic manipulation in Hollywood films.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32851888-esoteric-hollywood
  13. Tom O’Neill, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties
    A riveting investigation into the CIA’s covert experiments and their connections to the counterculture and Charles Manson.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43015073-chaos
  14. The Memoirs of Billy Shears
    Presented as historical fiction, this book delves into the Paul McCartney replacement conspiracy, blending elements of autobiography, cultural critique, and an exploration of The Beatles’ role as a socially engineered phenomenon that shaped and redirected 20th-century youth culture.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31178916-the-memoirs-of-billy-shears
  15. Paul L. Williams, Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia
    A detailed account of covert operations, propaganda, and the intelligence community’s hidden influence on global events.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22245430-operation-gladio
  16. Konstandinos Kalimtgis, Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War Against the World
    An explosive investigation into the global drug trade, exposing its ties to elite financial and political institutions.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16145722-dope-inc 

Essential Voices and Further Investigations:

  1. Mike Williams, Sage of Quay
    Comprehensive documentation of The Beatles, Tavistock, and their role in cultural manipulation.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtimXpaec1UWO4lHSYNgfvg
  2. Michael Benz, Foundation for Freedom Online
    Current analysis of media manipulation and digital censorship infrastructure.
    https://foundationforfreedomonline.com
  3. Courtney Turner, The Courtney Turner Podcast
    Engaging conversations on cultural engineering, Tavistock’s legacy, and modern social control mechanisms.
    https://www.courtneyturner.com/podcast
  4. Jay Dyer, Jay’s Analysis Deep dives into Hollywood, esoteric symbolism, and the intersection of culture, power, and intelligence networks.
    https://jaysanalysis.com
  5. Solari Report – Catherine Austin Fitts
    A comprehensive resource exploring the financial, geopolitical, and systemic structures shaping global events, with unparalleled research into transparency, hidden systems, and actionable solutions.
    https://home.solari.com
  6. Whitney Webb, Unlimited Hangout
    Investigative reporting on intelligence agencies, corporate power, and media manipulation.
    https://unlimitedhangout.com
  7. Monica Perez, The Monica Perez Show
    Thought-provoking discussions on propaganda, psychological operations, and media narratives.
    https://monicaperezshow.com
  8. Sam Tripoli, Tin Foil Hat Podcast
    Unfiltered conversations exploring alternative theories, hidden histories, and systemic manipulation.
    https://samtripoli.com/tin-foil-hat
  9. William Ramsey Investigates
    In-depth examinations of occult influences, historical conspiracies, and intelligence operations shaping society.
    https://www.williamramseyinvestigates.com
  10. Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self (Documentary)
    A powerful visual journey through the evolution of psychological manipulation in media and advertising.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 18:40

DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Freeze Student Debt, Environmental Cases

Zero Hedge -

DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Freeze Student Debt, Environmental Cases

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The Justice Department reversed the agency’s position on a redistricting dispute currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the department asked the justices to halt the processing of pending student loan and environmental regulation cases.

The new court filings were issued on Jan. 24, days after President Donald Trump was inaugurated.

Position changes in high-profile court cases often take place when a new party assumes the presidency. After President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also changed position on several court cases that were pending at the time.

The DOJ’s new court filings leave the door open to the Supreme Court resuming processing of the student debt and environmental cases in the future, but also suggest the cases may become moot if the Trump administration decides to undo the Biden administration policies that prompted the various lawsuits.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who is currently the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, said in a new court filing that the DOJ has changed its position in the redistricting case.

She is also asking the court to halt all written briefing deadlines in the student loan case and two environmental cases, which would suspend the processing of those cases indefinitely. Before the court hears oral argument in a case, it typically asks the litigants to file briefs outlining the legal arguments they intend to make.

In legal parlance, Harris filed motions to hold the briefing schedule in those three cases in abeyance. In other words, she asked the court to suspend briefings until the new administration can decide how to proceed.

Trump has nominated attorney John Sauer as solicitor general. Sauer, who was Missouri’s solicitor general from 2017, represented Trump at the Supreme Court in his successful bid for immunity after being prosecuted for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Student Debt Case

Harris filed an abeyance motion with the Supreme Court in U.S. Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas. The court granted the petition on Jan. 10. The oral argument has not been scheduled.

An association of colleges challenged the Biden-era Department of Education’s rule establishing the procedures that student borrowers can follow to show that they were defrauded by the schools they attended and thereby qualify for student loan forgiveness. Some borrowers claim that schools committed fraud by using unethical recruitment tactics or by advertising exaggerated post-graduation job placement figures.

A lower court issued a ruling halting the department-directed expansion of defenses that student loan borrowers can use to contest repayment.

“After the change in Administration, the Acting Secretary of Education has determined that the Department should reassess the basis for and soundness of the Department’s borrower-defense regulations,” Harris wrote in the motion.

California Emissions Dispute

Harris filed an abeyance motion with the high court in Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2024, to decide whether it would revive a lawsuit filed by energy companies over California’s tough vehicle emissions standards. The court has not yet scheduled oral argument in the case.

A lower court ruled that California had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. That court held that the energy companies bringing the legal action could not demonstrate that they had legal standing to sue, meaning they couldn’t show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in the lawsuit.

Energy companies told the Supreme Court in their petition that they will suffer economic harm if California, whose state economy is large, is allowed to continue imposing vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than those mandated by the federal government.

California’s policy stances are influential, and several states have already adopted its regulatory framework for automobiles. California says its policies are needed to fight climate change by driving down demand for liquid fuel.

“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision,” Harris wrote, referring to a regulatory action taken by the EPA.

“Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine whether petitioners had Article III standing to challenge that decision.”

Article III of the U.S. Constitution governs federal courts and has been interpreted as stating those courts may only hear cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue.

Other Environmental Cases

The DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to pause the processing of two other cases that dispute EPA actions.

Both are about the federal Clean Air Act, which provides that challenges to “nationally applicable regulations” may “be filed only” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In the first case, Oklahoma v. EPA, which has been consolidated with Pacificorp v. EPA, Oklahoma and other states argue that state disputes over EPA policies should be heard in regional circuit courts, rather than in the nation’s capital.

The Supreme Court granted the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. No oral argument has yet been scheduled.

At issue is the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule that cracks down on states whose industries are said to be contributing to smog.

The Clean Air Act requires each state to adopt an implementation plan to comply with national standards, which the EPA then reviews, but in 2023, the agency drafted its own rule after rejecting 23 states’ plans for meeting national ozone standards.

In February 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit determined that challenges to EPA disapproval of the state plans could be filed only in the D.C. Circuit.

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on June 27, 2024, to temporarily put the EPA’s rule on hold. The court held that the emissions-reduction standards established by the EPA’s plan would probably cause irreversible harm to several of the affected states unless the plan were stayed until it could be reviewed by the lower courts.

The states said the regulation was illegal, costly, and could lead to blackouts, while the EPA said the rule was urgently needed to fight air pollution. They said the EPA’s plan undermines the principles of the Clean Air Act.

In the second case, EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, oil refineries argue they should be exempted from a federal mandate that the gasoline they produce should be made with a percentage of ethanol.

The Supreme Court approved the petition on Oct. 21, 2024. Oral argument has not been scheduled by the court.

The EPA argued the case should be heard by the D.C. Circuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found in November 2023 that it—and not the D.C. Circuit—was the proper forum for that appeal.

Harris used identical language in part of the Oklahoma v. EPA abeyance motion and the EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining abeyance motion.

“After the change in Administration, EPA’s Acting Administrator has determined that the agency should reassess the basis for and soundness of the underlying disapproval action,” Harris wrote. “Such a reassessment could obviate the need for this Court to determine the proper venue for challenges to that action.”

Redistricting Case

In the redistricting case, the Supreme Court decided on Nov. 4, 2024, the day before the presidential election, to take up the racial gerrymandering dispute known as Louisiana v. Callais, which was consolidated with the related case of Robinson v. Callais.

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor a particular party or constituency.

A federal district judge in 2022 had ordered the Republican-controlled Louisiana State Legislature to revise its electoral map, which provided for one black-majority congressional district, because it discriminated against black voters, who constitute almost one-third of the state’s population.

The Legislature complied, approving a new map that featured two black-majority districts. Map opponents told the Supreme Court in briefs that the new redistricting plan discriminated against non-black voters.

A panel of three federal district judges then sided with the non-black voters, determining in April 2024 that the map could not be used in upcoming elections. The Supreme Court intervened and stayed that order, allowing the map to be used.

Harris told the justices in a Jan. 24 letter that the Biden-era DOJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 23, 2024, arguing that there was “a strong basis in evidence” for the single federal district judge to believe a new map had to be drawn to bring the state into compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act. On Jan. 16, while Biden was still president, the DOJ also asked to participate in the oral argument of the case.

But with “the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the government’s position in these cases,” and the Biden-era brief “no longer represents the position of the United States.”

The DOJ is also “withdrawing its pending motion to participate in the oral argument,” Harris wrote.

Oral argument in the case has not yet been scheduled.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will respond to the change in position in the redistricting case and to the abeyance motions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 16:20

Goldman Finds "More Nuclear & Fewer EVs" As Trump Supercharges Powering Up America Theme

Zero Hedge -

Goldman Finds "More Nuclear & Fewer EVs" As Trump Supercharges Powering Up America Theme

There is a lot to unpack in Goldman's note, "US Policy Implications: Reliability, AI/Data Center Power Surge, More Nuclear/Fewer EVs," which discusses President Trump's "energy emergency" executive orders alongside the private sector announcement of the Stargate AI infrastructure project

Goldman analysts Brian Singer, Brendan Corbett, and others noted that despite President Trump's executive order freezing all Inflation Reduction Act funding disbursements, they remain "bullish on multiple sustainable themes" because of corporate/consumer/policymaker/regulator priority:

  • Reliability of energy, power and water supply.

  • Efficiency innovation towards energy, land and resource use. AI/Data Center power demand growth and willingness by Big Tech/hyperscalers to pay Green Reliability Premiums in support of nuclear generation and multiple other Clean Reliable virtual/on-site power sourcing.

  • Increased embrace by Sustainable Investors of the need for AI and Automation to fill rising labor challenges accelerated by aging populations in developed economies with tailwinds for Reskilling/Education/Womenomics stocks.

The team of analysts noted a convergence of multiple drivers impacting Sustainable Investing themes and the broader US economy in 2025 that only provides tailwinds for other themes, including "Reliability, Efficiency, AI/Automation, Training/Reskilling, Womenomics, and Affordability/Access. " 

They see tailwinds for Green Capex to support growth and infrastructure modernization... 

The analysts next provided a breakdown of President Trump's executive orders related to energy and AI announced last week:

In the first days of the new US Administration, President Trump issued executive orders declaring a National Energy Emergency, reviewing wind energy permitting and promoting affordable/reliable energy and domestic natural resources.

What was broadly consistent with our prior reports. Much of the policy and priorities were in-line with discussions in Washington in October, our post-election outlook and our 2025 outlook, in particular regarding:

  • Prioritizing acceleration of permitting processes for US energy/power/minerals development.

  • De-emphasis on EVs and offshore wind.

  • Suspension of further IRA loans/grants.

  • Broad support for nuclear.

  • Broad support for infrastructure/AI/data centers.

What was not consistent with our prior reports. Beyond the topics discussed in our prior reports, the executive orders issued in the opening days of the Administration:

  • Call for a suspension of federal permitting for onshore wind projects pending the completion of a comprehensive assessment and review of Federal wind leasing and permitting practices.

  • Pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act pending a 90-day review of processes, policies, and programs for issuing grants, loans, contracts, or any other financial disbursements of such appropriated funds for consistency with the law.

  • Supply and maintain a critical minerals National Defense Stockpile.

Four investment takeaways for key 2025 themes.

  • In aggregate, the policy initiatives broadly support our bullish outlook for investment towards Reliability of power, energy and water which we believe will be a priority of regulators, policymakers, corporates and consumers.

  • The increased focus on affordability we believe is bullish for the broad theme of Efficiency -- energy, resources and land.

  • Support for AI/data centers benefits companies in the supply chain of the AI/data center global power surge, in our view, including those providing low-carbon solutions.

  • At the same time there remain uncertainties, most importantly over the sustainability of IRA tax incentives and outlook for federal permitting of onshore wind. Not all onshore wind projects require federal permits, suggesting greater nuance regarding company-specific impact.

The analysts turned their focus on "AI/data centers' global power surge: Continue to see aggressive US/global growth, all-in approach to power sourcing." This coincides with our "The Next AI Trade" note in April 2024.  

Here's more from the analysts about the data center power surge that will boost demand on the grids through the end of the decade:

Our analysis suggests a 160%-165% increase in data center power demand by 2030 vs. 2023 levels. In the US, this implies that data centers will contribute a ~1% CAGR to overall US power demand; our Utilities team in its April 2024 report expects overall US power demand CAGR of 2.4% through 2030. We see data centers adding a 0.3% CAGR to overall global power demand. Our base case implies data center power demand moves from 1%-2% of overall global power demand to 3%-4% by 2030. In the US, the pace of mix increase is even greater, more than doubling by 2030 from 4% in 2023. If global data center growth in 2030 vs. 2023 levels were its own country, it would be a top 10 global power consumer.

However.

The analysts cautioned that, amid the surge in data center power demand, five potential constraints could pose significant risks to their updated base case of a 160% jump in global data center power demand growth in 2030 vs. 2023 levels: 

  1. Will AI server shipments be constrained by data center capacity? Our analysis led by our Telecom Infrastructure team suggests a tightening market for data center real estate in the coming years but sufficient capacity for our base case expectations for power demand.

  2. Will data center capacity be constrained by power infrastructure? Our analysis led by our Utilities team suggests a combination of new generation additions and greater utilization of existing capacity will be sufficient to meet data center power demand with transmission/interconnection the greatest risk. The investment split of the intended $500 bn Stargate project into AI servers vs. other infrastructure remains unclear. Broadly, we believe a $50 bn purchase of high-powered AI servers would lead to about 8-17 TWh of annual power demand, depending on power intensity of the servers purchased (new gen vs. older gen).

  3. Will power infrastructure be constrained by low-carbon optionality/cost? We believe Big Tech will continue to take an all-in approach to data center power sourcing, with continued willingness to pay Green Reliability Premiums while at the same time prioritizing time-to-market. We estimate the impact of major hyperscalers absorbing Green Reliability Premiums consistent with our recent AI/data center power surge report represents a modest 2%-3% of EBITDA and a minimal impact on >30% corporate returns. We note that Microsoft's CEO noted continued intentions to achieve 2030 decarbonization objectives in a CNBC interview on January 22, and Amazon's Chief Sustainability Officer was quoted in a press report as staying course on low-carbon goals.

  4. Will new-gen AI chips drive lower or higher aggregate power demand? We assume Big Tech cash flow/budgets will be the key constraint, leaving upside risk if there are no constraints and downside risk if compute speed demand is finite. We continue to see more risk to the upside (i.e., fewer capital constraints) while AI is in the training phase.

  5. Will AI server demand be constrained by AI results/innovations? This will remain key to watch, particularly from a Sustainability perspective whether we see accelerated efficiency solutions in the health care, energy, agriculture and education sectors.

The analysts then shifted their focus on "underinvestment in infrastructure" amid tailwinds by the Trump administration, plus ongoing power demand shift higher: 

We believe the confluence of rising power demand, historical underinvestment in infrastructure and rising temperatures/more extreme weather events will continue to drive rising tailwinds for investments in Reliability -- primarily of Power/Energy and Water. We continue to see opportunity for investment in stocks levered to the theme globally, which we believe will be a priority for both policymakers and corporate/residential consumers.

Infrastructure replacement and hardening both necessitate Reliability investment. Our meetings with corporates, regulators and policymakers in 2024 indicated increased recognition of the need for grid/water infrastructure hardening and modernization. This is due to both underinvestment in recent years as well as a wider range of expected temperatures between summer and winter. We believe both policymakers and regulators will look to reduce risk of outages and as such prioritize measures that would improve Reliability and Resiliency.

Adaptation will likely be a rising theme regardless of climate outcome, in our view. We believe the growing realization of potential risks/impacts/opportunities as global temperatures rise will serve to further investor and corporate focus on Adaptation. Since 1970, the world has seen an acceleration in temperature rise vs. the 1850-1900 average, per Berkeley Earth data. In the near to medium term we believe investors and corporates will take increased measures to quantify physical risks, increase investments towards Adaptation mitigation/solutions and look for new ways of gaining exposure to Adaptation solutions. Our meetings with regulators and corporates suggest recognition of the need to invest to mitigate Reliability risk from extreme weather events or more volatile summer/winter temperatures via investment in water/power solutions.

Generational growth will act as a further tailwind for infrastructure spending. We expect electricity demand growth in the US and Europe to accelerate to levels not seen in a generation, a function of electrification (Europe and US), AI/broader data center demand (US and Europe) and industrialization/reshoring (US). Also, with an eye on reducing risk of outages, we believe regulators will support investments to meet rising demand, with particular support for affordable technologies that advance meeting demand and reliability goals. We also see regionalization driving increased water infrastructure needs in select geographies.

Reliability a driver of recent US power M&A. On January 10, Constellation Energy (CEG, Coverage Suspended) announced plans to acquire privately held company Calpine, which would fuse Constellation's largely nuclear generation fleet with Calpine's largely natural gas generation fleet. The companies in their statement announcing the deal highlighted the increased need for Reliability amid rising demand growth, in particular from data centers.

Goldman's Utilities Research teams provided their outlook on US electricity consumption...

To conclude, the analysts said a more significant shift is underway within the Trump era: "Accelerated nuclear generation expansion combined with reductions in incentives for electric vehicles in the US may not derail overall Green Capex while potentially leading to net lower long-term carbon emissions." 

Let's not forget that in December 2020, one of our major themes was the nuclear trade.

Separately, on Saturday, we provided readers with Michael Hartnett's latest Flow Show, which shows the 10 biggest themes through the end of the decade

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 15:45

Stockman: America's Fiscal Doomsday Machine Must Be Stopped

Zero Hedge -

Stockman: America's Fiscal Doomsday Machine Must Be Stopped

Authored by David Stockman via the Brownstone Institute,

The following is Chapter One of David Stockman’s latest book, “How to Cut $2 Trillion: A Blueprint From Ronald Reagan’s Budget Cutter to Musk, Ramaswamy and the DOGE Team.”

The DOGE $2 trillion budget savings goal is crucial to the very future of constitutional democracy and capitalist prosperity in America. In fact, the soaring public debt is now so out of control that the Federal budget threatens to become a self-fueling financial doomsday machine.

Recall this sequence.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 on a call to bring the nation’s inflationary budget under control, the public debt was $930 billion and about 30 percent of GDP.

By the time Donald Trump was elected the first time it had erupted to $20 trillion, which has now become $36 trillion and 125 percent of GDP. Moreover, by the end of this decade the Federal fiscal equation will be going supercritical without sweeping budget reductions at the level of the DOGE target. Thus, by FY 2034 the annual baseline deficit according to CBO will total $2.9 trillion and 7 percent of GDP.

Yet even these enormous figures are based on a Rosy Scenario fairy tale. Namely, that Congress will never again adopt another spending increase or tax cut, including the impending $5 trillion extension of the expiring 2017 Trump tax cuts. It also conveniently assumes there will be no recessions, no inflation recurrence, no interest rate flare-ups nor any other economic crises for the remainder of this decade and forever thereafter.

Furthermore, it presumes that these surging red ink totals and soaring debt service expenses would be copacetic in the bond pits just the same. That is, CBO inexplicably projects that 7 percent of GDP deficits and annual interest expense of $1.7 trillion or 4.1 percent of GDP by 2034 would be compatible with a weighted average yield on nearly $60 trillion of public debt of just 3.4 percent.

Yes, and if dogs could whistle the world would be a chorus! Give the average yield just another 250 basis points, however, and now you have $3.1 trillion of annual debt service expense and a $4 trillion annual deficit by 2034. In short, there is a doom-loop building inside the Federal fiscal equation and nothing short of the DOGE target of $2 trillion of annual budget savings by the end of this decade can reverse its explosive materialization in the years beyond.

If sweeping budget retrenchment does not occur soon, in fact, soaring interest expense will ignite a veritable fiscal wildfire. On paper, the public debt would power upward unabated to $150 trillion or 166 percent of GDP by mid-century (2054) under CBO’s current Rosy Scenario projections. Of course, long before the debt actually hits this staggering figure, the whole system would implode. Every remnant of America as we now know it would go down the tubes.

So we need to be clear that the DOGE team of Musk and Ramaswamy must focus on savings of $2 trillion per year commencing relatively soon. That’s because the nation’s fiscal doomsday machine will be accumulating interest expense so fast as to make $2 trillion of savings spread over a longer period–such as a decade–little more than a rounding error. To wit, Federal interest expense has already passed the $1 trillion per year mark, will exceed $2 trillion per year in the early 2030s and would top $7.5 trillion per year at minimum by our calculations by mid-century.

Stated differently, if something drastic is not done now—like a $2 trillion annual budget savings by the end of Donald Trump’s second term—America will be paying more interest on the public debt within 25 years than the entirety of today’s Federal budget. That’s right: Debt service will exceed current outlays for Social Security, defense, Medicare, education, highways, the national parks, Head Start, interest, and the Washington Monument, too.

Obviously, the sprawling Federal government and its prodigious expanse of spending and debt literally defies easy comprehension and graspable solutions. After all, the current annual budget of $7 trillion amounts to Federal spending of nearly $20 billion per day and $830 million per hour. And when you talk about the 10-year budget outlook, comprehension literally fades away completely: The current CBO spending baseline for 2025-2034 amounts to $85 trillion or just shy of the annual GDP of the entirety of planet Earth this year.

So based on experience we suggest that the DOGE team needs to build its $2 trillion case around a target year and several big buckets of savings by broad type. The latter can then be used to fashion a detailed but comprehensible blueprint for arraying and conveying the desperately needed housecleaning of the Federal budget that the DOGE has been tasked with accomplishing.

In that context, FY 2029 makes the most sense as a target year since it would represent the 4th and outgoing Trump budget; and also one which would give sufficient time for phasing in some of the sweeping cuts that will be needed, but not so far in the distant future as to be largely irrelevant to the here and now of fiscal governance during Donald Trump’s second term.

We’d also suggest three big buckets of savings, which we would short-hand as follows:

  • Slash the Fat... by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful agencies and bureaucrats wholesale.

  • Downsize the Muscle... by curtailing national security capacities and functions that have grown up during the Forever Wars but are not needed for an America First foreign policy.

  • Cut the Bone... by reducing low-priority entitlements and subsidies that the nation cannot afford, and which a reasonable view of societal equity does not require.

Needless to say, when it comes to the vast wasteland of the Federal budget there are innumerable ways to skin the cat. But based on our own experience of more than a half-century of familiarity with the Federal budget as both a participant and an informed observer, we judge the following mix to be the most plausible and balanced way to get to the $2 trillion of annual savings by FY 2029.

To be sure, even this relatively judicious mix is sure to ignite firestorms on the banks of the Potomac like never before, but it can be strongly justified and defended for the reasons we will lay out in detail below.

Annual DOGE Savings Targets by Component:
  • Slash the Fat: $400 billion or 20 percent.

  • Downsize the Muscle: $500 billion or 25 percent.

  • Cut the Bone: $1.1 trillion or 55 percent.

Suffice it here to say that the first bucket alone would leave them screaming to high heaven in the swamplands of DC. But even that $400 billion savings could be accomplished only by eliminating 16 agencies entirely, slashing another nine departments by 50 percent, cutting the balance of the nondefense payroll by 34 percent, terminating $40 billion per year worth of wasteful farmer subsidies, cancelling entirely $60 billion per year of energy boondoggles including all EV credits, and eliminating $150 billion per year of all other forms of corporate welfare and subsidies embedded in the budget and tax code.

We will amplify the details of this $400 billion of inherent Federal budget fat and waste in the chapters below. But suffice it here to say that attacking the usual shock effect lists of outrageous studies, stupid foreign aid projects, or even payments to dead people, as is often used to illustrate wasteful spending, will get you barely a fractional decimal point of the savings target, as desirable as eliminating this nonsense might be in its own right.

For instance, a recent “outrageous spending” list showed $4 million was wasted on “Dr. Fauci’s Transgender Monkey Study” and $6 million on a “USAID Fund to Boost Egyptian Tourism,” among countless more absurdities. Still, eliminating these two items would contribute only 0.0005 percent to the $2 trillion savings target.

Even some of the larger ideas of this sort, such as timelier elimination of dead people from the Social Security rolls, would not get you very far, either. To be sure, 1.1 million Social Security recipients pass on to their rewards each year, while departing beneficiaries would be receiving an average benefit currently of $1,907 per month. So one extra month of dead people on the rolls costs the not inconsiderable sum of $2.1 billion.

At the present time, however, not much excess dwell time actually happens. The rolls are purged every month based on newly filed death certificates, and this encompasses the termination of payments to anyone who died during the course of the month, including the last day. So the average duration on the rolls of Social Security decedents is 15 days, which computes to $1.050 billion of payments.

Of course, if the Musk and Ramaswamy team could come up with some more super-duper software to monitor, report, calculate final month benefits and then terminate decedents in real time, it might reduce dwell time by two-thirds. In turn, this means that getting dead people off Social Security 10 days faster would generate a savings of $700 million per year or about 0.04 percent of the $2 trillion target. That is to say, there is undoubtedly room for efficiency improvements and elimination of outright waste and stupidity everywhere in the Federal budget, but it unfortunately adds up to rounding errors.

Stated differently, if it doesn’t “scream and bleed” politically it won’t likely make a dent in achieving the $2 trillion goal. There is just plain nothing antiseptic about slashing the Federal budget.

For instance, even a thundering 50 percent cut in the current nondefense Federal headcounts of 1.343 million would save just $100 billion annually by the target year of 2029. And that’s a comprehensive figure based on the current average cost per Federal employee of $100,000 in pay per year plus $44,000 in average benefits and fringes–-escalated for inflation to $160,000 per bureaucrat by FY 2029.

Accordingly, to reach $2 trillion of annual savings will require a deep dive into the three buckets listed above. In the next five chapters we will lay out the most plausible and judicious route to the $400 billion of “Slash the Fat” savings, followed by the details and an America First rationale for cutting $500 billion per year of unneeded muscle from the national security budget in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 will then delve into $1.1 trillion per year of cuts from the bone of entitlement and domestic welfare that would be needed to reach the $2 trillion DOGE savings target.

But one thing should be clear from the outset. Lists of outrageous anecdotal items provide color about the stupidity and waste that is rampant in the Federal government. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact-based analysis and philosophical U-turns that will actually be required to complete the DOGE mission successfully.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 15:10

Trump And Newsom Prepare To Battle Over Wildfire Relief

Zero Hedge -

Trump And Newsom Prepare To Battle Over Wildfire Relief

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

President Trump is set to conclude the first regular work week of his second term by coming here to survey the devastation of the Southern California’s wildfires.

That’s the kind of things presidents do. But nothing about the last five days, from Trump’s swearing-in to the break-neck speed in which he moved to transform the nation’s political landscape, could honestly be described as regular. Now his willingness to trudge directly into the heart of the resistance to see the torched remains of Palisades and Malibu for himself seems a fitting coda to one of the boldest launches of a president’s second term in history.

And in a week consumed by political theater, Trump managed to generate even more drama by leaving California Gov. Gavin Newsom guessing as to whether the two will share the spotlight during his visit, considering their most recent war of words over water and wildfires – not to mention their increasingly spirited rivalry.

Last Sunday, when Trump announced plans to come here and “to see it and get it moving back,” it seemed like the two leaders might put aside their petty grievances and pot shots to focus on a joint federal-state rebuilding plan to deal with an ordeal that has claimed 28 lives and some 16,000 buildings – and is not yet over.

Instead, it’s uncertain whether Trump will greet the governor when he touches down in Los Angeles or ignore him altogether. And while new fires continue to ignite across California’s Southland, the region is now only one of several stops Trump plans to make Friday, between visits to hurricane-ravaged North Carolina and a touchdown in Nevada to thank voters for his victory there.

Newsom, who is widely considered a top contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has complained publicly over the insinuation by Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson that relief for California would come with undefined strings attached.

But the governor has offered an olive branch of sorts, pledging to approach their new relationship with an “open hand, not a closed fist” while continuing to hold a special state legislative session to Trump-proof California. Attorney General Rob Bonta, meanwhile, one day after Trump’s inauguration, joined New Jersey and Massachusetts in suing the Trump administration over its executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity Wednesday night that he “[hasn’t] even thought about” whether he’ll meet Newsom during the California visit. The next afternoon, Newsom told reporters he still didn’t know Trump’s plans for the trip. Pressed on whether the two men would meet Friday, Newsom said, “Well. I certainly plan on being there at the tarmac.”

Newsom is trying to shift the spotlight away from the myriad state and local failures and onto efforts he’s made over the last two weeks to protect Californians who’ve lost their homes from price-gouging rents, while also vowing to expedite the rebuilding process by removing the normal bureaucratic and costly environmental hurdles the state normally imposes. But Trump has issued blistering criticism of California’s government’s mismanagement and decades of water and environmental policies that have failed to help mitigate the impact of these deadly and destructive infernos when they hit.

Trump is seizing on the wildfires to gain an advantage in a first-term fight he lost with Newsom, an effort to send more water from Northern California to Central Valley farmers and to southern parts of the state. Trump has repeatedly ridiculed Newsom and California Democrats for trying to protect the endangered Delta smelt in their history of restricting the release of water across the state. In one of his first actions, Trump released an initiative to prioritize  “people over fish,” an effort he described as “stopping radical environmentalism to provide water to Southern California.”

The president also has expressed urgency in helping bring Los Angeles back “with some of the best builders in the world,” ahead of the 2028 Olympic Games the city is hosting. He declared during his Hannity interview that he didn’t think the federal government should “give California anything until they let the water run [southward].” Trump also has suggested that Republicans in Congress could withhold the wildfire aid unless Democrats agree to a debt-limit increase.

Californian lawmakers, including Republicans, are stuck in middle, trying to bridge the divide to help their constituents rebuild.

Republican state Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, who represents the Santa Clarita area north of Los Angeles where the Hughes Fire broke out Wednesday, stood alongside Newsom at a press conference Thursday in which the governor touted the $2.5 billion in wildfire disaster aid appropriated by the state legislature.

Valladares said her constituents were lucky because so many fire-fighting resources have been deployed to the state that firefighters were able to contain the fire in the first 24 hours.

When we respond to disasters, I do believe it’s always appropriate to put partisanship and politics aside,” she told RealClearPolitics Thursday night. “It’s really important to send a clear message to the Trump administration that disaster relief is not partisan.”

Valladares and several of her Republican colleagues are pushing back against the threats to place conditions on federal disaster relief for Californians.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that, and a lot of Republican colleagues in the state legislature feel the same way,” she said.

At the same time, Valladares and her Republican peers are hitting Newsom and the Democratic supermajorities in the state legislature for rejecting or slow-walking a host of fire-prevention measures over the last two decades, including hurdles to prescribed burns and forest thinning.

California Senate Republicans Thursday released a 15-page document outlining their legislative record of “working to protect Californians, Homes, and Communities” from the increasing threat of wildfires, which have killed more than 150 Californians over the last decade and completely wiping out entire communities.

Two measures Valladares sponsored made that list, including extending a suspension of requirements imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act for a three-year period in order to facilitate prescribed burns, vegetation thinning, and fuel reduction projects on federal lands. The effort died on the Senate floor in 2021.

In 2021, Newsom vetoed another Valladares measure that passed with bipartisan support that would have required the state insurance commissioner to convene a working group of stakeholders to review the feasibility of allowing insurers to offer more affordable plans to help curb skyrocketing insurance costs and the epidemic of insurance companies dropping policies across the state.

Though the state legislature passed $2.5 billion in wildfire relief Thursday, Democrats in Sacramento voted to block $1 billion for wildfire prevention Republicans proposed.

“Their failure to invest in prevention directly lead[s] to the disastrous wildfires,” Californian Assemblyman Bill Essayli said in a Thursday post on X.com. “They would rather spend our tax dollars to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

When it comes to fire prevention, Democrats’ efforts are focused more sweepingly – on combating global warming, which they hold responsible for the increase in wildfires. Valladares agrees that climate change has contributed to the increasingly destructive wildfires, but says that Democrats shouldn’t block prevention efforts that state elected officials can control.

Newsom is known for his half-truths, which to me is not helpful,” she said. “L.A. has become a breakpoint [showing] where all of our issues in California have come from, and that’s a lack of accountability and mismanagement of fire mitigation to our insurance crisis to our housing crisis. It’s now time for California, its legislature, to do the right thing and not listen to the lobbyists of the environmentalists.”

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 14:00

This Is The Income Needed To Raise A Family In Each US State

Zero Hedge -

This Is The Income Needed To Raise A Family In Each US State

Over 13 million families in the U.S. have two children living at home.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, illustrates the income needed to raise a family of four in each state. GOBankingRates compiled the data as of December 2024.

Methodology: GOBankingRates analyzed 2023 Consumer Expenditure Survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate annual living expenses for a family of four across all 50 states. Costs included housing, groceries, utilities, healthcare, and transportation.

Hawaii and Massachusetts at the Top

A six-figure household income is required to raise a family of four in 26 states.

High taxes, strict land-use rules, and shipping costs make Hawaii the priciest state for families. The state is followed by Massachusetts and California at the top of the list.

Rank State Salary Needed 1 Hawaii $259K 2 Massachusetts $200K 3 California $188K 4 New York $156K 5 Alaska $137K 6 Maine $136K 7 New Jersey $135K 8 Vermont $132K 9 Oregon $132K 10 Arizona $131K 11 Washington $131K 12 Utah $128K 13 Connecticut $127K 14 New Hampshire $124K 15 Rhode Island $123K 16 Nevada $113K 17 Colorado $113K 18 Florida $112K 19 Virginia $111K 20 Idaho $107K 21 Wisconsin $107K 22 Delaware $107K 23 North Carolina $105K 24 Wyoming $101K 25 Illinois $100K 26 South Dakota $100K 27 Ohio $99K 28 Maryland $99K 29 Pennsylvania $98K 30 South Carolina $98K 31 Montana $97K 32 Minnesota $97K 33 New Mexico $96K 34 Texas $96K 35 Louisiana $95K 36 North Dakota $95K 37 Georgia $95K 38 Nebraska $94K 39 Michigan $94K 40 Indiana $94K 41 Kentucky $93K 42 Tennessee $92K 43 Missouri $92K 44 Iowa $92K 45 Oklahoma $91K 46 Arkansas $88K 47 Kansas $88K 48 Alabama $88K 49 Mississippi $88K 50 West Virginia $82K

At the bottom, West Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi are the cheapest states to raise a family. In comparison, a family in Hawaii ($259,000) needs to earn more than three times what a family in West Virginia ($82,000) needs to raise a family of four.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this graphic, which shows what the average American household’s monthly budget looks like, including savings, taxes, and all other expenditure.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 13:25

Trump Calls For Jordan, Egypt To Take More Palestinian Refugees, "Clean Out" Gaza

Zero Hedge -

Trump Calls For Jordan, Egypt To Take More Palestinian Refugees, "Clean Out" Gaza

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Jan. 25 that he wants Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations to accept more Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip, with the goal of moving out enough of the war-torn area’s population to “just clean [it] out” and create a virtual clean slate of the Palestinian territory.

Trump made the comments during a 20-minute question-and-answer conference with reporters on Air Force One Saturday. He said he lifted former President Joe Biden’s hold on sending 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, which was intended to lower civilian casualties in the Israel–Hamas War, now paused during a fragile cease-fire deal.

Trump said he released the bombs that day, “They’ve been waiting for them for a long time.”

When asked why he lifted the ban, Trump said, “Because they bought” the bombs.

The president has backed Israel for much of his political career. Regarding his goals for Gaza, Trump described a call earlier in the day with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and said he would speak with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi on Sunday.

“I’d like Egypt to take people,” Trump said.

“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing and say, ‘You know, it’s over.’”

During his call with Abdullah, Trump said he complimented Jordan for taking in Palestinian refugees and told the king, “I'd love for you to take on more, cause I’m looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now, and it’s a mess. It’s a real mess.”

The resettling or displacement of Gaza refugees would likely spur pushback from Palestinians, who hold a connection to the region. Trump said the area has experienced “many, many conflicts” for centuries and that resettling could be “temporary or long term.”

“Something has to happen,” the president said. “But it’s literally a demolition site right now. Almost everything’s demolished, and people are dying there.”

“So, I’d rather get involved with some of the Arab nations, and build housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change,” he added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office did not issue an immediate response to Trump’s remarks.

After his inauguration on Jan. 20, Trump said Gaza has “really got to be rebuilt in a different way.”

”Gaza is interesting. It’s a phenomenal location, on the sea. The best weather, you know, everything is good. It’s like, some beautiful things could be done with it,” he added.

The response from the Hamas terrorist group and its aligned groups was swift, with the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad calling Trump’s idea “deplorable.” The group told AFP that the plan encourages “war crimes and crimes against humanity by forcing our people to leave their land.”

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has fought alongside Hamas and other allied Palestinian groups throughout the Israel-Hamas war. It is the second-largest militant group in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The U.S. State Department designated it as a terrorist group in 1997.

Bassem Naim of Hamas’s political bureau told AFP that Palestinians would foil those plans, just as they have with other ideas “for displacement and alternative homelands over the decades.”

He added that Gazans would not “accept any offers or solutions, even if their apparent intentions are good under the banner of reconstruction, as proposed by U.S. President Trump.”

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, an opponent of the Gaza truce deal, called Trump’s idea of seeking relocation for Gazans a “great idea.”

“Only out-of-the-box thinking with new solutions will bring a solution of peace and security,” he said.

Trump’s resumption of large bomb deliveries is a break from Biden, who stalled their delivery in May to limit an all-out assault on Rafah, the southern Gaza city. Israel took control of the city a month later after a majority of Rafah’s one million residents that had lived or taken shelter in the city had been removed.

At the time, Biden had also paused 1,700 500-pound bombs that were packaged in the same shipment, but delivered those weeks later.

Trump’s latest move comes amid his celebrations of the first phase of the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Fighting is paused, and Hamas released some of the hostages it took in return for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

However, negotiations in the cease-fire’s second phase have not yet begun, which would result in all Hamas-held hostages being released.

The Israeli government has threatened to resume its war with Hamas—which began after the terrorist group massacred Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, 2023—if the remaining hostages are not released.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 12:50

Democrats Threaten "Righteous Litigation" Over Trump's Shutdown Of DEI Offices

Zero Hedge -

Democrats Threaten "Righteous Litigation" Over Trump's Shutdown Of DEI Offices

If a president has the power to unilaterally approve and fund DEI programs within the federal government, then any future president also has the power to unilaterally shut those DEI programs down.  This is how executive orders work, but Democrats think when it comes to Donald Trump legal restrictions apply. 

Woke activist politicians are up in arms this week after Trump signed orders effectively shutting down all DEI related offices within the government and placing employees on paid leave pending inevitable pink slips.  The usual suspects including House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar held a press conference to voice their outrage over the fast-paced elimination of DEI. 

Jeffries arguments in particular were loaded with fallacies in an attempt to rewrite what Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives actually are.  According to the House Minority Leader, America has always embraced DEI.

First we have to clarify that DEI is not and never will be American.  It is a communistic policy which places the group over the individual.  Meaning, the merit of the individual is dismissed as irrelevant in favor of diversity hiring for the sake of appearances.  Inevitably, this leads to the discrimination of certain people (namely straight white men and conservatives), because DEI operates on a victimhood totem pole which places certain groups above others depending on their ethnic or sexual status.  

There aren't enough high level black, indigenous or trans aerospace engineers in the US to fill positions at agencies like NASA.  So, DEI officials hire unqualified or lesser qualified workers by default.

Furthermore, "equity" and "equality" are not the same thing, and Hakeem Jeffries knows this. 

Equality is about equal treatment and equal opportunity.  Under equality, merit still applies. 

Equity is about forcing equality of outcome and giving special treatment to people based on their perceived or fabricated social disadvantages.  Under equity there can be no such thing as merit because the most useless people will always rise to the top based on who can pretend to be the most "oppressed".     

America has never embraced equity; it is a poisonous ideology that destroys excellence and progress.  America will always strive for equality based on merit.  If you have the chops to do the job at a top level, your skin color or bedroom activities don't matter.  If you're lazy, entitled and incompetent, then no amount of victim group status earns you a job.

Ilhan Omar attempted to reinforce the equity claim in her arguments, asserting that the public is "misinformed" about what DEI is and what DEI hiring entails.

Omar seems to assert that DEI is not about hiring people based simply on their diversity.  This is a lie. Regardless of how Democrats gaslight, in practice DEI has always been about hiring people based on their supposed oppression status.  It's about filling out that perfect inclusion pie chart that leftists venerate so much, and this is done at the expense of skill and experience.  It is also designed to slowly but surely weed out conservatives from government and exclude them from participation. 

Given a choice between a conservative and a woke activist, who is a DEI bureaucrat going to hire first?     

Hakeem Jeffries goes on to threaten an 'avalanche of righteous litigation' by Democrats in response to Trump's DEI shutdowns, claiming that the action is outside of the President's power and is unconstitutional.  It's unlikely that such litigation will go far or accomplish much other than to serve as a distraction.  DEI offices are federal creations which means they are subject to presidential executive orders.  There's nothing Dems can do about it.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 12:15

Trump Administration Puts Immediate Pause On FDA, CDC, & HHS Reports And Posts

Zero Hedge -

Trump Administration Puts Immediate Pause On FDA, CDC, & HHS Reports And Posts

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration has placed a freeze on many federal health agency communications with the public until at least the end of the month.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters in Atlanta on April 23, 2020. (Tami Chappell/AFP via Getty Images

In a Jan. 21 memo, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Acting Secretary Dorothy Fink told agency staff officials that an “immediate pause” had been ordered on announcements, press releases, social media posts, regulations, and guidance until those communications were approved by an appointee.

Agencies that are affected include HHS-supervised agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and many others. The pause is in effect through Feb. 1, according to the memo.

The pause announced by Fink includes anything that may be published in the Federal Register, as well as in the CDC’s publication, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which offers studies and alerts on a range of health-related subject matter. Nothing has been published in the CDC publication since Jan. 16, or four days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Fink said in the memo that some exceptions would be made for communications that affect “critical health, safety, environmental, financial or nation security functions.” However, such statements would have to be reviewed beforehand, she said.

On Jan. 21, the FDA posted notices about warning letters sent to companies. The CDC posted several statements, announcements, and research papers on its website on Jan. 21 and Jan. 22.

Fink, an endocrinologist and career civil servant who had led the HHS Office on Women’s Health, was selected by Trump as his interim HHS secretary on the afternoon of Jan. 20, according to a notice published by the White House. She will remain in that position until Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president’s choice to lead the agency, is confirmed by the Senate.

Hearings for Kennedy, formerly an independent presidential candidate before dropping out and endorsing Trump last year, will start in the Senate as soon as the paperwork is sent to the upper chamber, a senator from Louisiana confirmed to local media outlets.

I’m told the paperwork might come today, at which point we can schedule the hearings,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told the Shreveport Times on Jan. 21.

Long a critic of certain vaccines, Kennedy has endorsed a Trump-related slogan, “Make America Healthy Again,” while Trump said at a pre-election rally in New York City that he would have Kennedy “go wild” on U.S. health agencies. During a conference last year, Kennedy said he wanted to fire 600 people working at the NIH, which oversees vaccine research, and replace them with 600 new hires.

We need to act fast, and we want to have those people in place on Jan. 20, so that on Jan. 21, 600 people are going to walk into offices at NIH and 600 people are going to leave,” Kennedy said.

To lead the CDC, Trump has chosen former Florida Republican Rep. Dave Weldon, a medical doctor. Trump also selected Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary to lead the FDA.

The Epoch Times contacted the FDA, CDC, and HHS for additional comment on Jan. 22.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 09:55

Massachusetts Governor Says She Won't Obstruct ICE Efforts To Deport Criminals, But Cops Won't Help

Zero Hedge -

Massachusetts Governor Says She Won't Obstruct ICE Efforts To Deport Criminals, But Cops Won't Help

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said she supports the arrest of illegal immigrant criminals in her state, but reaffirmed an earlier promise that state police will not help in mass deportation efforts.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey speaks at the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Aug. 22, 2024. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement since taking office, including via a Department of Justice memo that directs federal prosecutors to investigate state and local officials who obstruct federal immigration efforts. The memo raises questions about whether the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts could prosecute local officials who refuse to comply with the president’s orders.

When asked at a Wednesday press conference if she was concerned about the DOJ memo, Healey said she “has no reason to be concerned.”

We’re not a sanctuary state,” she said, adding that she’s not planning to get in the way of federal immigration agents doing their jobs.

Eight Massachusetts cities, including Boston and Cambridge, have proclaimed sanctuary status, which include local laws to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

That said...

Immediately following Trump’s reelection, Healey pledged that Massachusetts State Police would “absolutely not” assist the administration with its promised mass deportation efforts. That pledge still stands, she said, noting there is a difference between “civil immigration enforcement” and addressing crimes committed by those in the country illegally.

“When it comes to criminal activity, alleged criminal activity, or the apprehension of those who have committed crimes—whether they are people from Massachusetts or people who come to Massachusetts, cooperation by my administration through the state police, by others in local law enforcement, will continue with our federal authorities,” she told the reporter.

We want to make sure that we’re always supportive of law enforcement when it comes to investigating, prosecuting, pursuing, holding accountable, and—in the event you’re talking about a person who is undocumented—the removal, the deportation of that individual.”

On Thursday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued a joint statement with her counterparts from 12 other states, condemning the DOJ directive as unconstitutional for trying to compel states to enforce federal laws.

The attorneys general said they will uphold laws of their own states and won’t be “distracted by the president’s mass deportation agenda.” They also said they will challenge any prosecutions of local officials.

“The President has made troubling threats to weaponize the U.S. Department of Justice’s prosecutorial authority and resources to attack public servants acting in compliance with their state laws, interfering with their ability to build trust with the communities they serve and protect,” the statement said.

Amid the legal debate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been swift in executing the administration’s agenda, prioritizing illegal immigrants with criminal records. In a span of two days, the agency has arrested more than 1,000 illegal immigrants across the country, including in self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” such as New York and Boston.

One high-profile arrest in Boston involved 25-year-old Wisteguens Jean Quely Charles, whom ICE identified as a member of a Haitian street gang with 17 criminal convictions.

According to ICE Boston, Charles entered the United States legally in 2013, but later “violated the terms of his lawful admission.” His convictions include multiple drug, weapons, and assault and battery crimes.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 09:20

US Army's Next-Gen Hybrid Tactical Vehicle To Replace Humvee Tested In Germany

Zero Hedge -

US Army's Next-Gen Hybrid Tactical Vehicle To Replace Humvee Tested In Germany

The US Army's 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, recently tested General Motors Defense's Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), built on the chassis of a Chevrolet Colorado truck, in the snowy Bavarian mountains of Germany. 

GM Defense's mobility solutions team designed the ISV with commercial off-the-shelf parts. ISV is based on the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 midsize truck platform, using a 2.8L Duramax turbo-diesel engine with an advanced 12-module battery pack. 

"The testing occurred during the annual Combined Resolve 25-1 exercise, where the Army's 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, maneuvered the vehicle across various operational scenarios, demonstrating its adaptability and effectiveness in challenging terrains," Interesting Engineering wrote in a note, adding, "The trial emphasized ISV's capabilities in advanced reconnaissance missions, which are crucial for troops to collect and transmit vital battlefield intelligence, especially in adverse conditions." 

In 2021, the Army selected the ISV to enhance its operational capabilities. The ISV incorporates 90% commercial off-the-shelf parts and is designed to carry nine infantrymen. The vehicle's adaptability for air transportability allows it to be deployed via military aircraft, including C-130 to UH-60 Blackhawk. 

By 2024, the ISV completed trials with the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces, testing the vehicle's offroad capabilities in a 1,250-mile journey across highways, dunes, soft sand tracks, and rocky walls while carrying maximum payload capacities. 

The Army has replaced some of its aging Humvees with the newer Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. Still, the service aims for a smaller vehicle—larger than the Polaris MRZR but similar in size to the Humvee.

The ISV is the big brother to the ultra-light Polaris MRZR that Special Forces have used for years. MRZRs and aging Humvees are occasionally auctioned off on Gov Planet for civilians to purchase. 

A defense firm has recently introduced a complete armor package for the Tesla Cybertruck. 

We wonder what Tier 1 operators think of these new high-tech vehicles with massive lithium battery packs.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 08:45

Why Greenland Matters: US Strategy In The Changing Arctic

Zero Hedge -

Why Greenland Matters: US Strategy In The Changing Arctic

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

To the shock of many, President Trump has declared his interest in acquiring Greenland, calling it vital to national security and critical to preempting any attempt by China to gain influence or control of Greenland. And he has wisely left all options on the table, no matter how unlikely, by declining to rule out economic coercion or force as to acquire it. And China’s great interest in Greenland must not be allowed to morph into what happened with the  Panama Canal. Interestingly, a new poll indicates that Greenlanders are very open to becoming part of the United States.

At a high level, President Trump’s focus on Greenland is about its increasing importance to U.S. national security and the energy dominance that he has promised to deliver. The increased importance of Greenland in these two areas, versus its importance during the height of the Cold War, come from changes in polar ice coverage making once impassible sea lanes and impenetrable territories far less so. This increased accessibility to the Arctic Sea and land masses, coupled with powerful icebreakers, has opened new opportunities for vastly increased merchant shipping, much better access to the Arctic’s vast natural resources, and increased human habitation.

The improved access to the Arctic has also increased the need for the United States to secure its northern borders as more Chinese and Russian naval vessels with missiles capable of striking the United States ply the waters around Greenland.

Elaborating a bit, Greenland is placed strategically along two potential shipping routes through the Arctic: The Northwest Passage bordering the North America’s northern coastline and the Transpolar Sea Route right through the center of the Arctic Ocean. With changes in ice coverage, these routes have seen big increases in ships transiting them, both military and commercial. This makes Greenland far more strategic than it was during the Cold War.

The town of Ilulissat in western Greenland. Alex Savu/Visit Greenland

Further enhancing the strategic value of Greenland is that roughly two-thirds of it is actually in the Arctic Circle. This makes it is an excellent hopping off point/staging area for accessing the Arctic region that is highly complementary to the 15 percent of Arctic territory the United States controls via Alaska. Because about one-half (53 percent) of  the Arctic is part of Russia, fully leveraging Greenland, as well as Alaska, is essential for the United States’ ability to compete for presence in and control of the Arctic region. But merely leveraging Greenland will not be enough. To be positioned to compete for Arctic influence and control, you need a very critical manmade resource that the United States is short on and Russia is rich in—icebreakers

As of 2025, Russia’s fleet of conventional and nuclear icebreakers dwarfs that of the United States, and Russia is in the process of building even more Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreakers. These icebreakers, with a displacement of 32,000 tons and the ability to continuously break ice of up to 10.6 feet of thickness, dwarf the largest U.S. icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, which displaces 16,000 tons with the ability to continuously break ice of up to 4.5  feet in thickness.

Indeed, Russia’s fleet of nuclear and conventionally powered icebreakers enables it to support operations in the Arctic region at a level far beyond what the United States will be able to match given its lack of shipbuilding capacity, which also has the U.S. Navy struggling to avoid an ever-decreasing number of deployable ships.

Adding to U.S. woes when it comes to competing for Arctic control is that the Ukraine-Russia conflict has brought China and Russia much closer together than at any other time in modern history. This has resulted in China, the largest shipbuilder in the world by far,  and Russia partnering to dominate the Arctic.

Journalists attend the float-out of the Sibir (Siberia) nuclear-powered icebreaker at the Baltic Shipyard in Saint Petersburg on Sept. 22, 2017. AFP Photo/Olga Maltseva

Consequently, even with the United States being able to fully leverage Greenland, it faces a steep climb when it comes to securing a slice of the Arctic pie commensurate with its leading position in the Great Power competition. Of course, all that could change if Canada and the United States came to a mutually beneficial agreement to work together to take advantage of the natural resources contained in the 40 percent of the Arctic that is part of Canada.

However, as important as Greenland is in securing substantial deposits of rare earth elements and oil, its role in securing the United States’ northern flank is more important immediately. And Greenland, even with Denmark’s support, is not up to the task.

As things stand, Greenland, with a population of about 56,000, is an autonomous territory of Denmark. And despite some claims to the contrary, with Denmark exercising control over Greenland’s foreign affairs, security, and defense policy, Greenland is not recognized as a country, nor could it effectively operate effectively as a fully independent country. With its small economy revolving around subsidized fishing jobs and to a lesser extent agriculture, its 2024 GDP, including about $600 million in annual support from its colonial owner Denmark, is about $3.4 billion. The GDP also receives a significant boost from the United States’ Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, that is currently manned by 700 personnel.

It is clear that, even with support from Denmark, this is not a nation the United States can rely on to secure its northern flank and that is why President Trump is very interested in acquiring it. With this in mind, a recent poll found 57 percent of Greenlanders want to become a state of the United States, with only 37.4 percent opposing such a move. While statehood is not a real option at this time, like Hawaii once was, it could become a protectorate territory of the United States. However, regardless of what formal relationship is established, Greenland still needs a national security partner that can both protect it and help it responsibly leverage its natural resources. And for that, the most logical partner would be the region’s Great Power and fellow North American, the United States.

Finally, no way can the United States allow what happened with Panama and China to happen with Greenland.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 08:10

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus

Financial Armageddon -


Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.






Dump the Dollar before Bank Runs start in America -- Economic Collapse 2020

Financial Armageddon -












We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

Hillary Clinton's Top Secret Files Revealed Here

Financial Armageddon -

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.





Pages