Zero Hedge

Obama's 'Gift' Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill As Chicago Hides True Costs Of Presidential Library

Obama's 'Gift' Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill As Chicago Hides True Costs Of Presidential Library

When former President Barack Obama announced plans for his presidential center on Chicago’s South Side, he described it as a privately funded investment in the city that would give back to the community that shaped his political career.

Former President Barack Obama is pictured next to construction of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, a project facing delays, soaring costs and mounting scrutiny over its finances. (Scott Olson/Getty Images; Reuters/Vincent Alban) via Fox News

And while construction of the brutalist eyesore itself remains privately financed through the Obama Foundation, taxpayers are footing the bill for massive infrastructure costs. 

A review by Fox News found that state and city agencies have not produced a unified accounting of total public expenditures tied to the project’s surrounding infrastructure. While individual agencies have disclosed partial figures, no single office has reconciled those totals or clarified how they overlap.

At the time the project was approved in 2018, public infrastructure costs were projected at roughly $350 million, to be split between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Those estimates covered roadway modifications, utility relocations and related improvements necessary to accommodate the 19.3-acre campus in Jackson Park that nobody asked for. 

In July, the Illinois Department of Transportation said that approximately $229 million in state-managed infrastructure spending had been committed to the project. That total includes about $19 million for preliminary engineering, $24 million for construction engineering and $186 million for construction activities. A department spokesperson described the earlier $174 million figure as a preliminary 2017 estimate.

Now, Chicago’s most recent 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Plan lists more than $206 million allocated to roadway and utility work associated with the project. However, much of that funding is labeled as “state,” and neither state nor city officials have clarified how the figures relate to one another or whether they represent overlapping commitments.

A map graphic shows the footprint of the Obama Presidential Center inside Jackson Park on Chicago’s South Side along Lake Michigan. (Fox News)

Fox submitted records requests to several agencies, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the city’s Office of Budget and Management, the mayor’s office and Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration - yet, not one provided a consolidated, up-to-date accounting of total public infrastructure spending. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is reviewing whether agencies complied with state transparency laws in responding to the requests.

The Obama Foundation defended the project, reiterating that the center’s construction - whose cost has grown from early projections of roughly $330 million to at least $850 million, according to its 2024 tax filings - is being financed by private donations. In a statement to Fox, foundation spox Emily Bittner said the organization is “investing $850 million in private funding to build the Obama Presidential Center and give back to the community that made the Obamas’ story possible,” adding that the project is intended to catalyze economic opportunity on the South Side. Bittner, of course, didn't address the infrastructure costs - which have been extensive. 

Chicago’s 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Program lists $206,078,058 for "Obama Presidential Center & Jackson Park – Infrastructure Improvements," with most funding labeled as state sources. (City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program)

Cornell Drive, a four-lane roadway along the eastern edge of Jackson Park, was removed and traffic rerouted farther west. Utilities, including water mains and sewer lines, were relocated, and new drainage systems were installed. City and state officials have said the changes were necessary to manage anticipated traffic and visitor demand.

The center occupies 19 acres of public parkland transferred under a 99-year agreement for $10, a decision that prompted legal challenges arguing that the arrangement was not in the public interest. Courts ultimately dismissed those lawsuits.

Though often described as a presidential library, the Chicago complex will not function as a traditional library operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Former President Obama’s official records will be maintained by the federal government at a facility in Maryland, while the Chicago site will be operated privately by the Obama Foundation.

The foundation also pledged to establish a $470 million endowment intended to protect taxpayers in the event the project encounters financial difficulty. According to previous reporting by Fox News, that fund has received $1 million in deposits.

Who didn't see this coming?

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 07:45

Travel Chaos Erupts In US East As Blizzard Slams Major Cities

Travel Chaos Erupts In US East As Blizzard Slams Major Cities

Blizzard conditions are expected from Delaware into southern New England, and travel will be "extremely treacherous" to "nearly impossible" today, according to the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center.

Expect travel delays along the I-95 corridor, as well as flight cancellations at airports from the Mid-Atlantic to the Northeast.

Nearly 5,600 flights in, out, or within the US were cancelled at the start of the week, according to flight-tracking website FlightAware.

Travel nightmare for Republic Airways, JetBlue, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, and United early Monday morning, with the bulk of the cancellations affecting these airlines.

Airports in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia, Boston, Newark, and Philadelphia, experienced the highest number of cancellations and delays.

Here's a map of the flight misery as of 0630 ET.

The heaviest snowfall, as much as two feet in some locations across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas, fell in the overnight hours and will continue into the morning, NWS warned in the most recent update.

Besides the unfolding travel chaos, nearly a quarter million customers are without power this morning because of the blizzard conditions, with a large percentage of the outages concentrated from Delaware to New Jersey.

Anyone planning to travel into NYC or out of it, well, forget about it, because Mayor Zohran Mamdani declared a state of emergency and closed streets, highways, and bridges to most traffic from late Sunday through Monday afternoon. His collective army of snow shovelers will save the day.

"These are blizzard conditions. New York City has not faced a storm of this scale in the last decade," Mamdani said. "We have activated additional high-water rescue teams should flooding grow dire."

How do the blizzard and winter blast compute in the minds of Mamdani's followers after years of being brainwashed about the global warming crisis?

Meteorologist Ryan Maue looks ahead: 

Winter isn't over. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 07:20

Alberta And Switzerland To Vote On Immigration Control Amid Growing Backlash

Alberta And Switzerland To Vote On Immigration Control Amid Growing Backlash

As the world watches unchecked immigration fundamentally transform the West, a growing backlash has gained a foothold - and it's made it to the ballot box.

In Alberta, Canada, Premier Danielle Smith announced a referendum this fall to decide whether the province should limit the number of new international, temporary foreign workers and asylum seekers - as Alberta seeks to take charge of the issue amid a surge of proud Canadians who do not embrace change. 

As Reuters notes; 

The move, announced by Premier Danielle Smith in a televised address on Thursday evening, represents an attempt by Alberta to wrest control of a key issue from the federal government. Immigration policy in Canada is primarily the responsibility of Ottawa, not the provinces.

It is also an attempt by Smith to ward off a simmering Alberta separatism movement, which has threatened Canadian unity as Prime Minister Mark Carney makes efforts to improve relations with western, resource-rich provinces in the face of economic challenges posed by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy.

Giving citizens a say on immigration policy is the government's way of giving Albertans hope that the Canadian federation can work, Smith told reporters on Friday.

Smith has also blamed Alberta's financial woes on immigrants - noting that a surge of over 600,000 migrants over the past five years, putting Alberta's population over 5 million in 2025 - has put a strain on provincial resources.

"Throwing the doors wide open to anyone and everyone across the globe has flooded our classrooms, emergency rooms and social support systems with far too many people, far too quickly," she said. 

Pissed Swiss Want Population Cap

Meanwhile in Switzerland, a landmark vote is set for June 14 that would cap the nation's population at 10 million from its current 9.1 million. 

The proposal has been put forth by the country's largest political coalition, the Swiss People's Party (SVP), and would require the government to refuse entry to all migrants - including those 'asylum' seekers who go home to party when the weather is nice. 

Hitting 10 million residents would also force Switzerland to end its free-movement agreement with the EU. Of note, the EU and Switzerland are integrated through more than 120 bilateral agreements, which grants it access to the EU single market and the free movement of people and trade in goods, CNN reports.

SVP argues that Switzerland is undergoing a 'population explosion,' that is straining resources and infrastructure, and inflating rents. 

According to a 2025 poll by Swiss-based polling firm Leewas, the proposal has wide support. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 06:55

CIA Admits There Was Political Bias In Obama-Era Intelligence

CIA Admits There Was Political Bias In Obama-Era Intelligence

For years, anyone who questioned whether Washington’s intelligence machinery tilted left was told they were peddling conspiracies. That narrative fell apart on Friday, when CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or major revision of nineteen intelligence products produced during the Obama years, citing political bias and substandard analytic tradecraft. It’s the first official acknowledgment that America’s most powerful spy agency let politics color its assessments.

"The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned," Director Ratcliffe said in a statement. "There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record. These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis. Our recent successes in Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE and Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER exemplify our dedication to analytic excellence.”

The bombshell came after the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) completed an independent review of hundreds of finished CIA reports spanning the past decade. This period includes Barack Obama’s second term and the Russian collusion hoax.

The PIAB identified nineteen intelligence products that “failed to be independent of political consideration.” Deputy Director Michael Ellis led an internal review that confirmed the findings. Ratcliffe’s response was swift and blunt. “The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” he said. “There is absolutely no room for bias in our work… These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis.”

That’s a rather diplomatic way of saying that Barack Obama’s CIA got caught red-handed playing politics. The agency admitted that at least some of its Obama-era intelligence relied on questionable sourcing, including political activist groups. One report even drew on material from Planned Parenthood, something one official described as “clearly not an appropriate use of CIA resources.” For an organization that prides itself on independence and tradecraft, that revelation is a true humiliation.

The implications stretch far beyond nineteen flawed reports. The time frame under review encompasses the same period that produced the now infamous 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the document commissioned in the last days of the Obama administration and released just before Donald Trump’s inauguration, alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election. 

That assessment relied heavily on the debunked Steele Dossier and cast a dark cloud over President Trump’s first term, giving Democrats cover to claim Trump was an illegitimate president.

If nearly twenty reports from that same era failed to meet analytic standards due to political bias, the question is no longer whether the intelligence community was politicized; it’s how deep the rot went.

However, Democrats clearly aren’t convinced.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dismissed the retractions, insisting that “the strength of the Intelligence Community has always depended on its ability to deliver objective, apolitical analysis, grounded in rigorous tradecraft and insulated from political pressure.” He emphasized that such judgments “must be made by intelligence professionals and not subject to politics.”

Warner warned that when politically appointed bodies “appear to be dictating what analysis is acceptable, it risks eroding confidence in the objectivity of our intelligence.” He described the CIA’s action as part of a “broader and deeply troubling pattern in this administration: sidelining career experts, undermining inconvenient intelligence assessments, and allowing political considerations to override professional judgment.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, however, welcomed the retractions. “The Obama and Biden administrations mixed intelligence analysis and politics far too often,” Cotton said in a post on X. “I commend Director Ratcliffe for correcting the record and ensuring that the CIA’s analysis is free of any political bias.”

He added, “I’ve been sending these kind of reports back to the CIA for years and observing that they contain no intelligence. Our intelligence agencies have too often missed critical national-security developments to waste time on, for instance, how ‘pandemic-related contraceptive shortfalls threaten economic development.’ Honestly.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 05:45

Renewables Now Make Up 1/4 Of US Electricity Generation

Renewables Now Make Up 1/4 Of US Electricity Generation

In 2025, the share of renewables in U.S. electricity generation has surpassed 25 percent.

Over the course of the past 20 years, their share has continuously risen from just 8.6 percent in 2007.

At the same time, as Statista's Kathraina Buchholz details in the infographic below, coal in electricity generation fell from a share of 49 percent to just 16.4 percent last year.

Renewables Now Make up 1/4 of U.S. Electricity Generation | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

While Trump administration's policies regarding renewable energy and greenhouse gases have yet to show their full effect, experts believe that the sector's strong growth as well as efficiency and cost improvements will cause it to expand further – albeit slower – despite some government funding losses and the end of emission limits.

In 2022, more electricity was generated from renewable sources in the U.S. for the first time over the course of one year than from coal.

That year, renewable energy sources created more than 900 terawatt-hours of electric power in the country compared to a little over 800 that came from coal.

On a global scale, this change happened last year as renewables outweighed coal electricity generation in the second half of 2025.

Up until 2007, coal accounted for more than 2,000 terawatt hours of electricity in the U.S. before the figure started to declined as regulations around fossil fuels - limits on carbon-intensity and the emissions of toxic elements like mercury - tightened. Electricity generation from natural gas gained pace as a result since it produces somewhat less CO2. To reach the emission goals associated with the net zero age, however, the U.S. would have to continue growing carbon-neutral electricity sources like wind and solar, which have been on a steady upwards climb in the new millennium and are now the second biggest source of electric power in the country.

Looking not only at electricity but energy use as a whole, renewables have a longer way to go in the U.S. and globally.

Here, renewable energy made up only 9 percent in 2023 as energy sources outside of electricity - most notably petroleum in the form of gasoline - are added to the mix.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 04:15

The Baltic States Plan To Form Their Own "Military Schengen"

The Baltic States Plan To Form Their Own "Military Schengen"

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

This will one day link with the existing “military Schengen” between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland, which Belgium and France plan to join, for creating a contiguous zone of free military movement between the Pyrenees and the approach to St. Petersburg.

The Baltic States’ Defense Ministers signed a statement of intent in late January for forming their own “military Schengen”, which refers to the agreement signed two years ago in January 2024 between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland for expediting the flow of troops and equipment. Belgium and France are also expected to join the original “military Schengen”, whose members aim to slash to 3-5 days the estimated 45 days that it currently takes to send the aforesaid from the Atlantic to the Eastern Flank.

Upon their modernization, both in terms of infrastructure and legal coordination, the two “military Schengens” will form a contiguous zone of free military movement between the Pyrenees and the approach to St. Petersburg. To be sure, this is a work in progress that won’t be completed anytime soon, especially its Baltic portion. Poland only just opened the portion of the “Via Baltica” highway between itself and Lithuania, while the “Rail Baltica” between them and Estonia is even further behind schedule.

Nevertheless, the unmistakable trend is that NATO is optimizing its military logistics, particularly along its Eastern Flank whose members agreed to turbocharge their militarization during mid-December’s inaugural summit. In connection with that, readers also shouldn’t forget that the Baltic States and Poland are building something called the “EU Defense Line”, which combines the first’s “Baltic Defense Line” and the second’s “East Shield” into what’s de facto a new Iron Curtain that’ll include anti-personnel mines.

This Baltic Front of the New Cold War between NATO and Russia relies heavily on Poland, which already has the EU’s largest military and the third-largest in NATO, with plans to expand from 215,000 troops to 300,000 by 2030 then half a million by 2039 (200,000 of whom will be reservists). Both the Via and Rail Baltica megaprojects, which are the regional flagships of the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, will connect Poland to Latvia’s and Estonia’s borders with Russia for rapid force deployment in a crisis.

The involvement of the EU’s largest military in any such NATO-Russian crisis would inevitably drag the rest of those two overlapping blocs in any whatever war might then follow in the worst-case scenario. If the Baltic States hadn’t agreed to form their own “military Schengen”, and if the associated “Baltica” logistical projects weren’t being built, then potential border incidents could be more easily manageable. Instead, they’d likely result in a speedy deployment of Polish troops, thus escalating matters into a crisis.

Moving beyond the military significance of this recent development and into its political significance, Poland is clearly establishing a sphere of influence over the Baltic States, which is actually a return to history.

Casual observers probably aren’t aware, but the Warsaw-led Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth once stretched as far north as southern Estonia and even controlled parts of Latvia for centuries till the Third Partition in 1795. This is part of Poland’s plan to revive its long-lost Great Power status.

The overarching trend is that Poland is preparing to lead Russia’s containment along the Baltic Front, which could also place more pressure upon Kaliningrad (which borders Poland and Lithuania) and Belarus (which borders Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia).

The eventual merger of these two “military Schengens” could embolden Poland to more actively, even aggressively, contain Russia by ensuring that back-up would speedily arrive from the EU hinterland or even the US homeland in the event of a crisis.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 03:30

Saudis Lead Arab Fury After Huckabee Floats 'Greater Israel' Vision

Saudis Lead Arab Fury After Huckabee Floats 'Greater Israel' Vision

Blowback was swift across the Arab world after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee declared it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East, words featured in a Tucker Carlson interview from Jerusalem published days ago.

Governments from Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman issued statements condemning the comments, joined by both the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League - a rare moment of quick unity for these countries.

Tehran Times

In a joint statement they "express[ed] their strong condemnation and profound concern regarding the statements made by the United States Ambassador to Israel, in which he indicated that it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab states, including the occupied West Bank."

Most notably close American ally Saudi Arabia was among the first to blast Huckabee's provocative statement and perspective. Saudi Arabia called it "reckless" and "irresponsible".

Jordan too in a rare moment lashed out at Washington:

“The official spokesperson for the ministry, Ambassador Fuad Al-Majali, rejected these absurd and provocative statements, which constitute a violation of diplomatic norms, an assault on the sovereignty of the countries of the region, and a flagrant breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” the ministry said in a sharply worded response.

Asked whether a passage from the Book of Genesis could be read as granting Israel the right to claim all the land between Egypt's Nile River and Syria's Euphrates, Huckabee didn't hedge. He bluntly and without apology said it would be "fine" if Israel and its military took over the whole Middle East. 

"It would be fine if they took it all," Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist Minister and previously the governor of Arkansas made clear. This led to a wide ranging conversation and back and forth over whether the modern nation-state of Israel, officially founded as a sovereign government on May 14, 1948, is synonymous with the Israel written about in the Old Testament, stretching back thousands of years.

Here's how that contentious segment of the interview unfolded, according to a transcript and commentary: 

Huckabee was asked in an interview with US conservative commentator Tucker Carlson about his understanding of a biblical verse suggesting that land including parts of Egypt, Syria and Iraq had been divinely promised to the Jewish people.

Carlson said that according to the Old Testament, the boundaries would be “basically the entire Middle East.”

He continued: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“Not sure we’d go that far,” Huckabee said in reply. “It would be a big piece of land.”

Carlson then pressed him: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee responded, before adding, “I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”

Carlson asked: “You think it would be fine if the state of Israel took over all of Jordan?”

That's when Amb. Huckabee must have realized he was entering some hot diplomatic water, which would be sure to outrage Washington's Arab allies in the region. And indeed condemnation from Middle East leaders has been swift, but it will probably just stop there - though some could pull their support for anti-Iran operations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 02:45

Trump Declares War On Euro Censorship

Trump Declares War On Euro Censorship

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats.

The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts.

A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.

The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety.

The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months.

Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.”

A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.”

In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.

This puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. 

This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own.

In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. 

Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.”

“There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge.

This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed. 

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.”

It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. 

Sources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

The far left Spanish government has also openly announced its intention to outright ban X in recent weeks

French PM Emmanuel Macron also referred to free speech as “pure bullshit” this week.

These countries are in lockstep with the EU which is waging a censorship war against the free internet, particularly X.

Trump is using other means of fighting EU censorship simultaneously.

The Eurocrats have vowed to push back.

Freedom.Gov revives Cold War tactics against modern tyrants, reminding Starmer and EU elites that globalists can’t firewall the truth.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 02:00

Trump 2.0's Grand Strategy Against China Is Slowly But Surely Coming Together

Trump 2.0's Grand Strategy Against China Is Slowly But Surely Coming Together

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Casual observers are convinced that Trump is a madman with no method behind his madness, but the reality is that he and his team – collectively known as Trump 2.0 – are slowly but surely implementing their grand strategy against China.

Every one of their moves abroad should be seen as a means to this end.

They want to comprehensively contain China and then coerce it into a lopsided trade deal that “rebalance[s] China’s economy toward household consumption” per the National Security Strategy.

Trump 2.0 doesn’t want to go to war over this, however, which is why they’re careful to avoid replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent.

Piling too much economic-structural pressure on China at once could spook it into lashing out in desperation before the window of opportunity closes. They therefore decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.

The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure against Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise. The combined effect thus far is already placing immense pressure upon China to cut a deal with the US.

This is the grand strategic context within which Russia’s talks with the US and Ukraine are taking place.

It too is coming under immense pressure after Trump 2.0 unexpectedly (from their view) perpetuated the proxy war in Ukraine, pioneered a breakthrough to Central Asia through last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” across the South Caucasus, and got India to curtail its oil imports.

Russia must now decide whether to cut its own deal with the US or become more dependent on China.

  • The first scenario could include a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US in exchange for compromising on its maximalist goals in Ukraine, which could deprive China of access to the deposits that the US invests in as explained here.

  • As for the second scenario, Russia could continue its special operation indefinitely with growing Chinese support in exchange for China receiving unrestricted access to its resources at bargain-basement prices, thus greatly helping China prepare for war with the US.

Framed in this way, reaching a deal with Russia could facilitate China’s strategic surrender to the US without spiking the risk of war, while failing to do so could spike the risk of war if Russia turns itself into China’s raw materials reserve for the aforesaid reason and with the same outcome vis-à-vis the US.

This imbues Putin with leverage vis-à-vis Trump 2.0, but they’re also not desperate to reach a deal with Putin at any cost, ergo why they haven’t coerced Zelensky into his demanded concessions and might never.

If Trump 2.0 can’t cut a deal with Putin, then they’ll prepare for war with China, which their National Defense Strategy envisages given its explicitly declared World War-like military build-up.

Be that as it may, replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent in that case dangerously risks a 21st-century Pearl Harbor, thus imperiling their planned restoration of unipolarity.

It’s therefore better for Trump 2.0 to coerce Zelensky into giving Putin what he wants in order to continue peacefully containing China instead.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 23:35

AWS Engineers Allowed An AI Tool to Act...Then The Cloud Unit Went Down

AWS Engineers Allowed An AI Tool to Act...Then The Cloud Unit Went Down

Amazon’s cloud arm has experienced two recent service disruptions tied to the use of its own AI-powered coding systems, stirring debate inside the company over how quickly such tools should be rolled out, according to FT.

One incident in mid-December led to a 13-hour interruption affecting a tool customers use to analyse AWS spending. Engineers had permitted the Kiro coding assistant to implement changes, and the system determined the fix was to “delete and recreate the environment.” An internal review later characterized the episode as an “outage.”

Staff familiar with the events said it marked the second time in a matter of months that an AI tool played a central role in a production issue. “We’ve already seen at least two production outages [in the past few months],” said one senior AWS employee. “The engineers let the AI [agent] resolve an issue without intervention. The outages were small but entirely foreseeable.”

AWS, which accounts for the majority of Amazon’s operating income, is investing heavily in AI systems that can act independently on human instructions and hopes to market them to customers. The episodes have highlighted the potential downsides of granting such tools significant autonomy.

FT writes that Amazon pushed back on suggestions that the technology was to blame, describing it as a “coincidence that AI tools were involved” and arguing that “the same issue could occur with any developer tool or manual action.” The company added: “In both instances, this was user error, not AI error,” and said it had found no indication that AI increases the likelihood of mistakes.

According to Amazon, the December event was an “extremely limited event” affecting a single service in parts of mainland China, while the other disruption did not touch any “customer facing AWS service.” Both were far smaller than a separate 15-hour AWS outage in October 2025 that disrupted customers including OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Kiro, introduced in July, was promoted as moving beyond “vibe coding” to generate software from structured specifications. After the December incident, Amazon said it added tighter controls, such as required peer reviews and additional training, while maintaining that customer uptake of its AI coding products remains strong.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 23:00

China Is Cracking Down On "Stock Market Influencers" As AI Surge Overheats Market

China Is Cracking Down On "Stock Market Influencers" As AI Surge Overheats Market

Chinese regulators are tightening oversight of aggressive influencer promotions for investment products, worried that an AI-driven tech surge — encouraged by state policy — is overheating the market, according to Nikkei.

In late January, media reports said the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) penalized a fund firm, identified as Fund D, for paying unqualified online influencers to market its products. According to a CSRC document cited in reports, the firm "induced investors with incompatible risk tolerance" to buy high-risk offerings and "neglected professional compliance in pursuit of short-term growth." The regulator did not comment.

The move reflects broader unease over market volatility. Nearly 4.91 million new mainland stock accounts were opened in January — the biggest monthly jump since October 2024 — as money poured into smaller tech names linked to AI, chips and aerospace themes.

While the blue-chip CSI 300 is up just 0.7% this year, smaller-stock gauges have surged. The CSI 500 has climbed 11.2%, and Shanghai’s tech-focused STAR board index has gained 10.5%. Some individual shares have skyrocketed: industrial equipment supplier Wuxi Autowell Technology is up over 120% year to date, while Puya Semiconductor and Focuslight Technologies have more than doubled. Supcon Technology has risen 65%.

One international brokerage analyst said the rally reflects limited alternatives — with low bond yields and weak property prices — rather than company fundamentals.

Speculation has also shaken commodity-linked products. Units of a Shenzhen-listed silver futures fund doubled in January, trading well above their underlying value as online guides touted quick arbitrage profits. UBS SDIC Fund Management halted new subscriptions on Jan. 28 "to protect the interests of fund unitholders," and the exchange suspended accounts engaged in "abnormal trading behavior." As silver futures fell, the fund’s units hit their 10% daily down limit for five consecutive sessions.

Beijing has promoted equity markets to advance technological self-reliance, easing listing rules and accelerating approvals for strategic sectors. Chip startup Moore Threads, for example, saw its shares jump fivefold on debut in December.

Nikkei writes that at the same time, officials are trying to contain excess speculation. At a January work conference led by CSRC chairman Wu Qing, regulators pledged to curb "excessive speculation and market manipulation" and "resolutely prevent drastic market fluctuations." Managing retail sentiment is critical, as individual investors account for more than 80% of daily turnover.

Jason Lui of BNP Paribas said stability is key to attracting long-term capital. High volatility, he noted, risks drawing investors in at the wrong moments and reinforcing perceptions of boom-bust cycles.

Earlier, the CSRC fined influencer Jin Yongrong and barred him from the securities market for three years, accusing him of earning over 41 million yuan by promoting stocks to inflate prices before selling. Finance app Snowball Finance banned Jin and more than 20 other accounts.

Exchanges have also raised the margin trading deposit ratio from 80% to 100% to cool leverage. Meanwhile, ETFs associated with state-backed investors saw notable outflows, prompting speculation about official strategy.

Local governments continue pledging support for emerging sectors such as commercial aerospace, new materials and the so-called "low-altitude economy," referring to drone services. A new national five-year plan is expected in March.

Regulators may face fresh tests after trading resumes on Feb. 24 following the Lunar New Year break, with robotics demonstrations set for the Spring Festival Gala and reports that DeepSeek and other AI developers plan new model releases during the holiday.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 21:50

Trump Admin Proposal Could Bring Drastic Changes To Asylum Process

Trump Admin Proposal Could Bring Drastic Changes To Asylum Process

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing an “overhaul” of the asylum process, according to a Friday announcement.

The proposed 220-page rule, which is likely to face legal challenges, aims to reduce the number of immigrants filing fraudulent asylum claims for work authorizations in order to better focus on security checks.

It also intends to cut back processing times and the massive backlog of pending claims, according to a statement.

If finalized, the rule would be among the most sweeping changes to the asylum system and work authorization process in decades.

“We are proposing an overhaul of the asylum system to enforce the rules and reduce the backlog we inherited from the prior administration,” a DHS spokesperson said.

“Aliens are not entitled to work while we process their asylum applications.”

Employment authorizations would be paused until processing times for asylum applications reach 180 days or lower, according to the proposal.

DHS said based on current wait times, it could take between 14 and 173 years to reach that 180 day or lower level to resume issuing work permits.

The proposal also would create more restrictive criteria for asylum-based work permits and bar illegal immigrants from receiving new permits or renewing existing ones.

“For too long, a fraudulent asylum claim has been an easy path to working in the United States, overwhelming our immigration system with meritless applications,” a DHS spokesperson said.

More than 17 million individuals applied for asylum in the United States between 2021 and 2024.

According to the proposal, an exception would exist for individuals who entered the United States illegally out of fear of persecution, torture, or another urgent reason but notified American authorities within 48 hours of crossing the border.

Long wait times on asylum applications have resulted in historic highs for employment authorization applications.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reports more than 1.4 million pending asylum claims, which is equal to the population of New Hampshire, the news release said.

DHS’s proposed rule falls in line with President Donald Trump’s executive order, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, signed on his first day back in office a year ago.

“Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States,” his order read.

Several Biden-era executive orders on immigration were revoked by Trump’s directive, becoming the first of his actions of his second term to make good on his 2024 presidential campaign promise of launching the largest deportation operation in American history.

Finalizing DHS’s new proposal on the asylum system could take months or years. Public comment will be accepted on the rule for 60 days after the agency formally publishes it in the Federal Register on Monday.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 21:15

Iran Floats Joint Oil Investment, Sanctions Rollback Wish-List Ahead Of Next US Talks

Iran Floats Joint Oil Investment, Sanctions Rollback Wish-List Ahead Of Next US Talks

The Trump administration may have finally blinked, also knowing that yet another US-led war in the Middle East remains deeply unpopular among the American people. No attacks have come this weekend, as some were predicting last week, as President Trump appears to be exercising some level of patience and restraint, for now at least.

"Iran has indicated it is prepared to make concessions on its nuclear program in talks with the U.S. in return for the lifting of sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium, as it seeks to avert a U.S. attack," Reuters is freshly reporting.

Tehran has said from the start of Trump's military pressure campaign that it's willing for serious negotiations centered on its nuclear program, but that it cannot ever abandon or limit its formidable ballistic missile arsenal: 

However, Reuters is reporting for the first time that Iran is offering fresh concessions since their talks ended last week, when the sides appeared far apart and heading closer to military conflict. Analysts say the move suggests Tehran is trying to keep diplomacy alive and stave off a major U.S. strike.

The official said Tehran would seriously consider a combination of sending half of its most highly enriched uranium abroad, diluting the rest and taking part in creating a regional enrichment consortium - an idea periodically raised in years of Iran-linked diplomacy.

Iran would do this in return for U.S. recognition of Iran's right to "peaceful nuclear enrichment" under a deal that would also include lifting economic sanctions, the official said.

Russia has already offered to do just this, and China too could potentially play a role in receiving Iran's enriched uranium.

It looks like a US attack is unlikely even in this coming week as well given that "U.S. and Iranian negotiators are expected to meet in Geneva on Thursday to discuss a detailed Iranian proposal for a nuclear deal. A senior U.S. official told Axios on Sunday morning the Trump administration expects to receive the proposal by Tuesday" - ahead of the next round of planned talks.

Also, Tehran is now floating the prospect of joint US-Iran oil and gas investment as part of the nuclear deal currently under negotiation. Hamid Ghanbari, deputy director for economic diplomacy at Iran’s foreign ministry, said Sunday that shared energy development could anchor a more durable agreement.

“For the sake of an agreement's durability, it is essential that the U.S. also benefits in areas with high and quick economic returns,” Ghanbari said, according to Fars news agency - effectively pitching hydrocarbons as the glue to hold any deal together.

He added that “the country must be prepared for all scenarios,” while “at the same time seriously pursuing the negotiations.” Beyond oil and gas, Ghanbari floated mining, urban development, and even aircraft purchases as potential areas of cooperation - a shopping list that in reality reads like a sanctions rollback wish list. Many Western analysts are calling it totally unrealistic.

Meanwhile, Washington appears to be hedging its bets. Even as talks continue, the Pentagon is reinforcing its posture in the Persian Gulf, with a second aircraft carrier reportedly en route. Iran in turn has warned its "finger is on the trigger" and that US bases in the region would come under retaliatory attack.

The message from both sides is clear: prepare for a deal, or prepare for escalation - and Washington is keeping the carriers fueled and nearby just in case.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 20:40

Waste Of The Day: The Story Of Robosquirrel

Waste Of The Day: The Story Of Robosquirrel

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Dr. Frankenstein was able to bring his monster back to life using just rusty tools and a cramped workshop. Researchers in California needed taxpayer funding from the National Science Foundation for their own reanimation experiment, with results that were not quite as impressive.

In 2012, San Diego State University and the University of California, Davis used part of a $325,000 grant to create “Robosquirrel,” a taxidermied squirrel with a robotic tail. The money would be worth $459,000 today. 

That’s according to the “Wastebook” reporting published by the late U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn. For years, these reports shined a white-hot spotlight on federal frauds and taxpayer abuses. 

Coburn, the legendary U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, earned the nickname "Dr. No" by stopping thousands of pork-barrel projects using the Senate rules. Projects that he couldn't stop, Coburn included in his oversight reports.   

Coburn's Wastebook 2012 included 100 examples of outrageous spending worth more than $18 billion, including the origin story of Robosquirrel.

Key facts: Robosquirrel was built to study the predator and prey relationship between squirrels and rattlesnakes.

The researchers placed Robosquirrel in a cage with live squirrels so that it would smell like the real thing. Then, they placed the robot in a field with snakes and moved it along a track to make it appear alive.

The snakes were fooled. One even bit the robot’s head. But when researchers heated up Robosquirrel’s mechanical tail or made it wag, the rattlesnakes got scared and slithered away.

The project was still in its early stages in 2012. The researchers promised that more animals — including RoboKangarooRat and Robosquirrel 2.0, which could throw rocks at rattlesnakes — would soon arrive, though it’s unclear if they ever materialized. 

Robosquirrel made national headlines in Forbes, CNN and more after Coburn included it in his Wastebook. San Diego State University told ABC News that only part of the $325,000 grant was spent on taxidermy. The rest went to undergraduate research training.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 20:05

Supreme Court Ruling On Tariffs Won't Change US–China Trade Relations, Analysts

Supreme Court Ruling On Tariffs Won't Change US–China Trade Relations, Analysts

Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that President Donald Trump’s global tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, analysts told The Epoch Times that it won’t affect U.S. trade relations with China, as there are other legal options for the Trump administration to impose levies.

A China Shipping cargo container sits stacked at the Port of Long Beach in Long Beach, Calif., on April 10, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

By a vote of 6–3, the court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, including retaliatory tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs targeting China, Canada, and Mexico.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that “the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.”

“That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case. … Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338),” he wrote.

Trump raised global tariffs to 10 percent, effective on Feb. 24, after the Feb. 20 ruling under a separate trade law, Section 122. The president increased it to 15 percent the next day, effective for 150 days.

Impact on Trade With China

The United States and China reached a one-year trade truce in 2025 to de-escalate trade tensions, in which the United States reduced tariffs on goods related to fentanyl issues from 20 percent to 10 percent while China reduced tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and pledged to increase purchases of U.S. soybeans and energy.

This month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping promised to purchase more American soybeans and agricultural products in a phone call with Trump.

Frank Xie, ​​a professor at the Aiken School of Business at the University of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not overturn all of Trump’s tariffs, but rather prevented Trump from invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs.

“There are other legal tools that allow Trump to continue raising tariffs, so the tariff war will continue, along with tariff penalties against China. Negotiations with China will also continue, and China will likely continue to purchase U.S. soybeans,” he said.

“Actually, the ruling doesn’t change much for either the CCP or the U.S. government. Judging from Trump adding additional ... global tariffs immediately afterwards, the tariff war is accelerating,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 20, 2026. The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump's tariffs were unlawful in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Heather Diehl/Getty Images

U.S.-based independent economist Davy J. Wong told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling may prompt China to reduce or postpone purchases, but it is unlikely to publicly renege on its commitments.

“This is because China’s purchases of U.S. agricultural products have long been driven by both economic and political motives. Now, Beijing can use the instability of the rules as a pretext to adjust the pace of imports and diversify sources, particularly shifting towards supplies from Brazil and South America,” he said.

“However, China’s feed system has a rigid demand for protein raw materials, and the United States remains an important supplementary source.”

U.S.-based China affairs commentator Wang He noted that Trump agreed to visit China in April per Xi’s invitation during their phone call, and “it has special significance for Xi Jinping to maintain relations with the United States and with Trump,” given the current domestic political tension Xi’s facing due to his purge of top military generals.

Wang said it means that the trade truce between China and the United States will continue, and China won’t dare to renege on its commitments to continue purchasing American agricultural products.

However, Wang noted that the CCP will continue to promote diversification of foreign trade.

“Because the United States and China are currently decoupling, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, this fundamental trend of decoupling is unchangeable. This trend is unaffected by tariff rulings. The CCP will simply use this to its advantage, to pressure Trump in negotiations. The CCP will try to rally more countries to counter the United States,” he said.

Wong said the Chinese economy remains highly dependent on external demand and manufacturing exports, especially from the United States.

So, the CCP will exert pressure in specific areas, such as rare-earth and key-materials export controls, while avoiding a complete trade rupture with the United States, he added.

Wong concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change the structural reality of Sino-U.S. trade competition.

“China’s purchases from the U.S. will be more strategic, and U.S. economic constraints on China will become more institutionalized. Both sides prefer competition within a controllable scope rather than a complete decoupling.”

Luo Ya and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 18:55

Tesla Avoids California Suspension By Dropping 'Self-Driving' Claims

Tesla Avoids California Suspension By Dropping 'Self-Driving' Claims

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Tesla Motors avoided a 30-day suspension of its dealer and manufacturer licenses from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) by removing the term “autopilot” from its vehicle marketing efforts in California.

The Tesla booth at the AI+Expo Special Competitive Studies Project in Washington on June 2, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

According to a statement issued by the California DMV on Feb. 17, Tesla had marketed its full self-driving feature as essentially an autonomous driving feature. Although full self-driving is a hands-free feature, Tesla owners still need to actively supervise the operation of their vehicles.

The DMV said Tesla had been marketing its advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as a full driver-free autopilot feature since 2021 by including terms such as “autopilot” and “full self-driving capability” in marketing collateral and on its website.

“The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat,” Tesla’s website formerly said. The California DMV stated that drivers should be present and supervise the self-driving feature.

“Vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles,” the DMV wrote.

According to the California DMV, Tesla removed that language from its website and marketing efforts in December 2025. The DMV had initiated accusations of false advertisement against Tesla’s dealer and manufacturer licenses in November 2023.

The California Office of Administrative Hearings heard the case last July and made a proposed decision on Nov. 20, 2025. Tesla was given 60 days to address and remedy the issue of the suspension of its licenses in the state for 30 days. Tesla subsequently rebranded the feature as “full self-driving (supervised)” to clarify that drivers still need to oversee the driving process.

“The DMV is committed to safety throughout all California’s roadways and communities,” DMV Director Steve Gordon said. “The department is pleased that Tesla took the required action to remain in compliance with the State of California’s consumer protections.”

“California has zero tolerance for misleading advertising that puts safety at risk,” the DMV added. “When companies make false claims about vehicle capabilities, they endanger lives, and the state will hold them accountable.”

Days earlier, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a post on X on Feb. 13 that Tesla would no longer offer full self-driving on vehicles sold after Feb. 14. In order to get the feature, Tesla owners now need to pay a $99 monthly subscription.

Tesla had included basic autopilot for close to seven years on its vehicles that included two features, traffic-aware cruise control (TACC) to match the speed of traffic, and autosteer, which centers vehicles inside a travel lane.

New vehicles now come standard with just TACC, and Tesla owners will have to pay a monthly fee for the full self-driving feature. Previously, Tesla owners could opt for a one-time payment to have the full self-driving included on their vehicles at the time of purchase.

Reaching 10 million paid full self-driving subscriptions is one of many performance milestones required in Musk’s $1 trillion compensation package.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 17:45

Trump Warns Netflix About Democrat Ties During Bid To Buy Warner Bros

Trump Warns Netflix About Democrat Ties During Bid To Buy Warner Bros

It's no secret that Netflix is a devout propaganda platform for the political left.  Some critics would argue that the sudden and disturbing surge in woke ideology injected into streaming entertainment started with Netflix and shows like Orange Is The New Black, "Dear White People" and Jessica Jones.  No one remembers such content anymore because it's forgettable tripe, but Netflix was definitely at the helm of the of far-left programming trend just as the Obama Administration was coming to a close.

In fact, multiple prominent Democrats from the Obama regime ended up working closely with Netflix, either as lobbyists or as members of the corporate board.  Barack and Michelle even signed an ongoing production deal with the company in 2018. 

Ferial Govashiri, former Personal Secretary to President Obama in the White House, joined Netflix in a senior role as Chief of Staff to the Chief Content Officer.

Perry Apelbaum, a longtime Democratic lawyer/staffer from the House Judiciary Committee is now a lobbyist for Netflix.

A high percentage of Netflix's lobbyists (around 70%) have prior government experience and most are Democratic-leaning.  Leadership figures like co-CEO Ted Sarandos and executive chairman Reed Hastings have hosted fundraisers or donated heavily to Democrat candidates (Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc). 

Finally, there's Obama-era national security adviser Susan Rice, who is still closely tied to the Obamas and is currently a member of the Netflix board.  

Donald Trump has warned Netflix to remove Susan Rice from its board or “face the consequences”, while the streaming platform is locked in a corporate battle to take control of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).  In comments posted on his Truth Social platform, the US president described Rice – who served as national security adviser to Barack Obama, UN ambassador and White House adviser under Joe Biden – as a “political hack."  

He said in an interview with NBC News that the justice department would handle the takeover of WBD, having insisted previously he would be involved in reviewing the deal. Any takeover of WBD will have to be approved by federal regulators.

The underlying concern, of course, is that the Netflix acquisition of WBD would result in a far-left super-conglomerate with substantial resources that could be used to saturate entertainment media with the DNC agenda.  To be clear, there is no such thing as a conservative counter-programming corporation in the media space.  Warner Bros. was essentially collapsing under the weight of it's own woke failures when a bidding war between Paramount and Netflix was launched. 

That said, a merger could very well result in yet another Disney; a monstrosity of a company controlling a huge catalog of IPs with agents of the Democrat Party basically steering the ship (Disney is loaded with DNC elites from the Clinton Admin, Obama Admin and Biden Admin). 

The deal requires DOJ approval under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (Anti-Trust scrutiny). The DOJ opened a probe in early 2026, examining Netflix's business practices for potential "monopolistic" effects on content creation, distribution, and theaters. 

Reports indicate the DOJ may soon announce intent to block it, citing anticompetitive leverage over filmmakers under the Sherman Act.  As President, Trump can direct or influence DOJ leadership (e.g., via appointees) to sue and halt the merger, meaning he does have the power to disrupt the deal should Netflix refuse to remove Susan Rice.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 17:10

Here's All The Key Figures Who Have Resigned Over The Epstein Files...So Far

Here's All The Key Figures Who Have Resigned Over The Epstein Files...So Far

We are starting to finally see the beginning of a series of high-profile resignations following the Justice Department’s latest release of millions of pages tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The documents—emails, financial records, and photographs—name figures from politics, finance, diplomacy, academia, and the arts. Although inclusion in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, the renewed scrutiny has prompted several prominent leaders to step down, as was documented by Time yesterday. 

As we've covered individually, those who have resigned include Thomas Pritzker, Kathy Ruemmler, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Brad Karp, Mona Juul, Peter Mandelson, Miroslav Lajcak, Jack Lang, and David A. Ross. In many instances, the records describe years of contact with Epstein, sometimes extending beyond his 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor, intensifying public and political pressure.

Thomas Pritzker resigned as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after emails showed he remained in contact with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell beyond Epstein’s conviction.

Some messages referenced plans to meet, including for dinners. Pritzker said he exercised “terrible judgment” in maintaining the relationships and expressed deep regret, while authorities have not accused him of misconduct.

Kathy Ruemmler stepped down as chief legal officer of Goldman Sachs after emails suggested a friendly relationship with Epstein years after his plea deal, including correspondence referencing gifts.

Ruemmler, who previously served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, has said she never represented Epstein and was unaware of his crimes. She later described him as a “monster” and said she regretted ever knowing him.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem resigned as chairman and CEO of DP World after correspondence indicated a lengthy friendship with Epstein that continued for years.

Some emails released by the Justice Department included personal exchanges that drew scrutiny. Authorities have not accused him of wrongdoing, and the company did not cite Epstein in announcing his departure.

Brad Karp left his post as chairman of Paul, Weiss after emails revealed an extended relationship with Epstein, including exchanges in which he praised a draft legal motion related to Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement.

Karp said the controversy had become a distraction to the firm, where he had served for decades, and denied any misconduct. The firm has said it never represented Epstein.

Several diplomats and cultural figures also stepped down. Mona Juul resigned from her role as a Norwegian ambassador after reports highlighted her past contact with Epstein and scrutiny over a will that allegedly left money to her children.

Norway’s foreign ministry said the situation raised concerns about judgment, though Juul has denied wrongdoing.

Peter Mandelson stepped down from the U.K. Labour Party after bank records and emails in the files showed financial transfers and correspondence with Epstein dating back to the early 2000s.

He had previously lost a diplomatic post after earlier disclosures about the relationship. Mandelson has said he did nothing criminal.

Miroslav Lajcak resigned as Slovakia’s national security adviser after text messages and emails showed exchanges with Epstein on a range of topics.

Lajcak said he stepped aside to spare the government political fallout and has denied any improper conduct.

In France, Jack Lang resigned as head of the Arab World Institute amid an investigation into alleged financial links between his family and entities associated with Epstein.

Lang, a former culture minister, has denied the allegations and said he was stepping down in the institution’s interest.

In New York, David A. Ross stepped down as a department chair at the School of Visual Arts after emails revealed continued communication with Epstein following his conviction, including exchanges about provocative artistic ideas.

Ross said he regretted being “taken in” by Epstein and expressed concern for the victims, while denying wrongdoing.

The latest release has reignited global attention on Epstein’s network, underscoring how associations—whether social, financial, or professional—continue to carry reputational and professional consequences years after his death in 2019.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 16:00

"Devastating" Discovery: New Docs Confirm JPMorgan De-Banked Trump Shortly After Jan 6th Capitol Chaos

"Devastating" Discovery: New Docs Confirm JPMorgan De-Banked Trump Shortly After Jan 6th Capitol Chaos

New court documents released Friday show JPMorgan Chase told President Donald Trump a month after the January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol that the bank was closing his accounts.

The disclosure was made amid a $5 billion lawsuit Trump filed against JPMorgan and its CEO Jamie Dimon.

JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, said for the first time late Friday that it cut off more than 50 Trump accounts in February 2021, shortly after Mr. Trump’s first term ended.

The accounts included those for Trump hotels, housing developments and retail shops in Illinois, Florida and New York, as well as Mr. Trump’s personal private banking relationship that handled his inheritance from his father, according to letters filed to the court.

JPMorgan did not specify in those letters a specific reason for the mass account closings.

In one unsigned note to Mr. Trump, dated Feb. 19, 2021, the bank wrote that he would need to “find a more suitable institution with which to conduct business.”

The letter closed with, “Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter” - a phrase that President Trump often uses.

As NYTimes reports, the President has maintained for years that his bank account closures were politically motivated, and a spokesperson for his legal team said the newest court documents are “a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim.”

“[JPMorgan] admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and ​his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the spokesperson said.

“President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.” the attorneys added. 

Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, which named Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, as a defendant, contended that the bank put Mr. Trump on a blacklist because it “needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.”

That echoed earlier complaints from Mr. Trump that Capital One similarly closed his accounts and that Bank of America refused to accept billions of dollars in deposits after the Jan. 6 riots.

The bank told The Epoch Times over email it will seek to dismiss the claims.

“Plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations do not allege sufficient facts to plead a claim,” the institution said.

JPMorgan told The Epoch Times last month that the case “has no merit.”

“[JPMorgan Chase] does not close accounts for political or religious reasons,” JPMorgan previously said.

“We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company.”

“We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so.”

These comments were made last month, days after Trump announced on social media his intention to sue the bank.

Since then, Trump’s lawyers have alleged in court documents that JPMorgan closed the president’s accounts because of its “‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.”

“In essence, [JPMorgan Chase] debanked Plaintiffs’ Accounts because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so,” the lawsuit states.

JPMorgan added it supports the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector. 

There is still much legal wrangling to come. JPMorgan this past week asked that the case be moved from Florida state court, where Mr. Trump has had some success in litigation, to a federal court in New York.

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 12:30

CNN Slams Keir Starmer's "Atrocious" Ratings, 'Makes Trump Look Like Abraham Lincoln'

CNN Slams Keir Starmer's "Atrocious" Ratings, 'Makes Trump Look Like Abraham Lincoln'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have plunged to historic lows, with even CNN calling them “absolutely ATROCIOUS” and noting that President Trump appears “downright like Abraham Lincoln” by comparison. This brutal takedown highlights how Starmer’s globalist policies are alienating Brits across the board.

As the Labour leader clings to power, his war on free speech and commitment to protecting illegal immigration is fueling a backlash that could spell the end for his regime. With polls showing just 20% approval, Starmer’s grip on Number 10 looks increasingly tenuous.

The Overton News clip, which has gone viral on X, captures CNN’s scathing assessment of Starmer’s popularity nosedive.

In the segment, analyst Harry Enten declares, “These numbers are absolutely ATROCIOUS! I mean, you never see numbers like this in the United States of America.”

Focusing on the dire stats, Enten points out, “Britons who like Keir Starmer, look at this — overall it’s just 1 in 5! It’s just 1 in 5, 20%!”

Even within his own ranks, support is crumbling:

“His OWN party, Labour, he’s just at 52% there.”

The commentary escalates, revealing, “I’ve even seen numbers with satisfaction in the TEENS — and this is actually HIGHER than the lowest.”

The most striking line compares Starmer unfavorably to Trump:

“You know, we always talk about Donald Trump being unpopular in this country — but Donald Trump looks downright like Abraham Lincoln compared to Keir Starmer’s numbers at this point!”

The latest YouGov survey from February 2026 shows Starmer’s net favourability at -47, with only 22% viewing him positively against 69% unfavorably. That’s an improvement from January’s -57, but still abysmal for a sitting PM.

Other trackers paint an even grimmer picture. Ipsos reported satisfaction in the teens late last year, aligning with CNN’s observations. Opinium’s February poll pegs his net approval at -44, with over half the public calling for his resignation.

Starmer’s woes stem from policies that prioritize globalist agendas over British interests. Mass immigration continues unchecked, straining public services while borders remain porous. Economic missteps, like burdensome regulations on businesses, echo the failures of socialist experiments.

Recall our earlier coverage where a former aide to Starmer revealed how a “stakeholder state” – an unelected network of insiders, NGOs, and civil servants – effectively controls the UK government.

Paul Ovenden described this “political perma-class” as diverting power from voters to elite priorities, wasting resources on fringe issues while ignoring secure borders and sovereignty.

This shadowy influence explains Starmer’s disconnect from the public, leading to approval ratings that rival the worst in postwar history. Historical comparisons show that every UK PM with similar low ratings either lost big or resigned before the next election.

Adding fuel to the fire is Starmer’s aggressive stance against free expression. Threats to ban platforms like X over AI-generated content have drawn international condemnation.

As we reported previously, the US under Trump vowed to deploy its “full arsenal of tools” against such censorship, equating the UK to regimes like Iran. Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that nothing is off the table to defend free speech, including facilitating uncensored access via Starlink.

This transatlantic tension underscores how Starmer’s surveillance-state ambitions, like cradle-to-grave digital IDs, threaten core freedoms. Brits are waking up to the hypocrisy: cracking down on online speech while turning a blind eye to real threats like grooming gangs.

Bloomberg notes Starmer’s ratings bounced slightly after a leadership scare but remain deeply negative compared to rivals like Kemi Badenoch (-23) and Nigel Farage (-37). Reform UK, with its America First-style populism, has surged ahead, capitalizing on Labour’s failures.

Even among Labour members, Starmer ranks near the bottom in internal favorability, with a net +5. A gender divide shows women more supportive, but overall, the party is fracturing.

Starmer’s trajectory mirrors the downfall of other left-wing leaders who embraced globalism over national sovereignty. As approval lingers in the doldrums, calls for his ouster grow louder.

The message is clear: Brits demand leaders who put their country first, not puppets of unelected elites. If Starmer doesn’t suddenly reverse course on open borders, economic strangulation, and speech suppression, his tenure could end much sooner than expected.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 11:55

Pages