Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Confirms His Utter Contempt For The First Amendment Before Congress

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For years, some of us have argued that President Donald Trump’s January 6th speech was protected under the First Amendment and that any prosecution would collapse under governing precedent, including Brandenburg v. Ohio.  I was regularly attacked as an apologist for my criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “war on free speech.” I wrote about his history of ignoring such constitutional protections in his efforts to prosecute targets at any cost.

I also wrote how Smith’s second indictment (which the Post supported) was a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Now, years later, the Washington Post has acknowledged that Trump’s speech was protected and that Smith “would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.”

In this appearance before Congress, Smith’s contempt for the First Amendment was on full display. During his testimony, he was asked by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) whether Trump was entitled to First Amendment protections for his speech.

Smith replied:

“Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.”

The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong.

Smith shows a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

First, the Supreme Court has held that knowingly false statements are protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims. Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

Second, calling such claims “fraud” does not convert protected speech into criminal speech. Trump was speaking at a rally about his belief that the election was stolen and should not be certified. Many citizens supported that view. It was clearly protected political speech.

As I discuss in The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Smith’s prosecution was on a collision course with controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Smith would have lost, but he has a history of ignoring such constitutional protections. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

Trump was never charged with inciting the riot despite pledges of Democratic D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine to investigate Trump for that crime.

The reason is simple. It was not criminal incitement and Trump’s speech was protected under the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, the Post and other papers ran the same experts, who assured the public that no such protections existed. For example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has made a litany of such claims, including his declaration that President Donald Trump could be charged (“without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt”)  with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence.

The Post has now recognized that Trump does indeed enjoy First Amendment protections and that Smith was a constitutional menace. The change reflects a commendable shift in the Post’s editorial staff under owner Jeff Bezos and his new team at the paper.

The Post wrote:

Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.

Of course fraud is a crime. But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage. Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets ‘a lawful government function’ doesn’t work. Most political speech is aimed at influencing government functions.

Smith might think his First Amendment exception applies only to brazen and destructive falsehoods like the ones Trump told after losing the 2020 election. But once an exception is created to the First Amendment, it will inevitably be exploited by prosecutors with different priorities. Imagine what kind of oppositional speech the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.

Smith also said he makes ‘no apologies’ for the gag order he tried to impose on Trump during the prosecution. The decision to criminally charge a leading presidential candidate meant the charges would feature in the 2024 campaign. Yet Smith fought to broadly limit Trump’s ability to criticize him or the prosecution in general, claiming such statements would interfere with the legal process.

Bravo.

This is precisely the argument that some of us have been making for years, while being relentlessly pursued by the media.

This is not meant as a criticism of the Post. At least the Post is now making a serious attempt to restore objectivity and accuracy to its coverage and editorials. As for Smith, his testimony confirms the worst assessments of his view of free speech. The only thing more chilling than his lack of knowledge of constitutional doctrine is his contempt for constitutional values.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 17:30

The Democrats' "Affordability" Ploy To Avoid Accountability

Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,

Imagine someone is walking through a museum filled with fragile antiquities. And they happen to be indiscriminately swinging a sledgehammer. And with every fragile antiquity they shatter, they pocket the price of the destroyed historical treasure.

When their selfish, remunerative spree of wanton destruction concludes, one might expect the culprit to drop their hammer and skedaddle from the scene of the crime. Nope. Instead, they stand around carping that the museum’s new curators are not cleaning up the mess you made fast enough. Why? Because they are hoping to get another shot with the sledgehammer at the remaining precious items still on display.

The fragile antiquities would be the American economy itself. They would be Democrats. The sledgehammer would be their trillion-dollar spending spree, which they would undertake while holding the congressional majority under the Biden administration. With every exorbitant spending bill they passed, their political cronies and ideological fellow travelers received taxpayer money, much of the largesse being funneled back into electing Democrats. The result was the Democrats’ inflation-driven economic carnage that harmed every taxpaying American’s pocketbook that the party had drained to do it in the first place.

Consequently, the best new museum curators would be the Trump administration. One can therefore understand the irritation of the president and Congressional Republicans with the Democrats’ disingenuous dithyrambs to “affordability.”

Hence, President Trump has called the Democrats’ laments regarding the “affordability” issue a “hoax” and a “scam”; however, in the context he describes, he is decrying the party’s disingenuous messaging ploy.

There is absolutely, unequivocally, an affordability crisis in our country. Americans, notably young Americans, are confronted with inflation and the erosion of the economic opportunities necessary for prosperity. Few dispute this dire situation. What the left disputes is that the affordability crisis is the product of the Democrats’ “scarcity economy,” one built upon their venal, spendthrift stewardship of the public purse, radical “green” ideology, and zero-sum redistributionist policies. Escalating costs to restrict economic activity, such as new housing, to “save the planet” and increase public dependence upon government spending are not bugs in the Democrats’ system; they are the key features.

On their part, President Trump, his administration, and Congressional Republicans have made headway against the inflation and economic stagnation the Democrats caused. But it is vexing to have to untangle the Democrats’ fiscal and economic messes, all the while having to counter that party’s misinformation and disinformation on who created the problem. After all, who would want to be toiling away, broom and dustpan in hand, cleaning up the shards of items you cherished and hoping to super glue them back together, all the while being criticized and lied about by the very vandals who destroyed them?

In sum, the Democrats’ finger-pointing about affordability is designed to avoid the public holding them accountable for causing the problem. If you think the demands to make more affordable the necessary staples of life that these swamp-dwelling Democrats have skyrocketed constitute the acme of hypocrisy, you would be surprised.

Just look at any large urban area, say New York City, where a new Democrat with a sledgehammer is complaining that the last Democrat did not clean up—or is it create?—the party’s mess fast enough. Now that is some shameless shit.

Temerity.

So, who guards the museum and its priceless relics from sledgehammer-wielding Democrats sacking the premises in the first place? The electorate, of course. And, sadly, electoral results often prove the Democrats’ ostensibly risible blame game winds up succeeding. Thus, when cleaning up the Democrats’ continual messes, one must also continually message as to who made the mess.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 16:20

MTG Denies 'Dangerous Lie' That She Tipped Off Code Pink To Trump's Location

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene hit back against an Axios report that the White House told the Secret Service she may have tipped off Code Pink protesters about Trump's unscheduled visit to a DC restaurant she recommended, leading to an activist ambush that went viral on social media.  

"Only the WH set up President Trump’s reservation at Joe’s, NOT ME!! I had ZERO knowledge of when his reservation was! The only people who could have tipped off Code Pink was the restaurant or the WH!" MTG wrote on X following the report, calling it " an ABSOLUTE LIE, A DANGEROUS LIE," and insisting "I would NEVER do that." 

According to Axios, Greene had recommended "Joe's Seafood", a restaurant in Washington D.C., to the commander-in-chief as a last minute dinner location for his team. 

Upon Trump's arrival, a “chaotic confrontation” occurred between Code Pink protesters and Trump, which officials say “embarrassed the president and intensified concerns in the White House about his safety.”

REPORT: The White House told Secret Service that MTG may have tipped off protesters about his surprise visit to Joe's Seafood back in September, according to Axios.

Viral footage shows Trump being confronted by Code Pink protesters who called him 'Hitler.'

In response to Axios,… pic.twitter.com/iRFT6H1kEy

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 9, 2026

The White House claims that after recommending the president go to Joe’s, Greene repeatedly called Trump staffers the day of the dinner to confirm he was going. After Trump heard about Greene’s outreach, he called her shortly before leaving the White House and confirmed his planned visit, the sources said. Greene, who was a regular at the restaurant, didn’t show up at the location when Trump and other officials were there, which struck some Trump aides as odd.

So, someone's lying...

The incident with Code Pink took place just one day before the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. With two separate attempts on Trump's life previous to his re-election, which the Secret Service notably botched both times - not to mention an endless array of violent actions on the part of progressive protesters in recent months, left-wing activists coming within proximity to Trump has become a national security concern.   

White House aides pointed out that Greene has publicly touted her friendship with Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin in the past, writing on X Dec. 10:

“I have enjoyed a friendship with Medea for a few years now even though politics says that’s not allowed.” 

“Marjorie is closer with the hosts of ‘The View’ than the president,” a former senior administration official said of Greene.

The Rift

After spending 2016 - 2023 as one of Trump's most loyal defenders, Greene became increasingly vocal in late 2023 over blank-check foreign aid, including the Ukraine war, and Israel-related packages (particularly when tied to Ukraine funding) - however she didn't take shots at Trump himself until she signed a discharge petition to force the release of the Epstein files, something Trump had promised to do on the campaign trail only to become defensive with reporters when asked about it in early 2025. 

In October, she slammed part of Trump's second-term agenda - such as his $40 billion bailout of Argentina - as "America Last," telling Axios "It's a revolving door at the White House of foreign leaders when Americans are, you know, screaming from their lungs," though she praised Trump multiple times throughout the interview as having done "a great job in a lot of places."

In November, Trump lashed out at MTG and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) for joining the Democrats to force a floor vote on the Epstein Files release - officially announcing he was withdrawing his "support and endorsement" of Greene. Trump claimed that Greene's complaints about his policies spring from when Trump sent her a poll "stating that she should not run" for governor or the Senate, adding that he's heard Greene is "upset that I don't return her phone calls anymore." The president said he stands ready to give the "right" Republican primary challenger of Greene his "Complete and Unyielding Support." 

In December 2025 Greene explicitly accused Trump of putting Israel's interests over those of the United States, suggesting he has 'served pro-Israel and establishment interests' at the expense of domestic priorities. 

"For an America First president, the number one focus should have been domestic policy, and it wasn’t," she told CBS's '60 Minutes," adding that Trump "has served Israel’s interest, even attacking Iran," and slammed what she called his service to "Big Pharma" and "crypto donors."

Greene also became one of the very few Republicans to publicly describe Israel's conduct in Gaza as "genocide," and proposed an amendment in the House to end US funding of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system - while also arguing that AIPAC should be legally required to register as a foreign agent because she believes it steers US policy in ways that aren't aligned with 'America First.'

Since breaking with Trump, Greene has given several interviews with left-wing news outlets, including The View, CNN, NPR, Meet the Press, and the NY Times - all of which were happy to have her attack their mortal enemy.

Greene visited “The View” in November amid the spat with Trump. Lou Rocco/ABC

Indeed, MTG has become quite cozy with far-left media outlets and the militant progressive coven at The View in the runup to her departure from Congress - in some cases apologizing to them for her "toxic" rhetoric in the past. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 15:45

US, Partners Launch New Strikes On ISIS Targets In Syria

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

U.S. and partner forces conducted a series of airstrikes on terrorist group ISIS targets throughout Syria on Jan. 10, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced.

The series of airstrikes began around 12:30 p.m. ET, CENTCOM said in a press statement around three hours after the strikes.

“The strikes today targeted ISIS throughout Syria as part of our ongoing commitment to root out Islamic terrorism against our warfighters, prevent future attacks, and protect American and partner forces in the region,” the press statement added.

“U.S. and coalition forces remain resolute in pursuing terrorists who seek to harm the United States.

Footage shared by CENTCOM showed F-15 and A-10 jet aircraft taking off from an unspecified location, along with footage of strikes on purported targets.

CENTCOM did not specify which partner forces assisted in the Jan. 10 strikes throughout Syria.

Saturday’s strikes are part of a continuing retaliatory bombing that began after two U.S. soldiers and a U.S. civilian interpreter were killed in an ambush attack in Palmyra, Syria, on Dec. 13. Three more American troops were injured in the attack.

ISIS claimed ultimate responsibility for the Dec. 13 shooting, and Syria’s Interior Ministry has said the suspect was a member of Syrian security forces who harbored ISIS sympathies. Syria’s Interior Ministry said it had arrested five more suspects in connection with the Dec. 13 attack.

Since sweeping into Damascus and driving off then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December of 2024, Syria’s de facto interim government has been largely comprised of Sunni Islamist militants from Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, which began as a Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

The U.S. bombing campaign came in response to the Dec. 13 shooting and is known as Operation Hawkeye Strike. The first round of strikes in the campaign began on Dec. 19, when U.S. and Jordanian forces employed dozens of fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, and artillery pieces firing more than 100 munitions, and struck more than 70 ISIS targets across central Syria.

Between Dec. 20 and 29, U.S. and partner forces conducted 11 more missions under Operation Hawkeye Strike, in which they reported killing seven ISIS suspects and capturing several others.

“Our message remains strong: if you harm our warfighters, we will find you and kill you anywhere in the world, no matter how hard you try to evade justice,” CENTCOM’s Saturday press statement concluded.

The U.S. military officially began striking ISIS targets in Syria in 2014 and has maintained a continuing troop presence within the country for the past decade. This counter-ISIS mission has coincided with the Syrian civil war, as Assad fought to retain power until rebel forces drove him out in December of 2024.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 15:10

MN Lawmakers Say Fraud Whistleblowers Were Threatened With Retaliation

Officials within the administration of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz actively enabled at least some of the state’s estimated $9 billion in social services fraud by suppressing fraud reports, retaliating against whistleblowers and changing protocols to mask criminal behavior according to Republican lawmakers who testified before Congress this week.  

The representatives also asserted that whistleblowers (and potential whistleblowers) have been threatened with retaliation from MN Democrats who would make sure whistleblowers lost their jobs, their homes, they’d be blacklisted from new jobs and their "children would be tracked". 

Minnesota Rep Marion Rarick says if any whistleblowers came forward to expose fraud, Democrats would make sure they lost their jobs, their homes, they’d be blacklisted from new jobs and they would TRACK THEIR CHILDREN

Democrats would try and take away kids for exposing fraud… pic.twitter.com/vyoBYeFyVh

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 9, 2026

State Reps. Walter Hudson, Marion Rarick, and Kristin Robbins are members of their legislature’s committee on fraud prevention, which has been investigating some of the same instances of fraud that have captured the national spotlight in the past month.

All three of them were invited to testify at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s first of at least two scheduled hearings on the rampant social services fraud that led Walz to withdraw his bid for reelection in 2026.  

Rarick in particular spoke about the pressure and opposition whistleblowers faced. According to Rarick, what was once a group of about 480 disenchanted current and former state Department of Health Services employees has grown to over 1,000 people across multiple state agencies. Those DHS employees started an account on X called "Minnesota Staff Fraud Reporting Commentary", and many have been more than willing to talk with the fraud prevention committee about what they have found and experienced.

“In our face to face meetings with a group of whistleblowers, they revealed that retaliation now includes threats of being fired with cause, which means you do not get unemployment insurance in the state of Minnesota, being blacklisted from all state agencies…and then there was a veiled threat of the use of military intelligence against them,” Rarick said.

The revelations are tied to a program which imported around 100,000 Somali refugees into Minnesota since the 1990s, though the majority (around 54,000) arrived in the US during the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2016.  Around 81% of Somali migrants are on some form of welfare and they are greatly over-represented in government subsidized business startups connect to potential fraud. 

How were these migrants from a third world country able to successfully establish so many front businesses and siphon billions of dollars in taxpayer funds?  They had help from Democrat officials according to whistleblowers.  This would explain why investigations into migrant racketeering consistently fizzled and why Democrat appointed judges dismissed multiple fraud cases involving Somalis. 

The latest surge in far-left protests in Minneapolis almost appears tailor made to distract from the issue of fraud, making the issue about the lawful shooting of an NGO trained activist rather than the theft of billions of dollars with the aid of Democrats. 

It is likely that migrant fraud enabled by Dems helped to feed political coffers and election campaigns.  There is a good reason why Tim Walz dropped out of the governors race and essentially inciting civil unrest in the state.  There is a good reason why Dems are behaving so hysterically when it comes to an official federal investigation.  This is what leftists do when they get caught - They try to create chaos and muddy the waters.      

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 14:35

Fast And Furious 47: The Midterm Elections Are Driving Everything

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Fast And Furious 47

The Fast and Furious franchise is on its 10th or 11th movie. The U.S. government is on its 47th President.

In an interesting “mash-up,” we have entered into the arena of Fast and Furious 47.

I don’t think we have ever seen the generation of so many headlines, on so many subjects, so quickly from any world leader, as we’ve seen since the start of this year!

Aside from the “obvious” headlines on Venezuela, which after Friday’s press conference looks more and more like colonization, we have a raft of geopolitical headlines.

• Seizing Russian-flagged crude carriers.
• Threats on Cuba, Iran, and Syria (U.S. strikes against ISIS targets once again on Saturday) to name a few. With the events that occurred in Venezuela, these need to be taken very seriously.
• Some sort of peace negotiations continue with Russia and Ukraine.
• Some sort of plans for rebuilding Gaza (hearing about a ski resort?).

If you missed this week’s Academy Webinar, I highly recommend watching it as Rachel Washburn does an amazing job moderating the conversation with General Ashley (Army), General Bellon (Marine Corps) who was in charge of U.S. Marine Corps Forces South (in South and Central America), Linda Weissgold (Former CIA Deputy Director for Analysis), and myself.

Then on the economic front, we had:

• Venezuela and its oil – there are a lot of potential economic outcomes from the intervention in Venezuela. It remains to be seen how this plays out, and even after the press conference with oil heavyweights on Friday, there seems to be some disagreement on how attractive the prospects of investing in Venezuelan oil are.
• The U.S. invested $2.7 billion in companies involved in uranium enrichment. The ProSec drumbeat continues to create investment opportunities.
• Defense stocks were hit when the President suggested restricting compensation and dividend payouts for companies that are behind their targets for delivery. Then they rose when the President suggested the military budget should be increased from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion (somehow bonds barely reacted).
• Housing had its own mixed bag of headlines. $200 billion to buy mortgages caused mortgage spreads to tighten. The President also tossed out the idea of restricting home purchases to individuals rather than entities designed to buy up housing.
• Closing out the week was the “announcement” that credit card interest rates should be capped at 10%. On one hand, I’ve never figured out how cutting rates by a few bps here and there moves the needle for people at the lowest income rungs, especially the ones struggling with debt. On the other hand (I can play “economist” periodically), the rates are designed so that the card issuers can provide credit to as many people as possible while compensating for their potential credit losses (capping rates will likely constrain credit issuance to the riskiest borrowers).

I’m sure I missed a bunch of other important and potentially market-moving events.

Midterm Elections are Driving Everything

The President is well aware of the importance of winning the midterm elections. He realized that a President without the House of Representatives and Senate on his side, is not in an enviable position.

Look for him to implement policy after policy after policy attempting to secure victory in the midterm elections for Republicans.

• Success in foreign policy will be a key element. From bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, to capturing Maduro, look for a lot more to occur on this front.
• Affordability is another key issue. The steps on credit cards, housing, and mortgage rates seem to try to address that. Look for more.
• Drugs and immigration will remain front and center. It seems impossible to envision a path that does not include turning our attention, and likely full might, on the Mexican cartels.
• Transactional. Being transactional is not necessarily bad, and in many cases can be good, and certainly more effective than the policy of admonishing and haranguing, which did seem to be how we treated many developing or emerging nations.

If you had “colonization” on your bingo card for the year, you can stop reading now. You were way more prepared than I was. Maybe it is a stretch to call the intentions with Venezuela a form of “colonization,” but at the moment, it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch.

Even dialing it back, who really had a successful overnight raid to infiltrate Venezuela, to arrest Maduro, and then bring him (and his wife) to the U.S. to face charges as part of their January 2026 outlook? It is interesting to note that given the clear superiority of our military, in terms of equipment, training, and execution, the admin is keen to use it to our advantage, as demonstrated by the recent and effective actions in Iran and Venezuela.

The point we are trying to make is twofold:

1. Expect a LOT more announcements on many more subjects than you thought were possible even in your wildest imagination.
2. Let your imagination “run wild” with what could come up as potential policy, because for this admin, “out of the box” is the norm and not trying to get ahead of it could cost you.

Anticipating moves and preparing for them will help you make better investment and corporate decisions.

Out of the Box on Interest Rates

On Friday, in Jobs, Housing, and Tariffs, we tried to hammer home the need to take the government’s goals on short-term rates, the 10-year Treasury yield, and mortgage yields seriously.

Back in August, we “thought out loud” about some potential steps to Lowering Yields Across the Curve. At this stage, my only regret is that we didn’t think outside the box enough!

My view on rates is:

• We are not pricing in enough cuts quickly enough. 2 cuts by June rather than 1 is at least my “base” case if not my “worst” case. With Fed Funds effective sitting right around 3.65%, I don’t see how we get to the end of the summer (and the heart of the election campaign) with rates higher than 2.875%. This is not an “economist” view based on “economic” data. It is a view that the admin wants it there and fighting that desire seems to be a recipe for disaster.
  • Also, there is so much wiggle room around things like the Neutral rate. For all those arguing that 3 cuts wouldn’t make sense, let’s not pretend that setting rates is a science. It is as much guesswork as science.
• 10s will get below 4%. Sooner than later.
• Mortgage yields will grind lower as spreads tighten (and the 10-year Treasury yield moves lower). 3.75% as a target in Q1 seems high, but that is gradually where I think we will come out.
• On Friday we suggested we were finally ready for 2s vs 30s to flatten. It didn’t do much until about 10am when it went from 135 to close at 128. Look for more flattening, which might make 3.75% too high of a target on 10s.

This is not necessarily the monetary policy I would want to enact. A lot can happen in the economic data to change this outlook (certainly true with the Fast and Furious 47 theme). But at the moment, I’m fighting the market, not the admin (which I think includes the Fed, or will include the Fed more than it has historically).

A "Fun" Fast and Furious Story

I was having a conversation a few years ago with an extremely good financial journalist. We were talking about “trades we missed.” You know the sort of thing you had conviction in but took off too early, got stopped out, or just didn’t have the will to push management to put it on. It was a fun and cathartic conversation. 

But he had a story that outdid them all.

A journalist had been assigned by some paper/magazine (I want to say Vanity Fair or The NY Times) to explore “Street racing in Los Angeles.” It was outside the usual beat of this journalist but they went ahead and wrote a feature article about street racing in LA.

According to legend, this overworked and underpaid (only modestly successful) journalist was offered an “immense” amount of money (or what seemed like an immense amount of money at the time) to option the movie rights to their work. At the time, presumably the mid-1990s, $50k for an “option” to do movies about street racing in LA seemed like a great deal.

Fast forward to 2001, when Fast and Furious came out and became a surprise hit, that author had some serious regrets. As the franchise grew to a level very few franchises grow to (think James Bond, Star Wars, Friday the 13th), one can only imagine the thoughts going through that person’s mind.

Not sure this has much to do with today’s T-Report (other than that we all miss investments, in part because we don’t believe enough in them), but I did think it makes for an interesting interlude, before the final segment of today’s T-Report.

ProSec Needs You!

The title of this section should probably read You Need ProSec but that doesn’t go as well with the picture that we have included. We already included a “smattering” of ProSec related news in this report. Venezuela, oil, and the uranium investment. The scope of ProSec is broad enough that it encompasses so much more.

We were just discussing how difficult it was to get traction with our theme of National Production for National Security and Resiliency. After a year of trying to get traction with anything from “Refine, Baby, Refine” to National Production for National Security, we settled on ProSec as an easy way to capture our theme. It was back in August that we officially Launched ProSec.

Since August we have used ProSec in the title of 6 T-Reports and incorporated it into countless others. We have lost count of how many times we’ve used it in the media, but finally, Lisa Abramowitz at Bloomberg can keep a straight face when she mentions ProSec. It has been actually used in some reporting on how to invest under this administration. The grammar police say that I should remove “actually” but I think the use of “actually” connotates some level of surprise, which is relevant in this case. While JPM doesn’t officially call the $1.5 trillion earmarked for certain types of investments ProSec, it certainly seems to fit that quite well.

It also doesn’t hurt that two individual stock tickers we mentioned in ProSec 2026 have done extremely well. INTC is up 23% YTD, and BC is up 18% YTD. Pretty healthy increases. Across the board, many of the ProSec sectors and potential stocks (or ETFs) are outperforming the broad market (1.8% on the S&P 500 and 2.8% on the Nasdaq). Our “rotation” theme is also working out well, with the Russell 2000 up almost 6%.

Continuing to build out a portfolio of ProSec linked names should continue to work well.

• A mix of “National Champions” with smaller, very domestic-focused companies should do well. Also, companies integral to the build-out phase, will do very well.
• Processors, refiners, and finished goods manufacturers will likely outperform those further down the supply chain. Yes, the entire chain will do well, but expect benefits to accrue disproportionately to companies that reduce our dependency on China the most. While less dependency on everyone is part of the admin’s goal, those that can address China the best will do the best.
• While the following chart is almost embarrassingly bad, even by T-Report charting skills, I think it is a great way to filter companies in (or out of) the ProSec narrative.

You Need ProSec

Whether you are part of forming government policy (at any level of government, domestic or international), are an investor, or directing the future of your company, thinking about Production for Security and Resiliency is likely to become a large part of your analysis going forward. Might as well start embracing it now, if you haven’t already.

Holy Corporate Bond Market!

The corporate bond calendar started the year at a record setting pace. I’m not sure how people in the bond market had time to breathe this week – between the headlines and the onslaught of new issues!

Not only was the supply absorbed easily (deals were oversubscribed, came with little or no concession, and still traded tighter) but also spreads in the secondary market tightened (based on the CDX IG CDS Index and the Bloomberg Corporate Bond Option Adjusted Spread).

Look for credit to continue to be stable and maybe grind a bit tighter.

Still waiting to see how the year evolves for the funding needs of data centers, AI, and energy generation. I suspect for companies that explain their plans, and communicate that they will be cautious on spending if the results don’t warrant spending, the markets will be very receptive.

Those markets will likely include public credit in your own name, private credit (on a project finance basis), and possibly even some larger deals that fall squarely into the “traditional” realm of structured products.

Bottom Line

Two biggest threats to risk markets:

• China decides to respond to more aggressive U.S. actions across the globe by constraining shipments of rare earths and critical minerals. That is their primarily leverage. If they do use that leverage, it will come at the expense of their ability to legally procure U.S. AI and chip technology. I’m watching for any sign that China starts to “slow play” their approval of export licenses and/or the slowing of any contracted shipments.
• Our own politics become so divisive that things cannot get done. Seems like a low risk, but we have seen some movement across party lines in some votes this past week. Keep an eye on that as a risk to the current path, which has been benefitting ProSec.

The “surprise” that could propel risk markets much higher:

• The bond market drifts towards our outlook on rates.

Part of me wishes the current pace of headlines cannot continue, but:

1. I do think the current pace of headlines will continue as Fast and Furious 47 is a real thing.
2. I probably must admit that I enjoy the pace of headlines and the excitement and opportunities they bring to the markets.

Good luck and thanks again for all your help in 2025 and everything you have done to help us get 2026 going in the right direction for Academy!

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 14:00

CES Came And Went. Here's What Stood Out.

CES, short for the Consumer Electronics Show, wrapped up late last week in Las Vegas. It is the world's largest technology trade show, offering attendees a peek into the future. This year's event marked a shift away from gimmicky uses of artificial intelligence toward products that deliver real-world productivity gains, alongside a series of key comments from industry leaders on the state of AI.

Consumer tech publication Tom's Guide had journalists walking CES last week who focused on finding products with practical uses of AI, including a fridge that reads food labels and manages groceries, a wearable device that records and summarizes your day while tracking emotions, and Lenovo's Qira, an AI companion that anticipates user needs.

Alongside increasingly smart software, CES also delivered notable hardware, including an ultra-thin TV, a gaming laptop with a rollable screen that expands, and a wild robot vacuum that can climb stairs and clean more intelligently.

Last Monday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang delivered a CES keynote on booming memory demand driven by AI. The comments sent memory stock prices like SanDisk's through the roof.

Goldman analyst Peter Bartlett told clients on Saturday that "CES came and went (AI commentary still robust), global Memory stocks resumed their torrid moves higher."

Bartlett noted:

Memory madness… The global memory complex took another violent leg higher last week. Ongoing positive supply/demand datapoints + comments from Jensen @ CES highlighting the massive "unserved" demand for memory in the AI industry fueled the explosive move higher. From a flows perspective, our institutional activity skewed better to buy across this group, but my suspicion is the global retail trading community has had a hand in this move as well.

After Tom's Guide evaluated dozens of companies, we took it a step further and focused on just a few of the most promising concepts or new products:

Lenovo Legion Pro Rollable

If there's one thing that's inevitable, it's Lenovo introducing a fun rollable display concept at CES. But what I didn't expect was a rollable prototype that I actually pray that the company makes. And that's exactly what we have in the Lenovo Legion Pro Rollable. Simply put, it would be the perfect bridge between my home gaming setup of an ultrawide monitor and my gaming laptop — a display that can extend from the 16-inch 16:9 panel all the way up to 24:9 at a impressive 24 inches at a 240Hz refresh rate. Whatever genre of game you're playing, you've got exactly the right screen aspect ratio to play it with. — Jason England

Asus ROG Swift OLED PG34WCDN

Upon first glance of the Asus ROG Swift OLED PG34WCDN (it's a mouthful, I know), I was immediately blown away by the visuals. I mean, there's the clarity of the best gaming monitors, but then there's this 34-inch QD-OLED display with next-gen RGB Stripe Pixel OLED technology boasting a 1800R WQHD (3440 x 1440) curved panel. The results? Crystal-clear visuals with draw-dropping colors and true blacks.

We've seen monitors reach well over a 360Hz refresh rate and a 0.03 response time, but Asus claims this is the world's first RGB OLED gaming monitor on the market. It offers a 40% uplift in perceived blacks thanks to the ROG BlackShield film, along with richer colors, making the ROG Swift OLED PG34WCDN a monitor for gamers and creatives to keep an eye on for 2026. — Darragh Murphy

Best 2-in-1 Laptop: Asus Zenbook Duo

The Asus Zenbook Duo finally did the thing I always wanted it to do. The redesign makes this 2-in-1 truly shine by eliminating the distracting lip between those two 14-inch OLED panels. On top of that, the battery is now shared between both sides for better weight distribution; the aluminum chassis is slimmer and sleeker; and this comes strapped with our best of show winner: Intel Core Ultra Series 3. That's sure to bring the power efficiency this dual-screen beast needs.

For the past couple of years, the idea of a 2-in-1 has always been a convertible laptop. In 2026, dual-screen laptops have a real shot of breaking through thanks to the Zenbook Duo. — Jason England

Roborock Saros Rover

The ability to climb stairs is the final threshold — both literally and figuratively — for robot vacuums. At CES 2026, we saw a few companies try to tackle that problem, but the Roborock Saros Rover did it with the most elegance.

This robovac has two wheels at the end of extendable legs that can lift it up, one step at a time, to go from one floor of your house to the next. Even better, it can vacuum each tread of your stairs as it ascends. It's also pretty agile. In our hands-on with the Saros Rover, we saw it lean back and forth on each leg, glide effortlessly down a ramp, and even jump up and down. When was the last time you saw a robot vacuum do that? — Mike Prospero

Hisense RGB MiniLED 116UXS

You can't walk more than 15 feet in the Las Vegas Conference Center without seeing a sign for some brand's Mini RGB technology. It's everywhere. But of all the brands, Hisense has come away with the best model in my eyes — a 116-inch behemoth in the Hisense RGB Mini-LED 116UXS that not only uses RGB-subpixels but even throws in a new fourth color in the mix (cyan) to display 110% of BT2020's coverage area.

In layman's terms, this is the most colorful TV you've ever seen in your life. The tradeoff is that it's not the slimmest, nor does it have the best anti-glare filter, but the picture is absolutely sublime. If Hisense manages to shrink this display technology and bring it to its award-winning mid-range models, it's game over for the competition. — Nick Pino

Previous reporting on the tech show:

• At CES, A Chinese Two-Legged Vacuum Signals The Next Phase Of Home Robotics

• "Market That Never Existed": Nvidia CEO Sparks Frenzy In Memory Stocks

What intrigued us most is that the rollable display concept is a game-changer for anyone tired of lugging external monitors while traveling

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 13:25

Majority Of North Carolina Trucking Licenses Issued To Foreigners Are Illegal: Duffy

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

A review of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) granted in North Carolina found that 54 percent were issued illegally, the Department of Transportation (DOT) said in a statement on Jan. 8.

The review was conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and is part of its ongoing nationwide audit of trucking licensing systems, the department said.

DOT warned that if North Carolina does not “fix their serious failures” and revoke licenses issued illegally to foreign nationals, the department will withhold almost $50 million in federal funding.

“North Carolina’s failure to follow the rules isn’t just shameful—it’s dangerous. I’m calling on state leadership to immediately remove these dangerous drivers from our roads and clean up their system,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said.

According to audit findings, North Carolina illegally issued non-domiciled CDLs to drivers whose lawful presence in the United States had expired, and some of those drivers were found to be ineligible to hold a non-domiciled commercial license.

FMCSA sent a letter to North Carolina Department of Transportation Commissioner Paul Tine and Gov. Josh Stein, outlining audit results and the corrective actions that must be taken to prevent funding from being withheld.

The agency asked North Carolina authorities to “immediately” pause the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, identify unexpired CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations, and conduct a comprehensive internal audit to identify errors, practices, quality assurance, and other issues that led to such CDLs being granted.

“The level of noncompliance in North Carolina is egregious,” FMCSA Administrator Derek D. Barrs said. “Under Secretary Duffy, we will not hesitate to hold states accountable and protect the American people.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Stein’s office for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

North Carolina is one of the latest states the DOT has warned regarding the illegal issuance of CDLs to foreign nationals.

Illegal Drivers in California

After a federal audit found that 17,000 trucking licenses were issued illegally in California, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles issued cancellation letters to these drivers, Duffy said in November 2025.

The move faced opposition, with the Sikh Coalition, which represents around 20,000 immigrant drivers and business owners in California, filing a lawsuit arguing the move would remove thousands of drivers from roads and disrupt supply chains and services.

“This action was taken as a result of pressure from the federal government; unfortunately, the CA-DMV has thus far failed to provide any recourse or means for drivers to correct these issues,” the Coalition said in a Dec. 23, 2025, statement, referring to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

“By ejecting these drivers from the workforce without allowing for any sort of solution, the CA-DMV is discriminating against them on the basis of their immigration status.”

On Dec. 30, California announced it would have to delay revoking the 17,000 CDLs.

In a Jan. 7 statement, Duffy announced that FMCSA will withhold roughly $160 million from California for failing to cancel those CDLs by the Jan. 5 deadline.

“Our demands were simple: follow the rules, revoke the unlawfully-issued licenses to dangerous foreign drivers, and fix the system so this never happens again,” Duffy said.

“[Gov.] Gavin Newsom has failed to do so—putting the needs of illegal immigrants over the safety of the American people.”

Meanwhile, in December, Duffy threatened to withhold $24 million in funding from Colorado over “slow walking” the purge of illegally issued truck licenses.

Earlier that month, Duffy revealed that an audit had found over 50 percent of non-domiciled DCLs issued in New York were granted illegally. DOT ordered the state to revoke all such licenses and come into compliance, failing which roughly $73 million in federal funding would be withheld.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 12:50

UK Government Video Game Warns Kids They May Be Terrorists For Questioning Mass Migration

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a chilling move, the UK government has rolled out a taxpayer-funded video game that paints every curious teenager as a potential far-right extremist. The “Pathways” game, backed by the Home Office’s Prevent counter-terrorism program, threatens young players with referrals to anti-terror experts simply for questioning unchecked mass migration or engaging with online debates about British identity.

This indoctrination tool assumes teens are one wrong click away from radicalisation, equating basic concerns over job competition or veteran housing with illegal hate groups. It’s a blatant assault on free thought, designed to stifle dissent and enforce globalist narratives in schools—exposing the state’s tightening grip on the next generation.

The game, developed by Shout Out UK with funding from Prevent, targets 11- to 18-year-olds. Players guide a character named Charlie—using “they” pronouns—through everyday scenarios that quickly spiral into warnings of extremism.

?INSIDIOUS: The UK government has developed a video game that INDOCTRINATES children by threatening to report them to counter-terrorism authorities for merely questioning mass migration or expressing concern about the erosion of British values. pic.twitter.com/YoEmqAOptd

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 10, 2026

For instance, after being outperformed by a black student, Charlie faces a choice: accept it or blame immigrants for “stealing jobs.” Opting for the latter ramps up an in-game extremism meter.

One scenario involves a video claiming “Muslim men are stealing the places of British veterans in emergency accommodation” and “the Government is betraying white British people and we need to take back control of our country.” Engaging with it leads to a flood of “harmful ideological messages,” with the game stating, “Unfortunately, Charlie didn’t realise that some of the groups they were engaging in were actually illegal.”

This is where the UK is at. https://t.co/ZdxCPDM5qI

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 9, 2026

Even researching immigration statistics online is portrayed as a gateway to danger, bombarding players with material on the “replacement” of white people. Joining a protest against “the changes that Britain has been through in the last few years and the erosion of British values” nearly ends in arrest, with the revelation that it “seemed to be more about racism and anti-immigration than British values and honouring fallen veterans.”

Pathways is an interactive game designed for 11- to 18-year-old pupils and funded by Prevent, a Home Office programme for tackling extremism.

Young players are directed to help their in-game characters – a white teenage boy and girl – to avoid being reported for “extreme… pic.twitter.com/fUkUdYRr4P

— Sick Of It Media…..???? (@SickOfItteo) January 9, 2026

As The Telegraph reports, bad choices within the game culminate in counseling for “ideological thoughts” or full Prevent referrals, complete with mentors to teach the “differences between right and wrong in expressing political beliefs.”

Matteo Bergamini, founder and CEO of Shout Out UK, defended the game, saying, “Teaching media literacy ensures that all those impacted by our programmes leave with life-long tools and skills to safeguard themselves from these threats. Our Pathways game is designed for the local threat picture in collaboration with the local authority and funded by the Home Office, to teach about the concept of extremism and radicalisation and illustrate the scope of online dangers and radicalisation routes.”

A Home Office spokesman added, “Prevent has diverted nearly 6,000 people away from violent ideologies, stopping terrorists and keeping our country safe. We provide funding to local authorities to tackle a range of threats, including Islamist extremism and Extreme Right Wing.”

Yet this comes amid growing scrutiny of Prevent’s overreach. GB News highlighted how the program now flags concerns about mass migration as a “terrorist ideology,” including “cultural nationalism” where Western culture faces threats from unchecked integration failures. Referrals for right-wing views hit 19% in 2024, outpacing Islamist cases despite MI5’s focus on the latter as 75% of threats.

This isn’t isolated. Recall our recent coverage where a teacher was branded a terrorist threat for showing Trump videos in a U.S. politics class. The educator recounted, “It was just terrifying; just mind-boggling. We were discussing the US election, Trump had just won and I showed a couple of videos from the Trump campaign. Next thing, I was accused of bias. One of the students said they were emotionally disturbed and claimed to have had nightmares.” The Local Authority Designated Officer warned his views “could constitute a hate crime” and risked “radicalisation.”

Such cases expose the left’s weaponization of Prevent against conservative ideas. Now, add in to this dystopian recipe the Labour government’s push to ban X entirely, with the frankly laughable excuse that images of people in bikinis can be created using Grok.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer raged, “This is disgraceful. It’s disgusting, and it’s not to be tolerated,” insisting “all options are on the table” over Grok AI’s image generation. Labour MP Lola McEvoy declared platforms like X “have no right to be accessed in this country” if non-compliant.

Leaked messages show MPs calling Elon Musk a “fascist” and urging abandonment of the platform. This aligns perfectly with “Pathways”—silencing online spaces where teens might encounter unfiltered views on migration or freedom.

There also exists a horrible double standard where schools freely indoctrinate kids with outright fabrications, such as pushing “non-fiction” books claiming Black people built Stonehenge, and were integral in other historical developments, part of a “decolonizing” push that insists Britain was “a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came.”

The hypocrisy deepens with radical gender ideology flooding classrooms. Trans lobbyists from Stonewall are demanding over 300 schools scrap terms like “boys and girls,” opting for neutral language, gender-neutral bathrooms, and identical uniforms—all under the guise of “inclusion.” Schools paying into Stonewall’s scheme must embed LGBTQ+ propaganda across the curriculum, ignoring government guidance against promoting “gender identity ideology.”

This teacher-shaming fits into a broader, sinister trend: the UK government’s push to teach children how to “spot extremist content and misinformation” in schools, embedding “critical thinking” that suspiciously aligns with establishment narratives.

Under the Labour government, kids are being indoctrinated to analyse articles and websites and weed out “putrid conspiracy theories,” grooming the next generation to police thought.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has warned: “If the parameters that are set are to say to every kid, if you read a post that questions net zero and global warming, it will be extreme content, and a lie, if you read a post that even dares to question levels of immigration, legal or illegal into Britain, that that’s extremist, then you start to set a narrative for a future generation that is fundamentally undemocratic.” Farage has labeled Prime Minister Keir Starmer the “biggest threat to free speech” in British history.

Keir Starmer poses the biggest threat to free speech we’ve seen in our history. pic.twitter.com/AB9cdiQtue

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) August 11, 2024

As X owner Elon Musk has warned, the British public simply have to come together and get on board with stopping this lurch toward tyranny dead in its tracks now, before it’s too late.

ELON MUSK: "All of the people of Britain have to fight for the future. If this doesn't happen, there won't be a future. You have to fight." pic.twitter.com/yKC8T2Euph

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) January 9, 2026

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, 01/11/2026 - 08:10

Minnesota's Most Notorious Somali Daycare At Center Of Fraud Scandal Abruptly Shuts Down

The Quality Learing Center is no more. 

The Minneapolis child care center thrust into the spotlight by a viral YouTube exposé on Minnesota's rampant day care fraud scheme has officially shut down. State records confirm Quality Learning Center requested its license closure, effective Tuesday. 

Late last month, independent journalist Nick Shirley released a video in which he toured nearly a dozen centers, exposing them for pocketing public funds without delivering services. Quality Learning Center stood out for its sign bearing a glaring typo - “Learing” - that operators scrambled to fix after the clip went viral. The footage captured an empty-looking facade and zero activity, fueling suspicions in a state already reeling from massive welfare scams.

“Quality Learning Center closed on Tuesday, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Services' licensing records. The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families [DCYF] said that the center requested closure of its license effective Tuesday,” CBS News reported. 

The center raked in $1.9 million from Minnesota's Child Care Assistance Program in fiscal 2025. DCYF got word on December 19 of a voluntary shutdown plan. Ten days later, an on-site check found operators reversing course, vowing to stay open. 

By January 6, records showed otherwise—closed tight.

"The provider is unable to reopen without reapplying for a license," DCYF reported

Shirley's clip reignited fury over Minnesota's social programs grift. Federal prosecutors have already nailed dozens for ripping off kid meal initiatives, autism therapy, and senior housing aid. Schemes ran deep, due to what appears to be intentionally lax oversight in Somali immigrant-heavy enclaves. 

Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of people with allegedly defrauding state programs that offered meals to needy children, behavioral therapy for children with autism and assistance for seniors searching for housing. 

The Trump administration deployed about 2,000 Department of Homeland Security agents to the Twin Cities earlier this week, with the stated goal of cracking down on fraud and undocumented immigration. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem joined the operation, which Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called a "ridiculous surge" and a "show" for the cameras that has not been coordinated with the state.

President Trump's Department of Health and Human Services announced late last month it would freeze all federal child care funding for Minnesota amid the fraud investigations. On Tuesday, the department said it planned to halt billions more in social services funding for Minnesota and four other states led by Democrats.

Walz, who abruptly ended his reelection bid earlier this week, lashed out at President Trump, accusing him of using fraud investigations as a pretext to target Minnesota. He claimed the state is “under assault like no other time in our state’s history,” blaming what he called a “petty, vile administration” that he said shows no concern for the well-being of Minnesotans.

The daycare’s closure follows a prior attempt to appear legitimate. Days after Nick Shirley’s video first went viral, the once-empty center suddenly filled up with a couple of dozen kids who appeared to have been bused in, while staff and the owner’s son offered unconvincing excuses and angrily rebuffed reporters, underscoring a likely cover‑up.

​Neighbors explained that the center’s parking lot is usually empty, and they had “never seen kids go in there” before the controversy, raising suspicions that the facility was effectively non-operational despite supposedly serving dozens of children. Staff angrily denied fraud, with one worker telling a reporter to “get the f–k out of here.” 

The Quality Learning Center is not the first daycare center under scrutiny for engaging in cover-ups since Shirley’s video went viral. Last month, a different Somali-run day care, suspected of fraud, conveniently claimed it had been burglarized. According to Nasrulah Mohamed, manager of the Nokomis Day Care Center, thieves broke into the center, ignored the cash and electronics, and instead made off with employee and child enrollment records.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 07:35

Africa's Pipeline Rejects Climate Dogma And Foreign Control

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via American Greatness,

Political powers in the United Nations and European Union have spent decades lecturing Africa on climate “virtue.” Net-zero pledges, renewable targets, ESG frameworks, and more make up the ever-growing list of prescriptions for “healing the planet.”

Having already industrialized through the use of fossil fuels and enjoying full bellies, stable power grids, and unprecedented luxury, the so-called elite of the developed world present a “low-carbon” economy as morally superior. African nations are pressured to use “sustainable” energy sources—mostly wind and solar technologies—to effectively prevent the development of the Dark Continent’s rich deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas and engender dependence on foreign governments.

Now, when an African entrepreneur moves decisively to break the chains of this dependency, the climate crusaders are revealed not as guardians of the planet, but as guardians of geopolitical control.

In November 2025, Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest businessman, signed a $1 billion development agreement with Zimbabwe’s president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to build a 1,300-mile fuel pipeline stretching from Walvis Bay in Namibia through Botswana to Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Teams are working on routing, logistics, land procurement, and regulatory details.

The project is Zimbabwe’s government policy, and the pipeline has become the country’s moral imperative. To understand why, we must look at the catastrophe of the status quo.

Few modern economies have collapsed as swiftly as Zimbabwe’s did under the government of the late Robert Mugabe, which was known for corruption and disastrous land reforms. A nation that once fed Southern Africa became a cautionary tale.

Although Mugabe was forced from office in 2017, Zimbabwe still faces 18-hour daily power cuts, which cause the country to lose more than 6% of gross domestic product every year, according to World Bank estimates. Removing that economic drag would create space for actual growth.

Green activists want the government to rely on the Kariba Dam, a hydroelectric facility that environmentalists consider “renewable.” But nature is not reliable. An El Niño-induced drought has reduced Kariba to a pitiful 9% capacity. The dam is drying up, and with it, the economic future of a nation.

More promising is the pipeline. Its route—from the Atlantic coast of Namibia, through the stable democracy of Botswana, into Zimbabwe—creates a new strategic energy corridor for Southern Africa. It integrates the 10 economies of the Southern African Development Community in a way that decades of political summits failed to do.

There is an irony in the geopolitics of this pipeline deal. For years, the West has warned Africa of the dangers of “Chinese debt traps,” while offering no viable alternative for energy infrastructure. Now, a pipeline is creating Pan-African commercial cooperation that bypasses both Western climate lectures and Beijing’s loans.

Estimates of the project’s job opportunities range from 50,000 to 100,000 positions across the project’s construction phase and operational lifetime. In nations with unemployment exceeding 20%, these are transformative numbers.

The Dagonte pipeline offers attractive economics: Foreign contractors, anticipating the expenses of regulatory compliance and “green” tape, would likely quote tens of billions for a similar corridor. Dangote is delivering the pipeline, a cement plant, a fertilizer factory, and power infrastructure for a fraction of that cost.

The project will make Dangote’s refinery in Lagos one of the world’s largest single-site refining operations, growing from a current 650,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 1.4 million bpd by 2028.

These developments draw a new energy map in the region and threaten external interests. China and the West compete for influence over African resources. A regional fuel artery weakens their leverage. They cannot dictate terms to countries that supply their own energy.

For Zimbabwe, the implications are immediate. The economy pays punishing premiums for imported diesel delivered by truck. Every liter moves across multiple borders, each with tariffs and delays. Being landlocked leaves Zimbabwe exposed. The pipeline breaks that pattern. Once fuel flows from Walvis Bay to Bulawayo and onward to Zimbabwe’s capital at Harare, costs fall, and the manufacturing sector finally stops running on expensive fuel for running electricity generators.

This sends a terrifying signal to the climate czars that the developing world is waking up. Leaders like President Mnangagwa and industrialists like Dangote are realizing that the “Green Energy Transition” is a luxury good—likely a bogus one—they cannot afford. They are choosing the path of India and China—rapid industrialization fueled by whatever works. And what works, undeniably at this time, are fossil fuels.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/11/2026 - 07:00

It's Very Difficult To Believe China's Claim Of Mediating Between India & Pakistan

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

China is uniquely unqualified to mediate between them since it has territorial disputes with India and arms Pakistan to the teeth.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently claimed that his country mediated between India and Pakistan during last spring’s clashes, but it’s very difficult to believe that this actually happened.

Trump has repeatedly claimed the same despite India’s denials, which greatly contributed to the deterioration of their ties over the past year. India’s half-century-long position since the 1972 Simla Agreement has been that its problems with Pakistan are bilateral, ergo why it’s always rejected mediation since then.

Nevertheless, India cannot prevent other countries’ representatives from talking to Pakistan during bilateral crises, nor will it decline their calls after they’ve done so. Rather, it considers each pair of calls to be purely bilateral, and it’s always eager to share its perspective with them amidst regional tensions. After all, it would be a dereliction of its officials’ duty to voluntary cede the narrative to Pakistan, ergo why they’ll always take the opportunity to advance their country’s national interests during these times.

This background helps to better understand what China might have actually done last spring. Wang did indeed call his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar and Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval on the same day, but as explained above, this wouldn’t have amounted to mediation. China is uniquely unqualified to mediate between them anyhow since it has territorial disputes with India and arms Pakistan to the teeth. Some of this equipment like the JF-17s was also used against India last spring.

That said, perhaps Wang truly believes that his talks with those two played a role in the ceasefire that followed, but it’s still curious that he waited over half a year to claim that China played a mediation role. He’d also know by now how furious Trump’s claim made India and the role that it played in the deterioration of their relation over the past year. It’s therefore unclear why he’d risk dealing damage to the nascent Sino-Indo rapprochement partially brought about by the US’ aforesaid problems with India.

The context within which he made this claim helps explain his possible motive. He was speaking at a symposium titled “International Situation and China’s Foreign Relations” and was listing off examples of the “Chinese approach to settling hotspots.” The other examples included “northern Myanmar, the Iranian nuclear issue…the issues between Palestine and Israel, and the recent conflict between Cambodia and Thailand.” The only one that it can indisputably claim credit for is northern Myanmar.

The other four are Trump’s claimed achievements, though China has veritably tried mediating between Cambodia and Thailand but failed to get them to agree to a deal. In any case, the only cogent reason why Wang would portray all the others as examples of Chinese mediation even though it arguably didn’t play any such role in those conflicts is to promote China’s Global Security Initiative, one of President Xi Jinping’s flagship initiatives. The others concern development, civilization, and governance.

Wang seemingly calculated, whether rightly or wrongly, that promoting China’s Global Security Initiative at this specific moment in the global systemic transition is so important that it’s worth offending India. That’s the only explanation that makes sense, especially since he waited over half a year to make this claim and did so during an end-of-the-year diplomatic review, but this doesn’t mean that India will be understanding about it and his boast could still needlessly complicate their nascent rapprochement.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 23:20

Healthy Diets Are Getting Pricier, Yet More Affordable

A healthy diet is often discussed as a top public health issue, but affordability remains one of its biggest barriers.

Over the past decade, food prices have climbed due to inflation, supply chain disruptions, and climate-related shocks. At the same time, incomes and food access have improved in many regions.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, highlights how these competing forces have shaped the global cost of eating well—and who is still being left behind.

The data for this visualization comes from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It tracks the average daily cost of a healthy diet worldwide.

Healthy Diet Costs Are Rising

A healthy diet is defined as providing 2,330 kilocalories per day, with nutritionally adequate proportions across six food groups. These include starchy staples, vegetables, fruits, animal-source foods, legumes, nuts and seeds, and oils and fats.

In 2017, the average global cost of a healthy diet was $3.14 per person per day. By 2024, that figure had climbed to $4.46. The sharpest increases occurred after 2020, coinciding with pandemic-related disruptions and global food price inflation.

Affordability Is Improving Despite Higher Prices

While costs have risen, affordability has steadily improved. In 2017, 38.4% of the global population—about 2.93 billion people—could not afford a healthy diet. By 2024, that share had fallen to 31.9%, representing roughly 2.6 billion people.

Despite global progress, affordability challenges remain concentrated in low-income and conflict-affected regions. Even small increases in food prices can have outsized effects where households already spend a large share of income on food.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out How Much Meat do We Eat? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 22:45

Escobar: How Trump's Oily Dreams May Collapse In A Venezuelan Dark Pit

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

So the Big Oil Picture in Venezuela is way more complex than the Trump 2.0 gang suspects...

Let’s start with neo-Caligula’s new edicts on the imperial satrapy he says he now owns; not exactly edicts but outright threats directed to interim President Delcy Rodriguez:

1. Crack down on “drug trafficking flows”. Well, this should actually be directed to Colombian and Mexican smugglers in cahoots with big American buyers.

2. Expel Iranian, Cuban, and other “operatives hostile to Washington” – before Caracas is allowed to increase oil production. Not happening.

3. Halt oil sales to “US adversaries”. Not happening.

Hence it becomes a near certainty that neo-Caligula may bomb Venezuela again.

Neo-Caligula, in a separate motormouth offensive, also clarified that he wants to somewhat overhaul the oil business in Venezuela via subsidies. It “could take less than 18 months”; then it morphed to “we can do it in less time than that, but it’ll be a lot of money”; and finally morphed to “a tremendous amount of money will have to be spent and the oil companies will spend it.”

No, they won’t, as several proverbial “industry insiders” have advanced. US energy majors balk at the sight of investing fortunes in a nation that may be engulfed by total chaos if neo-Caligula forces a traitorous government over 28 million people.

According to Rystad Energy Analysis, it would take no less than 16 years and at least $183 billion for Venezuela to produce a mere 3 million barrels of oil a day.

Neo-Caligula’s ultimate dream is to reduce global oil prices to a maximum $50 a barrel. For this purpose, the Trump 2.0 imperial gig will, in thesis, totally control PDVSA, including acquisition and sale of virtually all of its oil production.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, at a Goldman Sachs energy conference, let the oily cat out of the bag:

“We are going to market the crude coming out of Venezuela, first this backed up stored oil [up to 50 million barrels], and then infinitely, going forward, we will sell the production that comes out of Venezuela into the marketplace.”

So essentially the neo-Caligula gig will capture, actually steal the sale of crude from PDVSA, with the money theoretically deposited in US-controlled offshore accounts to “benefit the Venezuelan people”.

There’s no way Delcy Rodriguez’s interim government will accept what amounts to de facto theft. Even as Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller is bragging that the US is using “military threat” to maintain control of Venezuela. If you are really in control, you don’t need to issue threats.

So what about China?

China was importing roughly 746,000 barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. That’s not much. Beijing is already working on replacing it with imports from Iran. China essentially is not dependent on Venezuelan oil. Apart from Iran, it may also source from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Beijing clearly sees that the imperial overdrive in the Western Hemisphere and in West Asia is not just about oil, but also to force China to buy energy with petrodollars. Nonsense: with Russia, the Persian Gulf and beyond, the name of the game is already petroyuan.

China is 80% energy independent. Venezuela de facto was accounting for a mere 2% of the 20% China imports – and this according to the US government’s own numbers.

China’s energy relationship with Venezuela goes way beyond cheap American formulas. Here is essentially outlined how “Chinese oil agreements with Venezuela are de facto binding financial contracts, with repayment mechanisms, collateral structures, penalty clauses, and derivative linkages embedded deep into global finance (…) They are connected – directly and indirectly – to Western financial institutions, commodity traders, insurers, and clearing systems, including entities tied to Wall Street. If these contracts are broken, the consequence is not China ‘taking a loss’. It is a cascade event: defaults triggering counterparty exposure, derivatives being repriced, legal disputes crossing jurisdictions, and confidence shock spreading outward. At a certain point, this ceases to be a Venezuelan problem and becomes a systemic global one.”

Moreover, “over the past twenty years, China has become the operational core of Venezuela’s oil industry. Not merely as a buyer, but as a builder. China provided refinery technology, heavy crude upgrading systems, infrastructure design, control software, spare parts logistics (…) Remove the Chinese engineers. Remove the technicians who understand the control logic. Remove the maintenance supply chains. Remove the software support. What remains is not a functioning oil industry waiting to be ‘liberated’, but an inert shell.”

Conclusion: “Converting Venezuela’s Chinese-built oil sector into an American one would take three to five years, minimum.”

Financial analyst Lucas Ekwame hits the major points. Venezuela produces superheavy oil as thick as tar. It doesn’t just flow; it needs to be melted to reach the surface, and after extraction, it hardens again, requiring diluent: no less than 0.3 barrels of diluent need to be imported for each exported barrel.

Compound it with Venezuela’s energy infrastructure shaped by China and at the same time suffering years of American sanctions, even worse than over Iraq in the early 2000s, and neo-Caligula’s faulty oil “strategy” becomes obvious.

That of course does not alter the short-term feast of imperial hedge fund vultures over Venezuela’s carcass, starting with ghastly Paul Singer, the billionaire Zionist hedge fund manager and MAGA super PAC donor ($42 million in 2024) whose Elliott Management acquired the Houston-based subsidiary of CITGO for $5.9 billion in November, less than a third of its $18 billion market value, thanks to the embargo on Venezuelan oil imports.

The speculative money crowd is bound to cash in on up to $170 billion in the debt market; defaulted PDVSA bonds alone are worth over $60 billion.

So the Big Oil Picture in Venezuela is way more complex than the Trump 2.0 gang suspects. Of course on the road ahead we may come to a situation where the Viceroy of Venezuela, the gusano Marco Rubio, cuts off the oil flow from Caracas to Shanghai. Well, considering Rubio’s strategic “expertise”, better start regimenting battalions of lawyers right away.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 22:10

These Are The World's Top Silver Producers

Silver prices surged more than 5% in recent trading, breaking above $80 per ounce once again.

The rally has been driven by China’s restrictions on silver exports, rising demand from green technologies like solar power, and renewed interest in safe-haven assets.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, highlights the world’s largest silver-producing countries and shows where global supply is most concentrated.

The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025. It presents estimated silver mine production by country for 2024.

Mexico’s Production Dominance

Total world silver production reached roughly 25,000 metric tons in 2024.

Mexico remained the world’s top silver producer in 2024, with an estimated 6,300 metric tons of output. The country has held this position for decades, supported by extensive mining infrastructure and high-grade deposits. Notably, Mexico produces far more silver than its reserve share might suggest, holding only about 6% of the world’s known reserves.

China and Peru Anchor Global Supply

China ranked second globally, producing around 3,300 metric tons of silver in 2024. Much of this output comes as a byproduct of large-scale base metal mining, particularly lead and zinc.

Peru followed closely with approximately 3,100 metric tons, reinforcing South America’s importance in global silver markets.

Together, these three countries accounted for more than half of global silver production.

Beyond the top producers, countries such as Bolivia, Poland, Chile, Russia, and the United States each produced between 1,100 and 1,300 metric tons. Australia, Kazakhstan, Argentina, and India also contributed meaningful volumes.

Despite this diversity, the silver market remains tight. Strong demand from solar panels, electronics, and electrification is expected to keep the market in a deficit, putting upwards pressure on silver prices.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out All of the World’s Oil Reserves by Country, in One Visualization on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 21:35

California's Billionaire Tax Is A Trojan Horse... Not A Solution

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

California was my home for most of my adult life—long enough to know that what looks good in a campaign slogan can feel very different when you’re the one carrying the load.

I built restaurants there. I employed people there. I signed permits, licenses, and applications like they were holiday cards. I navigated agencies that asked for more paperwork than profit statements. I paid into a system that always wanted one more filing, one more inspection, one more approval, one more fee. The joke was that my assistant didn’t work in hospitality—she worked in compliance. And it was true. That state turns compliance into a profession.

So when I see the latest proposal—a one-time 5 percent tax on anyone whose net worth exceeds $1 billion—I don’t see Robin Hood. I see Sacramento writing itself a permission slip.

The pitch says “billionaires.” But the mechanism says “total assessed wealth, declared by the owner, verified by the state, and enforceable through audit.”

That’s a power move, not a nuance.

A Tax Based on Valuation, Not Reality

Most taxes in America hit earnings or consumption. You pay when you make money, or when you buy something, or when you sell something. This proposal taxes accumulation. It doesn’t ask what you can afford. It asks what you have, and then hands a calculator to the agencies to determine the bill.

We’ve seen how this evolves. The Biden administration and Vice President Kamala Harris already proposed a federal wealth tax on Americans worth $100 million or more. Not billionaires—$100 million. That’s a signal flare, not a footnote.

It tells you exactly what you need to know: This idea isn’t anchored at the top. It’s already drifting toward the middle.

And middle is where most of the money actually lives.

The Constitution Saw This Coming

There’s a phrase from constitutional law that gets thrown around a lot in conversations like this: bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder is a law that punishes a specific person or small identifiable group without a trial, skipping the courts and due process entirely. In the United States, that kind of law is unconstitutional—lawmakers don’t get to play judge and jury and penalize a select group through legislation alone.

This proposal isn’t a criminal punishment, but the reason people bring the term up at all is because it targets a tiny group by valuation for a massive extraction event without a court proceeding first. That resemblance matters if you believe fairness isn’t optional.

The Wealthy Already Pay Plenty—Just Quietly

People talk about the “rich dodging taxes” like it’s gospel. Let me tell you what actually happens when you build something in California:

You don’t dodge taxes, you drown in them. Not just income tax, not just property tax, but sales tax, alcoholic beverage tax, payroll taxes, employer-side filings, permits, licensing fees, inspections, regulatory approvals, environmental health certificates, building permits, land use permits, and on and on and on.

That state has already been collecting revenue from business owners in every direction long before this proposal ever landed on the ballot.

If you want to know why business owners left, it wasn’t a lack of patriotism. It was math.

The Trojan Horse Isn’t the Billionaire—It’s the Precedent

The billionaires are the branding. The mascot. The costume the idea wears so voters don’t inspect the gears.

But the gears are what matter, because once a state passes a tax on total assessed wealth, future thresholds can be lowered, exemptions can be rewritten, valuation formulas can be expanded, and enforcement will land in the hands of agencies most voters will never meet—but business owners never stop meeting.

The real question is not “Should billionaires pay more?” but “Should the state have the right to tax total assessed wealth at all?”

Because once that precedent exists, the definition of “rich” will keep shifting, the net will keep widening, and the bill will keep climbing down the balance sheet toward the people who never imagined they’d qualify.

A millionaire today in California is someone who owns a house. A house today costs a million dollars there. That’s not a billionaire. That’s a math teacher and a firefighter and a family with a mortgage.

The net will widen because the money they need is not all at the top. There’s much more sitting in the middle.

And middle-class is where precedent always ends up grazing.

My Stance

I lean libertarian—I don’t want government in every aspect of our lives, our kitchens, our land, or our asset valuations. I’m a hard no on expanding its discretion any further. The slogans may be sticky, but freedoms are stickier—once lost, they don’t come back.

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 Sat, 01/10/2026 - 21:00

Amazon Is Ditching The United States Postal Service

After nearly three decades of working together, Amazon is ending its delivery relationship with the United States Postal Service, a move that significantly alters how packages are moved across the country, according to MSN.

The partnership once played a major role in Amazon’s rapid expansion while generating billions in yearly revenue for USPS. The decision comes as the Postal Service continues to struggle financially, including a reported $9.5 billion loss in its most recent fiscal year.

For much of Amazon’s growth, USPS provided nationwide coverage, especially in rural and remote areas where private carriers often cannot operate profitably. That reach allowed Amazon to deliver to virtually every address in the country, making the arrangement one of the largest public-private logistics partnerships in U.S. history. Recent contract negotiations and changes to USPS pricing appear to have pushed Amazon toward a different approach. Instead of renewing the agreement, the company is shifting more deliveries to its own expanding logistics network, tightening its control over speed, cost, and customer experience.

MSN notes that the shift raises serious concerns for workers. Analysts estimate that as many as 100,000 jobs connected directly or indirectly to Amazon’s shipping volume could be affected across postal operations, transportation, and contract delivery services. Although the changes may unfold gradually, declining package volume could lead to staffing reductions across multiple regions.

For USPS, losing Amazon removes a key revenue source that helped offset long-term declines in traditional mail. Without that income, the agency may be forced to accelerate cost-cutting, restructure routes, and reduce staffing through attrition and reorganization. At the same time, consumers may begin to notice changes in delivery patterns. In urban areas, Amazon drivers and third-party contractors are likely to take over more deliveries, while in less populated regions customers may experience shifts in delivery timing or service availability as Amazon adjusts its logistics footprint.

The Postal Service is now exploring new ways to stabilize revenue, including opening its delivery network to competitive bids from other retailers and logistics companies. The separation highlights the growing divide between public service obligations and the fast-moving demands of modern ecommerce. As private companies expand their own delivery systems and public institutions fight to remain financially viable, the end of this partnership may be remembered as a defining moment in the evolution of American logistics and commerce.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 20:25

DNC Signals Possible Legal Action Against 10 States Over Proposed DOJ Voter-List Agreement

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times,

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent warning letters to election officials in 10 states on Friday, saying proposed agreements with the Justice Department to share unredacted voter registration files and act on list maintenance concerns could violate federal election law.

The letters went to election offices in Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. In each, the DNC said the Justice Department indicated the state had entered or could soon enter a memorandum of understanding that “appears to require violations” of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

A Justice Department spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email, “The Department of Justice has statutory authority to enforce our nation’s election laws and protect the integrity of our electoral system. Organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they’d like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court.”

Earlier this week, the Justice Department said it had sued Arizona and Connecticut, alleging the states failed to turn over their full voter registration rolls for federal inspection. DOJ said the filings brought its nationwide total to 23 states plus the District of Columbia in lawsuits tied to access to statewide voter registration lists.

In Arizona, the lawsuit says U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi requested the voter registration list from Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in July 2025 and later extended the deadline to September 2025. The suit says Fontes refused, citing state and federal privacy laws, and asks a court to compel production under the Civil Rights Act’s information-production provisions.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes told The Epoch Times that “Arizonans’ private voter registration information is not up for grabs,” and Fontes said he declined due to privacy concerns.

In Connecticut, the lawsuit says Bondi requested the list in August 2025 and then demanded it in December 2025, but Connecticut Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas said state law bars release of the information sought. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said the state tried to work with DOJ but “rather than communicating productively with us, they rushed to sue.”

The DNC’s letters to the 10 states pointed to a proposed agreement that would require a state to agree that “within forty-five (45) days of receiving notice from the Justice Department of any issues, insufficiencies, inadequacies, deficiencies, anomalies, or concerns,” the state would “clean” its voter registration list or data “by removing ineligible voters” and resubmit updated data to DOJ for verification.

The party argued that a “45-Day Removal Demand” could conflict with NVRA provisions that govern how states remove voters based on suspected changes in residence and that restrict certain systematic list-maintenance activity close to federal elections. In a longer legal argument, the DNC said the NVRA’s affirmative list-maintenance mandate requires a “reasonable effort” to remove certain categories of ineligible registrants and argued the proposed demand goes beyond what federal law requires.

The letters also sought records from the states, including documents related to any DOJ agreement and information about any voters removed, inactivated, or contacted based on the 45-day demand or other DOJ-provided information, including the voter’s party affiliation and the purported basis of ineligibility. The letters asked for responsive records dating from Jan. 1, 2025, to the present.

The DNC signaled it could escalate the matter but said the current letters were not the formal notice that can precede litigation under the NVRA. In the Alabama letter, the DNC wrote that the state may not yet have violated the NVRA and said the letter “does not constitute written notice of violations of the NVRA,” adding that the party “stands ready to issue a formal notice” if evidence of ongoing violations emerges.

The DNC said its concerns were triggered, in part, by statements made in a Dec. 4, 2025, federal court hearing. In the Mississippi letter, the DNC cited a transcript and wrote that the acting chief of the DOJ Voting Section told a judge the state had “expressed ... a willingness” to enter a proposed memorandum concerning voter registration list maintenance.

The White House defended the Justice Department’s authority to press states on voter roll maintenance.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told The Epoch Times in an email, “The Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all give the Department of Justice full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls. President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the 10 state officials addressed in the letters but did not hear back prior to publication.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 19:50

Wall Street's Crypto Debate Is Over As Banks Go All-In On BTC, Stablecoins, Tokenized Cash

Authored by Sam Bourgi via CoinTelegraph.com,

Big banks aren’t debating crypto anymore — they’re building it. From tokenized cash to ETFs, Wall Street is quietly going onchain.

For years, major banks treated cryptocurrency primarily as a risk to be contained. That posture is now giving way to a more deliberate form of engagement. Rather than debating crypto’s legitimacy, banks are increasingly deciding how and where to integrate it, from regulated investment products to blockchain-based payment rails.

This shift is on full display in this week’s Crypto Biz. JPMorgan is extending its US dollar deposit token onto new blockchain infrastructure, signaling that tokenized cash is moving closer to production use within global banking. 

Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, is positioning itself to offer exposure to Bitcoin and Solana through exchange-traded funds (ETFs), potentially bringing crypto investments to millions of wealth management clients. 

Barclays has made its first bet on stablecoin infrastructure, backing settlement rails designed to connect regulated issuers with financial institutions. 

And Bank of America has taken another step toward normalization by allowing advisers to recommend spot Bitcoin ETFs to clients.

Together, these moves suggest the banking sector is no longer content to watch from the sidelines.

JPM Coin heads to the Canton Network

JPMorgan announced plans to issue its US dollar-denominated deposit token, JPM Coin (JPMD), natively on the Canton Network, marking another step by Wall Street toward production-ready blockchain infrastructure.

Digital Asset, the developer of the Canton Network, and Kinexys by JPMorgan will extend JPM Coin from its existing rails onto Canton’s privacy-focused layer-1 blockchain, enabling regulated digital cash to move across interoperable networks.

According to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, JPM Coin, described as the first bank-issued, US dollar-denominated deposit token for institutional clients, represents a digital claim on JPMorgan’s dollar deposits and is designed to facilitate faster, more secure movement of regulated money on public blockchains.

“This collaboration brings to life the vision of regulated digital cash that can move at the speed of markets,” said Yuval Rooz, co-founder and CEO of Digital Asset.

Morgan Stanley enters crypto ETF race

US investment bank Morgan Stanley is entering the cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund market, with proposed products offering exposure to Bitcoin and Solana, following the strong debut of spot crypto ETFs in the United States.

The bank has filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to launch two investment vehicles, the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust and the Morgan Stanley Solana Trust, designed to provide passive investment exposure to the performance of their underlying digital assets.

If approved, the funds could be made available to more than 19 million clients within Morgan Stanley’s wealth management division, significantly expanding access to crypto-linked investment products.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs have ranked among the most successful ETF launches on record, attracting substantial inflows during their first two years of trading. Momentum has continued into the new year, with renewed investor demand driving fresh inflows during the first trading sessions.

The 12 spot US Bitcoin ETFs have amassed more than 1.3 million BTC, valued at nearly $120 billion. Source: Bitbo

Barclays invests in stablecoin infrastructure

London-based banking giant Barclays has made its first investment in a stablecoin-focused company, signaling traditional finance’s growing interest in digital dollar infrastructure.

The bank announced an undisclosed investment in Ubyx, a US-based stablecoin clearing platform that connects regulated issuers with financial institutions to facilitate settlement and interoperability. The move also marks a notable shift for Barclays, which in recent years has publicly emphasized the risks associated with digital assets.

“This investment aligns with Barclays’ approach to explore opportunities based on new forms of digital money, such as stablecoins,” the bank said in a statement.

Ubyx has previously raised $10 million in seed funding, backed by Galaxy and Coinbase. The company was founded by Tony McLaughlin, a former Citibank executive.

Bank of America wealth advisers cleared to recommend Bitcoin ETFs

US investors may soon receive recommendations to buy Bitcoin ETFs from Bank of America’s private bank and Merrill Edge platforms, adding to evidence of Bitcoin’s growing integration into traditional finance.

The bank’s chief investment office has approved coverage of four U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, including products offered by Bitwise, Fidelity, BlackRock and Grayscale. Collectively, the funds manage more than $100 billion in Bitcoin assets.

The move comes roughly a month after Bank of America reportedly advised wealth management clients to allocate 1% to 4% of their portfolios to digital assets.

“For investors with a strong interest in thematic innovation and comfort with elevated volatility, a modest allocation of 1% to 4% in digital assets could be appropriate,” Chris Hyzy, chief investment officer at Bank of America Private Bank, told Yahoo. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 18:40

"Uninvestable": Trump's $100 Billion Venezuela Gamble Meets Oil Industry Reality

President Donald Trump’s push for U.S. oil companies to commit at least $100 billion toward rebuilding Venezuela’s energy industry is meeting significant resistance from the very executives he is courting, according to Bloomberg.

Although the White House projects confidence, industry leaders are warning that Venezuela remains too unstable for major investment, with Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods describing the country bluntly as “uninvestable.”

At a closed-door meeting Friday with roughly 20 energy executives, Trump said he expected an agreement “today or very shortly thereafter” to restart large-scale drilling in Venezuela following the removal of Nicolás Maduro. He applied direct pressure, telling the group, “If you don’t want to go in, just let me know, because I’ve got 25 people that aren’t here today that are willing to take your place.”

Publicly, many executives praised the opportunity. Privately and in their remarks, they expressed deep concern about risk, governance, and long-term returns. Woods delivered the strongest warning, pointing to Venezuela’s unstable business environment and past expropriations. “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” he said, noting Exxon’s assets there had already been seized twice. He questioned whether any future protections would hold: “How durable are the protections from a financial standpoint? What will the returns look like? What are the commercial arrangements, the legal frameworks?” Even so, he added that Exxon would be willing “to put a team on the ground” if invited and given proper security guarantees.

Other executives struck a cautious tone. Continental Resources founder Harold Hamm said the prospect “excites me as an explorationist,” but emphasized the scale of the task ahead: “There’s a huge investment that needs to be done — we’ve all agreed on that, and certainly we need time to see that through.”

Bloomberg writes that Trump, however, left the meeting projecting momentum. “We sort of formed a deal,” he told reporters, predicting companies would soon be investing “hundreds of billions of dollars in drilling oil.” Yet when pressed for specifics, Energy Secretary Chris Wright acknowledged that Chevron — the only U.S. major still operating in Venezuela — was the only firm to make a concrete pledge. Chevron Vice Chairman Mark Nelson said production, now about 240,000 barrels per day, could rise by roughly 50% within 18 to 24 months.

Trump sought to ease investor fears by promising sweeping protections: “You have total safety, total security,” he said. “You’re dealing with us directly — you’re not dealing with Venezuela or we don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.” Wright later said the administration’s priority is to “change the behavior of the government in Venezuela” and “drive better business conditions.”

The meeting included moments of levity over massive past losses. When ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said his company had absorbed a $12 billion hit in Venezuela, Trump replied, “Good write-off,” prompting Lance to respond, “It’s already been written off.”

Some executives were openly eager. Repsol’s CEO told Trump his company was “ready to invest more in Venezuela today,” and Armstrong Oil & Gas CEO Bill Armstrong said, “We are ready to go to Venezuela… it is prime real estate… kind of like West Palm about 50 years ago: very ripe.”

Still, many industry figures are uneasy about the optics and risks of the administration’s strategy, which critics argue amounts to an aggressive grab for Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Trump defended the move bluntly: “If we didn’t do this, China or Russia would have done it.”

Despite the uncertainty, Wright predicted Venezuela’s output would “hopefully” begin rising by summer and said, “They are going to ramp up investment immediately in the next few weeks… Can we achieve $100 billion investment over next 10 years? I think absolutely.”

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but decades of neglect, sanctions, and infrastructure collapse have pushed production below one million barrels per day. Rebuilding even a fraction of its former output will require years of work and tens of billions of dollars to repair abandoned rigs, corroded pipelines, and heavily damaged facilities.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/10/2026 - 18:05