Zero Hedge

Indonesia Remains The World's Most Generous Nation

Indonesia Remains The World's Most Generous Nation

Started in 2012, Giving Tuesday, which takes place on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving, is a day which aims to encourage people to do good.

Described as "a global generosity movement unleashing the power of radical generosity", the goal of Giving Tuesday is to encourage people to donate time or money or to use their voice for a good cause.

While generosity may seem like a complicated concept to quantify, for over a decade now, the Charities Aid Foundation has been providing an overview of generosity around the world with its World Giving Index.

This international study examines populations in more than 100 countries according to three main aspects of generosity: charitable donations, volunteering and willingness to help strangers.

As in previous years, Statista's Valentine Fourreau notes that the most generous country is not one of the richest in the world.

The World's Most Generous Countries | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In 2024 Indonesia again tops the ranking, with a score of 74. The volunteer rate in the country (65 percent) is nearly three times higher than the global average (24 percent), and nine out of ten Indonesians made charitable donations in 2023 (year the data was collected).

In second place among the most generous countries is Kenya, with a score of 63, while Singapore and the Gambia both obtained a score of 61.

This ranking, whose top 20 remains fairly similar from one year to the next, reflects certain religious and cultural characteristics.

Notable examples include the influence of Islamic charity in certain Muslim countries such as Indonesia (with zakât, or ‘legal alms’), and that of Theravada Buddhism in Thailand (ranked 14th) and Myanmar (ranked 19th), an ancient branch of Buddhism that values offerings and charitable donations.

Anglo-Saxon and Protestant countries, with their long tradition of philanthropy, are also well represented.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 22:45

Pro-Israel Forces Intensify Effort To Control American Discourse

Pro-Israel Forces Intensify Effort To Control American Discourse

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Across the American political spectrum, support for the State of Israel is steadily eroding. With the long-running, staggeringly expensive redistribution of American wealth and weapons to one of the world’s most prosperous countries under unprecedented threat, Israel’s advocates inside the United States are growing increasingly desperate to suppress the facts, opinions, questions and imagery that are causing this sea change. 

Pro-Israel forces have long worked to limit and shape US discourse to Israel’s advantage. However, the intensity and novelty of what’s taking place in 2025 — from the government-coerced transfer of a social media platform to pro-Israel billionaires, to the jailing and attempted deportation of a student for writing an opinion piece, and more — deserves the attention of every American who values free expression, an enlightened electorate, and independence from foreign influence.

Many Americans know that Congress and President Biden teamed up in 2024 to force the Chinese company ByteDance to divest its US operation of the popular video-sharing app TikTok, yet few realize this unusual intervention was motivated in large part by a desire to serve the interests of Israel. 

Though politicians pointed to the supposed Chinese menace lurking inside the app — while revealing their lack of sincerity by continuing to use it themselves — the catalyst for the extraordinary TikTok ban's passage was a sea of viral content illuminating Israel’s rampage in Gaza, casting Palestinians in empathetic light, and questioning the legitimacy of the political philosophy that is Zionism. 

The idea that passage of the ban was largely about Israel is no conspiracy theory. American politicians who supported the compelled divestiture of TikTok have candidly said so themselves. Sharing a stage with Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2024, then-Senator Mitt Romney said: 

“Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down, potentially, TikTok or other entities of that nature. You look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites — it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts, so I’d note that’s of real interest to the president, who will get the chance to take action in that regard.” 

Similarly, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York told a webinar that pro-Palestinian student protests were “exactly why we included the TikTok bill…because you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the US.”

Of course, mere divestiture wouldn’t guarantee that TikTok would start suppressing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian content in the United States. To have the desired effect, the buyer — who required White House approval — would have to be an ardent supporter of Israel. That’s just how things played out. In September, President Trump approved the sale of TikTok’s US operations to a joint venture led by Larry Ellison, the founder of tech-titan Oracle and the fourth-richest man in the world. 

Larry Ellison led the takeover of TikTok and set his son up to run Paramount Skydance, parent of CBS (Alex J. Berliner / AB Images/ AP via Washington Post)

Ellison has expressed his “deep emotional connection to the State of Israel” and has been a major benefactor of the Israeli Defense Forces, via donations to IDF-supporting organizations. He spent at least $3 million on Marco Rubio’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, after being assured by Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations that Rubio would “be a great friend to Israel.” There are other Israel-favoring billionaires in the consortium now controlling TikTok’s American presence, among them NewsCorp head Rupert Murdoch and investment trader Jeff Yass. 

Americans were propagandized into fearing Chinese control of TikTok users’ data. Now that data will be controlled by Oracle, a firm whose founder has described Israel as his own nation, said “there is no greater honor” than supporting the IDF, and invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a seat on the board. It’s also a firm with strong business ties to the Israel government, and a firm whose Israel-born executive vice chair and former CEO last year declared, “For [Oracle] employees, it’s clear: If you’re not for America or Israel, don’t work here.”

A few months before the TikTok divestiture was finalized, the company installed former IDF soldier and self-described “passionate” Zionist Erica Mindel as TikTok’s hate speech manager in July. Weeks later, and just days before the transfer of TikTok’s US operation was approved, the platform posted new guidelines on Sept 13 about what’s allowed on the platform. 

Soon after the change, users and content creators began sharing examples of content being deleted by TikTok, with the platform exploiting its vague new rules about “conspiracy theories” and “protected groups” to reject negative content about Israel — wielding the threat of demonetization of repeat offenders. In a recent appearance on the Breaking Points podcast, Guy Christensen, who has 3.4 million TikTok followers, shared his experience: 

“What all these videos have in common that have been removed since Sept 13 are that I am talking about Israel, I’m talking about AIPAC’s influence, I’m talking about Larry Ellison and the attempt to put TikTok under Zionist control — I’m criticizing Israel in some way. It’s the same thing I’ve heard from my audience, my friends who are creators. Ever since Sept 13, they’ve had the same exact experience. Videos that are more informational and critical of Israel get removed.” 

In a late-September meeting with pro-Israel social media “influencers,” Netanyahu hailed the transfer of TikTok’s US ownership. “We have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefield with which we’re engaged, and the most important ones are in social media. And the most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok. Number one.” Expressing hope that, by “talking” with Elon Musk, his X platform could be reshaped to be more Israel-protective too, Netanyahu added, “If we can get those two things, we can get a lot.”

Ellison’s TikTok takeover is troubling enough, but that wasn’t his only media move this year. He also financed his son David’s takeover of Paramount Skydance, the media company that controls many movie and television properties, including CBS. David Ellison quickly installed as head of CBS News Bari Weiss — a self-described “Zionist fanatic” who took a gap year before college to live on an Israeli kibbutz. 

Weiss’s history of wrangling over the bounds of acceptable speech vis-a-vis Israel goes back to her sophomore year at Columbia University, when she was part of a group of students who claimed they were subjected to intimidation by Middle East Studies professors over the students’ Zionist views. A university panel found only one of the supposed incidents represented unacceptable conduct. 

Both outside observers and network insiders are braced for Weiss to nudge the outlet’s reporting to Israel’s benefit, and there are early indications validating worries about her bias. Citing executive sources inside CBS, the Wall Street Journal reported that foreign correspondent Chris Livesay, who was set to be laid off as part of a downsizing move that preceded Weiss’s arrival, sent Weiss an email expressing his affinity for Israel and claiming he was “bullied” for his beliefs. Weiss intervened and saved Livesay from the layoff. Other correspondents told the Journal that Livesay’s claim about bullying was bogus. 

Compounding the expectations that CBS News is about to become a de facto Israel PR outlet, the network’s new ombudsman — the arbiter of editorial concerns — also has strong Zionist credentials. The New York Times describes Kenneth Weinstein as a “firm and vocal champion of Israel.” On X, Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal notedthat, “during a 2021…event with Mike Pence, Weinstein touted his Israel lobbyist creds, describing how he’d been groomed by the Tikvah Fund, the Likudnik training network which will award Bari Weiss its Herzl Award this November.” (The Likud Party is the Israeli party led by Netanyahu.)

Here's how Glenn Greenwald summed up the TikTok and CBS moves:

The transfer of TikTok into Israel-friendly hands isn’t the only example of intensified US government intervention in America’s public square on behalf of the tiny Middle Eastern country. Much of the Trump administration’s war against anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian speech has focused on college campuses. In the most alarming such move in 2025, the Trump administration has arrested, jailed and attempted to deport foreign students for merely voicing their support for Palestinians or opposition to the Israeli government. 

The most atrocious example — which Stark Realities examined in depth earlier this year — centers on a 30-year-old, Turkish Tufts University PhD candidate who was arrested on a Boston street and whisked away to a dismal Louisiana prison, just for co-authoring a calmly-written Tufts Daily op-ed urging the university to formally characterize Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide, and to sell the school’s Israel-associated investments. 

This cruelly despotic tactic is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. In a policy paper, the think tank urged pro-Israel groups and the US government to characterize pro-Palestinian activists as “effectively members of a terrorist support network,” and then use that characterization to target activists for deportations, expulsions from colleges, lawsuits, terminations by employers, and exclusion from “open society.”

Supporters of Israel have long attempted to stifle critics of the Israeli government by smearing them as antisemites. In 2016, that kind of mislabelling was codified in a definition of antisemitism that’s now being embraced by governments, universities and other institutions in the United States and around the world: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition of antisemitism.”

Some elements of the IHRA definition are reasonable, but others irrationally conflate criticism of the State of Israel with hatred of all Jews. For example, the IHRA definition says it’s antisemitic to “claim that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” or to merely “draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 

Images of the complete obliteration of much of Gaza have contributed to an historic, bipartisan dip in Americans' affinity for Israel (AP Photo/ Abed Hajjar) 

Other, vague elements of the definition are open to creative interpretations, facilitating bogus accusations of bigotry against Israel’s critics. For example, the IHRA says it’s antisemitic to “apply double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” The IHRA also says it’s antisemitic to make statements about the “power of Jews as [a] collective,” which can put someone who talks about the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby squarely in the crosshairs. 

Similarly, the IHRA says it’s antisemitic to “deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” a definition that could ensnare people who — right or wrong — advocate for the State of Israel to be replaced by a new governing arrangement for the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, those who want speech to be policed on Israel’s behalf frequently point to the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as inherently antisemitic. 

As I wrote in an earlier article (“No Country Has a Right To Exist”): 

Those who support the State of Israel are free to present a case that it’s a just arrangement for the 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Palestinians “between the river and the sea.” However, painting those who demand a new arrangement as inherently immoral, genocidal or antisemitic is ignorant at best and maliciously misleading at worst. 

Doing its part to vilify Israel’s critics and mislead the public and policymakers, the Anti-Defamation League has employed expansive definitions in its numerical tracking of antisemitic incidents — statistics that are unquestioningly quoted by journalists and cited by pro-Israel politicians. 

For example, in early 2024, the ADL claimed that, in the first three months after the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion of Israel and the IDF’s brutal assault on Gaza, antisemitic incidents skyrocketed 360%. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said Jews faced a threat “unprecedented in modern history.” However, the ADL admitted that it was counting as antisemitic incidents all protests that included “anti-Zionist chants and slogans.” 

A single sign with this slogan is all the ADL needs to count a protest as an "antisemitic incident" (Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty)

Of course, exaggerating the scale of antisemitism does more than facilitate efforts to suppress criticism of Israel: It also helps the ADL justify its existence and boost its fundraising. The ADL’s over-counting is nothing new. In 2017, the ADL claimed antisemitic incidents in the United States had soared by 86% in the first quarter of the year, and major media outlets ran with the story. However, much of the increase springs from the ADL’s decision to include a huge number of bomb threats phoned into US synagogues and schools by a Jew living in Israel.

The IHRA definition is at the forefront of a broad campaign to suppress candid discourse about Israel and Palestine on college campuses, with multiple state governments ordering public schools to use it to determine what can and can’t be said. 

Bard College’s Kenneth Stern, a lead drafter of a 2004 antisemitism definition that was subsequently adopted by the IHRA, has spoken out against the weaponization of the definition to stifle discourse at universities. “The history of the abuse of the IHRA definition demonstrates the desire is largely political—it is not so much a desire to identify antisemitism, but rather to label certain speech about Israel as antisemitic,” Stern wrote at the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

Even at schools that haven’t adopted the IHRA definition, activists and scholars who are critical of Israel and empathetic to the Palestinians are being subjected to countless false accusations of antisemitism, and universities are being sued by pro-Israel students who claim the schools tolerate antisemitism. 

A Stark Realities analysis of an 84-page complaint filed against the University of Pennsylvania found nearly every alleged “antisemitic incident” was merely an instance in which Penn students, professors and guest speakers engaged in political expression that proponents of the State of Israel strongly disagree with. Eighteen months later, a federal judge agreed. “At worst, Plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own,” Judge Mitchell Goldberg wroteas he dismissed the case. 

Courtroom victories, however, can only do so much to counter the chilling effect of campaigns that vilify students, professors and institutions as antisemitic. That’s especially true when university cash flows are threatened. 

Major pro-Israel donors have withdrawn or threatened to suspend donations to various schools, and those threats have been credited with forcing out university presidents like Penn’s Liz Magill. Donor pressure has also led schools to adopt the problematic IHRA antisemitism definition, shut down chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, and strip Israel-critical professors of chair positions. 

President Trump embraces US-Israeli billionaire Miriam Adelson, who’s donated upwards of $200 million to his campaigns (Haiyun Jiang / New York Times)

The greatest financial pressure being exerted on universities, however, is coming from the Trump administration, which has not only suspended billions of dollars in funding from various universities that are supposed hives of antisemitism, but has also filed lawsuits and hammered schools with fines. Many of them are surrendering, paying the government large sums and making policy and staffing changes. Last week, Northwestern agreed to pay $75 million to the federal government for its alleged failure to fight “antisemitism.” Earlier, Columbia agreed to a $200 million fine payable over three years, and Brown will surrender $50 million.

There are other avenues by which government force is being tapped to squelch criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinians. Dozens of states have passed legislation that bar individuals and businesses from contracting with the state if they boycott or divest from Israel. That led to a bizarre spectacle in which hurricane-battered Texans applying for emergency benefits were asked to verify that they do not and will not boycott Israel. Comparable federal measures have been introduced, but not yet enacted. 

Another proposed federal bill is the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition when evaluating accusations that colleges tolerate antisemitism — essentially codifying a Trump executive order. It sailed through the House in 2024 by a 320-91 vote, but stalled in the Senate this year amid bipartisan concerns about the definition. Seven amendments had been attached in committee, including one clarifying that criticism of the Israeli government isn’t antisemitism. 

Tellingly, champions of the bill said amendments like that were poison pills that would render it un-passable.

Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Join thousands who benefit from ad-free, monthly insights at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 22:10

Americans Worry Most Among Developed Nations About Food Security

Americans Worry Most Among Developed Nations About Food Security

Concerning nations surveyed in Statista’s Consumer Insights, Americans were among those most worried about food and water security.

Indeed, as Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, while for most European nations, worry about the topic peaked during the coronavirus pandemic and the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, concern has remained elevated in the United States into 2025.

Americans Worry About Food Security | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Food and water supplies were not considered a particular issue among developed countries for a long time. But the data illustrates how that is starting to change.

As many as 1 in 5 respondents in France said that food and water security was one of the biggest challenges their country faced in 2025.

The proportion was similarly high in the United Kingdom and Italy (23 percent), while it had fallen a little lower again in Spain (16 percent) and Germany (13 percent).

As wars (trade and kinetic) continue to disrupt international trade and affairs in recent years, the constant chatter about climate change shifting droughts and destructive fires more top of people's minds, and inflation (groceries becoming more expensive), more people are seeing how these and other issues can affect the security of their food and water supply even in richer countries.

In the United States, shifts in government benefit programs by the Trump administration might also add to peoples' feeling around food security.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 21:35

Out Of Sight: Following The Money Trail Of Missing Child Border Crossers

Out Of Sight: Following The Money Trail Of Missing Child Border Crossers

Authored by James Varney via RealClearInvestigations,

On the campaign trail, Vice President JD Vance repeatedly chastised the Biden administration for allegedly losing track of some 320,000 minors who had crossed the border unaccompanied. “Our government, under the policies of Kamala Harris, has lost thousands of innocent children to sex trafficking, to drug trafficking, to human trafficking,” Vance said.

One year later, the fate of most of those children remains unknown. While the Trump administration has all but stopped the crush of migrants that occurred during Biden’s term, neither the government nor the nonprofits that were largely responsible for resettling this vulnerable population of unaccompanied minors have been able to tell RealClearInvestigations where they are living.

Experts say it’s likely that the overwhelming majority of unaccompanied minors remain off the grid because their parents, guardians, and caregivers do not want to draw the attention of immigration authorities. But they also acknowledge the likelihood that some of the migrant minors have been picked up by human traffickers and forced into exploitative labor and sexual roles – a criminal trend that’s on the rise in the U.S. 

This story has been forgotten as politicians and the media have turned their attention away from immigration after Trump virtually closed the southern border. But the recent shooting of two members of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan refugee who had collaborated with the U.S. special forces has brought the issue of a broken immigration system back to the forefront. 

Nearly half a million unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 were apprehended at the border between 2021 and 2024, overwhelming the immigration system. Taxpayers spent more than $23 billion on a network of government agencies, construction companies, and nonprofits charged with finding them a safe place to live while sponsors were sought. 

Now the entities that took the money are unwilling to address the whereabouts of the minors. Nor are they forthcoming about how they spent – or misspent – the funding that was supposed to avoid the very problem the nation faces of missing migrant children.

“They don’t want to talk about it,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies. “Those groups are the very ones that were pressing to release the unaccompanied kids faster.” 

The Biden Migrant Surge

The problem of unaccompanied minors began when Joe Biden took office and embraced more lax policies at the border.  During Trump’s first term, an average of 43,707 minors annually crossed the border alone; the figure dropped to 15,381 when the pandemic emerged in 2020. In 2021, however, that figure skyrocketed to 122,731, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2022, the number hit an all-time high of 128,904 before tapering off to 98,356 in 2024. These numbers represent the unaccompanied minors that were encountered by U.S. officials and do not include “gotaways,” so the actual total is significantly higher.

All told, the average annual number of unaccompanied children coming to the U.S. under Biden was nearly double the highest single prior year of 2019, ICE figures show. More than half of those who came each year since 2019 were 16 years old or younger, with nearly a quarter aged 12 or younger. 

This year, monthly data indicates the problem of newly arriving unaccompanied minors has virtually disappeared. In October, the average number of “children in care” was 2,244.

“Sealing the border had made a huge difference,” said Laura Lederer, a former senior advisor on trafficking in persons for the State Department. “Stopping illegal immigration is essentially a human trafficking prevention program.”

Rise in Human Trafficking

For undocumented minors already in the U.S., they are at risk of falling victim to predators who can take advantage of their separation from family and caregivers. Recent press accounts have described horror stories, with minors allegedly exploited from North Carolina to Los Angeles. Precise figures on victims of sexual trafficking or forced labor are impossible to find because the illegal operations are underground.

“For everyone we know about, there could be two, three, or even four times more,” said Lederer, a leading American researcher on human trafficking. 

The process of illegal immigration, which has been a cash cow for smuggling organizations, also claims victims. Minors may fall prey to groomers or recruiters and be forced to function as lookouts, guides, or spies, according to the Department of Defense’s Combating Trafficking in Persons unit.

Even federal agencies involved in finding minors are tight-lipped about their operations. In recent weeks, a Memphis Safe Task Force, led by the U.S. Marshals Service and including teams from ICE and Customs and Border Protection, has rescued 116 juveniles. How many of those were unaccompanied minor border crossers is unclear. The U.S. Marshals Service did not respond to questions.

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has been following the issue for years. Federal whistleblowers at his hearings have described a haphazard system for caring for unaccompanied minors, in which information is not shared among federal agencies, contractors, and law enforcement. Last year, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) whistleblowers said that contractors would release minors to sketchy, unverified partners, suspicious strip-mall businesses, and, in one Michigan case, in an open field.

Prompted by those reports, Grassley sent referrals to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding potentially criminal behavior by more than “100 suspicious sponsors” last year. But the Biden-Harris administration failed to fully respond to two-thirds of the subpoenas issued by law enforcement. In the last four years, there were more than 65,000 reports of possible illegal acts ignored or dismissed, of which roughly 7,300, or 13%, involved human trafficking, according to an Inspector General’s report.

The Trump administration claims it has processed some 28% of the backlog, leading to 36 investigations accepted for prosecution, seven indictments, 25 arrest warrants, 11 arrests, and three convictions.

Blaming the Problem on Paperwork

When Vance spoke about the exploitation of unaccompanied minors in the October 2024 vice-presidential debate, he took his 300,000 figure from a recent report from the DHS’s Inspector General. Within hours, left-wing groups and press outlets sprang to the Biden administration’s defense, downplaying the severity of the situation and insisting the huge number “lacked context.”

Some pro-immigration groups said it was merely “a missing paperwork problem,” according to the Acacia Center for Justice’s Unaccompanied Children Program. It was a “premature” conclusion that they were lost, said the American Immigration Council, while the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights said they were not “effectively lost.”

RCI reached out to all three of those groups repeatedly, asking how they assessed the current situation with unaccompanied minors and whether it has improved under Trump. Only the Acacia Center responded, and then only to repeat its point about paperwork.

“This figure stems from gaps in ICE paperwork, not actual disappearances,” the center’s Deputy Chief of Programs Michael Corradini said. “Many children were never issued Notices to Appear in immigration court, so their absence from court records does not mean they are missing.”

But Vance’s total was not inaccurate, according to the inspector general’s report. It found that, in addition to the 32,000 cases in which no address was given for where the minor went, there were another 43,000 cases where the minor failed to respond to a summons to immigration court, and 233,000 cases where neither addresses nor phone numbers received a response. In other words, more than 300,000.

The $23 Billion Network that Flopped

Since the DHS was created, most of the unaccompanied minors have been handled by the ORR. That agency, in turn, will release the minor to a sponsor, and it is at this point that the government often loses touch with the immigrant, several experts told RCI.

Neither ORR nor those agencies above it – the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Health & Human Services – responded to multiple requests for comment.

Through ORR, taxpayers spent $23.1 billion on unaccompanied minor-related grants and contracts during Biden’s term, according to usaspending.gov. The office relies on a sprawling network to house the migrant minors and put them together with sponsors. Contracts and grants related to unaccompanied minors comprise the biggest chunk of the office’s spending each year, accounting for more than 91% in FY2021. 

Construction companies like Rapid Deployment Inc., of Mobile, Ala., were paid at least $3.5 billion, and nearly $200 million went to the defense contractor General Dynamics of Connecticut. Much of the funding went to nonprofits, religious charities, and non-governmental organizations that operate foster homes and release the minors to sponsors. Consulting companies, lawyers, and universities also benefited.

Despite the big outlays of money, it seems no group of officials kept tabs on the minors. 

Congress has identified some misspending in the program. North Carolina Republican Rep. Dan Bishop said last November that more than $100 million was obligated, and nearly $40 million spent, for an unaccompanied minor home in Greensboro, N.C., that never housed anyone.

At least one major vendor, Southwest Key Programs Inc. in Texas, has been sued for mistreatment of minors. As the largest housing provider for unaccompanied children, the group received at least $2 billion over just three years, from FY2021 to FY2023, according to government records. Last summer, the Justice Department sued Southwest Key, alleging that for years “multiple Southwest Key employees subjected unaccompanied children in their care to repeated and unwelcome sexual abuse, harassment, and misconduct and a hostile housing environment, including severe sexual abuse and rape.”

Federal tax returns for some of these nonprofits show that the ORR contracts and grants proved very lucrative. Southwest Key, for example, went from reporting revenues of $417.8 million in 2020 to more than $900 million in 2023 and 2024. In those last two years, the Austin-based nonprofit’s CEO, Anselmo Villarreal, was paid more than $1.1 million, while dozens of top executives received annual pay packages ranging from $250,000 to $700,000. In those same two years, Southwest Key spent 76% of its nearly $1 billion in revenue on “salaries, other compensation and benefits,” according to tax returns collected by ProPublica.

Endeavors, a San Antonio-based nonprofit, was paid more than $2 billion, including a $1.3 billion contract in FY2022, and at least $720 million in the other three years of Biden’s term. According to an audit, the nonprofit had minuscule revenues from 2011 to 2020. In 2020, when the nonprofit reported $52.5 million in revenue, it had 10 executives making six figures, topped by CEO Jon Allman at $317,301. In 2023, those in the Endeavors’ C-suite fared even better, with CEO Charles H. Fulghum pulling down $638,472 and three other executives making between $390,000 and $493,000, tax records show.

Another San Antonio nonprofit, Compass Connections, grew exponentially through unaccompanied minor-related government deals worth nearly $700 million. Compass reported less than $300,000 in revenue for the years 2019 to 2021. Then Compass caught fire, reporting $192 million in revenue in 2023 and $434 million the following year. In 2023, its Chairman Kevin Dinnin received more than $1.3 million in compensation from Compass and related organizations, tax records show.

Southwest Key, Endeavors, and Compass didn’t respond to requests for comment on the services they provided. Other groups that received much smaller sums, such as the Vera Institute for Justice and the Los Angeles County Fair Association, also declined to reveal anything about how they helped the undocumented minors. 

This prodigious spending appears to have come to a halt in FY2025, which ended last month. In that year, the ORR spent $51.9 million.

Sen. Grassley has also been stonewalled by these same groups when he sought information on their services, according to his office. Concerned about possible waste and fraud, Grassley wrote to two dozen contractors twice in 2024, and while some did not respond at all, those that did “provided incomplete and obstructive responses.”

“It really is horrific, what’s been going on,” said Lederer, the former government advisor. “Unfortunately, we usually only learn about it when a child is rescued or is hurt badly. The people that facilitated all this have circled the wagons about what went very, very wrong.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 21:00

Embarrassing: Canada Very Belatedly Removes Syria's Ruling HTS From Terror List

Embarrassing: Canada Very Belatedly Removes Syria's Ruling HTS From Terror List

The fact that Syria's head of state got his start working for ISIS, and was a founding member of Syrian al-Qaeda, continues to produce embarrassing headlines. 

One full year after former president Bashar al-Assad was overthrown and fled to Moscow, Canada has very belatedly removed President Ahmed al-Sharaa's militia group Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, according to a Friday statement from the country’s Foreign Ministry. As part of the new action, Syria has also been removed from its list of state sponsors of terrorism (a list the country had been on over many years of the Assad government).

The precursor to Jolani's Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham was the Syrian AQ group Al-Nusrah Front, via CBC

Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, founded and for years headed up the terror group HTS in Idlib province. HTS is the group that took control of Damascus after the collapse of the Syrian army in December 2024.

"Following extensive review, the Government of Canada has removed Syria from Canada's List of Foreign State Supporters of Terrorism under the State Immunity Act, as well as removed Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from the List of Terrorist Entities under the Canadian Criminal Code," the ministry said.

The US was the first to act, having lifted a $10 million bounty on Sharaa within the months after he seized power, followed by a full US delisting.

The Canadian foreign ministry further said that the decision was "not taken lightly." It stated, "These measures are in line with recent decisions taken by our allies, including the United Kingdom and the United States, and follow the efforts by the Syrian transitional government to advance Syria's stability, build an inclusive and secure future for its citizens, and work alongside global partners to reinforce regional stability and counter terrorism."

So Canada seems to be admitting that HTS is indeed linked to al-Qaeda, and was properly designated in years past as a terror group, but that now it is merely going along with its allies the UK and US which removed the legal designation earlier.

The ministry still sought to stress that Canada "remains committed … to counter global security threats, such as those posed by Al-Qaeda" and ISIS (Daesh).

President Sharaa and his HTS fighters - many which now fill up top government positions - have lately been trying to make a show of 'counter ISIS missions'. However, it is Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities which have suffered repeat attacks by Sharaa's Islamist forces in recent months. 

Western countries have moved to normalize HTS, but nothing fundamentally has changed in their hardline Islamist ideology...

Various reports have also noted that in some cases HTS members sport ISIS patches, and do little to try and hide it. Still, mainstream outlets like CNN haven't covered this much, and have by and large 'moved on' from coverage of Syria, now with Assad out of the way - as the Western powers had long sought in fueling the proxy war for regime change.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 20:25

Zelensky 'Systematically Sabotaged' Ukraine Anti-Corruption Efforts, NYT Concludes 

Zelensky 'Systematically Sabotaged' Ukraine Anti-Corruption Efforts, NYT Concludes 

Via The Cradle

Over the past four years, the Ukrainian government "systematically sabotaged" oversight of the country's state-owned companies and weapons procurement processes, "allowing graft to flourish," a freshly published New York Times investigation has revealed.

The investigation details how the government of Volodymyr Zelensky sidelined outside experts from the US and EU serving on advisory boards responsible for monitoring spending, appointing executives, and preventing corruption.

EPA/Shutterstock

"President Volodymyr Zelensky's administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty, or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kiev even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around," the NYT report says.

The investigation was published amid a corruption scandal centering on close associates of the Ukrainian president. Anti-corruption authorities have accused members of Zelensky's inner circle of embezzling $100 million from the state-owned nuclear power company, Energoatom.

"Mr. Zelensky's administration has blamed Energoatom's supervisory board for failing to stop the corruption. But it was Mr. Zelensky's government itself that neutered Energoatom's supervisory board," the NYT writes.

The investigation also found that Zelensky sidelined the supervisory boards of the state-owned electricity company Ukrenergo and Ukraine's Defense Procurement Agency.

European leaders have justified funneling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Ukraine despite knowledge of the systematic corruption and theft plaguing the country. "We do care about good governance, but we have to accept that risk," said Christian Syse, the special envoy to Ukraine from Norway.

"Because it's war. Because it's in our own interest to help Ukraine financially. Because Ukraine is defending Europe from Russian attacks," he added.

Zelensky's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, resigned late last month amid the Energoatom corruption scandal and just hours after police raided his home. Ukrainska Pravda reported that he had left for Israel, of which he is a citizen, just hours before the raid.

Yermak is widely considered the second-most-powerful official in the country, with influence over domestic politics, military issues, and foreign policy, Axios noted.

Businessman Timur Mindich, who co-founded the entertainment company Kvartal 95 with Zelensky, allegedly led the embezzlement scheme. Mindich also escaped to Israel, where he enjoys citizenship, hours before a separate raid on his luxury apartment by police from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

"Timur had an apartment with golden toilets that was in the same building as Zelensky's," a former Ukrainian government official told Fox News.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 19:50

Where Are America's Dry Counties?

Where Are America's Dry Counties?

While the U.S. ended federal Prohibition in 1933, local restrictions on alcohol still persist across the country to this day.

As Visual Capitalist shows in the map below, based on work by Wikipedia user Mr. Matté, many counties remain “dry,” banning the sale of alcohol entirely, or “moist,” allowing only limited sales.

Where Alcohol is Still Restricted

The data, crowdsourced from local government sites and media reports, reveals that alcohol restrictions are concentrated in the South, particularly in states like Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

Arkansas stands out the most in the map above, with a patchwork of red and orange counties indicating either total bans or partial restrictions on alcohol sales. In fact, the state has long struggled with outdated liquor laws, where even grocery stores in “moist” counties may be prohibited from selling wine or spirits.

Alcohol Status: It’s Complicated

Here’s what the terminology means:

  • Dry county: No alcohol sales allowed by law

  • Moist county: Alcohol sales are partially restricted (e.g. allowed in restaurants but not in stores)

  • Wet county: Alcohol can be sold without county-level restriction

Even within “wet” counties, individual towns may choose to remain dry, and in “dry” counties, specific towns or establishments can apply for exemptions, creating a legal maze for consumers and businesses alike.

Declining Dryness Over Time

According to the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, the number of dry counties has dropped significantly since the mid-20th century. In Texas, for example, only three dry counties remain.

Nonetheless, the persistence of these regulations reflects longstanding cultural attitudes and the influence of local referenda. While national consumption of spirits is rising, especially in certain states, the map shows that alcohol availability is still very much a local matter.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Americans are spending less on spirits…besides tequila on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 19:15

21 States Are At Risk Of Losing SNAP Funding Amid Fraud Investigation

21 States Are At Risk Of Losing SNAP Funding Amid Fraud Investigation

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The federal government said it would withhold Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) funds for states that do not report user data. 

The news came from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins earlier this week, following months of requests and investigations into instances of fraud within the program. 

Here’s what to know about the change to the nutrition program.

The Announcement 

Rollins made the announcement on Dec. 2 during a White House cabinet meeting, saying that states that have not complied with the federal request have only a few days to fix the issue.

The USDA secretary said the administration “has begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states” next week ”until they comply.“

According to Rollins, 29 Republican-leaning states have already provided SNAP data to her department. However, 21 ”blue states continue to say no” to the federal request. 

The federal response to the lack of cooperation comes months after an early May request by the administering department, calling on states to hand over data detailing how and to whom the taxpayer funds are distributed.

The USDA noted that the intent behind the request was to ensure that no fraud or abuse existed in the program, frequently referenced as food stamps. 

“President Trump is rightfully requiring the federal government to have access to all programs it funds,” said Rollins, “and SNAP is no exception. For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data. The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today’s request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible.”

Of the 28 states that have sent the data, all except for North Carolina have Republican governors.

Billions at Stake 

SNAP costs federal taxpayers around $100 billion per year, $94 billion of which goes to actual food benefits, and the rest is spent on administrative costs.

Administrative costs are currently shared by federal and state governments, with states covering roughly half of SNAP’s administrative expenses. That share is set to shrink soon, as the federal government plans to reduce the state contribution to 25 percent.

How much each state receives varies, as does the portion of the fund that goes to administrative costs. The state of California alone received more than $1.2 billion for SNAP administration fees, which was around 10 percent of it’s total SNAP funding allocation. 

Florida received $84 million for administration alone, which was just over 1 percent of it’s total SNAP funding. However, Wyoming received less than $9 million for administration fees, which was 12 percent of its SNAP dollars received. 

This means that in addition to the loss of nutrition support funding, billions that go to state administration fees will be lost for those states that refuse transparency requests from the Trump administration. 

The administration will likely face legal hiccups, as the attorneys general from 21 states have already been the subject of a lawsuit over concerns that the states allegedly illegally blocked the authorized food aid to certain legal immigrants.

Current Fraud 

Since the beginning of the USDA information gathering in May, there have been more than 120 individuals arrested for food stamp fraud, according to the agency’s report last month.

The USDA worked with the Office of the Inspector General, which has resulted in 63 convictions and fines and fees exceeding $16.5 million.

This is due to data from 29 states alone, which found that more than 180,000 deceased individuals were receiving food stamps, and another 500,000 people were getting twice as much as they should have been.

“We believe there’s even more fraud and abuse,” Rollins said following news of the fraud discovery.

She later added that “we have to make sure for those who really need this benefit that we are able to make sure that it’s going to the right people,” and promised “structural changes” to the program. 

The audit has led to the removal of 700,000 individuals from the SNAP program already.

According to research from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, overpayment rates climbed from 2 percent in 2012 to more than 10 percent in 2023.

“The levels of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs have never been higher,” the report reads. “Although these types of avoidable inefficiencies have always been too high, they have recently surged with the unusual degree of federal spending brought on by the global pandemic.”

That upward trend appears to have continued, as a June 2024 report from the USDA found that almost 12 percent, or around $10.5 billion, of SNAP payments were found to be improper.

During a recent interview with Fox News, Rollins mentioned one individual who was found to be receiving benefits in six different states. 

“It is time to drastically reform this program, so that we can make sure those who are truly needy, truly vulnerable, are getting what they need, and the rest of the corruption goes away, and we can serve the American taxpayer,” she said.

What SNAP Does

On average,  SNAP recipients receive around $177 a month in benefits that are delivered on an electronic card. About 42 million Americans spend that money on food items in participating stores.

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed this summer,  imposed new requirements for SNAP eligibility, including removing the eligibility for certain groups of immigrants.

In November, Rollins announced that app recipients of the program would need to meet reapplication requirements in efforts to “clean up” the food assistance program.

SNAP’s purpose is to raise the nutritional intake of low-income individuals by increasing their ability to purchase healthy food. Participants in the SNAP program have been found to have improved health outcomes, including reduced food insecurity and lower risk of heart disease and obesity.

“We really want to make sure those who are receiving this supplemental nutrition benefit—it was never meant for the long term—are really those who need it,” Rollins said in a recent interview.

“Whatever that reapplication looks like again, we’re working on that right now, but it won’t be too onerous. And for the families that really need it, we'll make sure that they’re going to get it.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 17:30

Newsom Pleads With Dems To Be More "Culturally Normal"

Newsom Pleads With Dems To Be More "Culturally Normal"

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

California Governor Gavin Newsom is dishing out advice to his fellow Democrats: pretend to be normal while he plots a White House run.

Newsom, who’s been eyeing a 2028 presidential bid after loser Kamala Harris’ electoral wipeout, took to the stage at The New York Times DealBook Summit in New York City, urging his party to ditch the judgmental elitism that’s alienated everyday Americans.

“I think there’s a broader narrative that [Democrats] ought to address, that is, we have to be more culturally normal,” Newsom said, adding “We have to be a little less judgmental.”

He went on to stress the need for Democrats to grasp “the importance and power of the border, substantively and politically,” acknowledging how open borders and lax enforcement have fueled voter backlash.

In the same breath, Newsom unleashed on Fox News, comparing it to Soviet-era propaganda, saying “You got Pravda, the primetime lineup at Fox, just going on and on [in defense of Trump].”

He then slammed Trump as a “man-child,” declaring that the the President “called someone the ‘R word’ or piggy, and somehow it’s just ‘Trump being Trump.’ Nothing normal about this… It’s unbecoming to the president of the United States.”

Newsom then explained his own Trump-mimicking social media account antics were “approved” by him to “wake everybody up” to the “normalization of deviancy.” He accused Fox of criticizing his posts but never uttering a “damn word” about Trump’s rants.

The comments come as Newsom warns that Trump is “trying to wreck this country,” a claim that rings hollow given California’s ongoing crises under his watch, from rampant homelessness and crime to devastating wildfires that have scorched communities like the Pacific Palisades.

A Berkeley poll earlier this year found 54% of registered voters believe Newsom prioritizes his presidential ambitions over fixing the state’s problems, with only 26% saying he’s focused on governance.

X users mocked Newsom’s call for Democrats to feign “normalcy,” highlighting the irony of a governor whose policies have driven businesses and residents out of California in droves.

This isn’t the first time Newsom’s slimy posturing has drawn fire. Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna recently blasted the governor for his online antics during an appearance on the PBD Podcast.

Host Patrick Bet-David noted, “You’re either a great troll or you’re trying to be. Like Newsom is dying to be Trump, but he’s not. Newsom is trying to be Trump. Newsom’s not Trump, right? Nowhere near him. But everything he does, he’s trying to be — the Trump of the left.”

Luna recounted a joke she made on a Comedy Central show: “I was on a show recently. I think it was on Comedy Central, it was like an evening talk show. And they’re talking about the ‘No Kings’ protests and I made a joke and I was like, ‘Well if you’re talking about Gavin Newsom it would be the ‘No Queens’ protest.’”

When asked if it was homophobic, she replied, “No he [Newsom] just has feminine tendencies, and it’s totally true. I don’t know, like — he bitches on the internet all the time. It’s like what are you doing, Gavin? You know, you have fires in the Palisades — what’s going on?”

Bet-David agreed, calling Newsom’s vibe “metro.”

Adding fuel to the fire, actress Halle Berry stunned the DealBook crowd earlier that day by slamming Newsom for vetoing a menopause care bill twice, questioning his fitness for higher office.

“Back in my great state of California, my very own governor, Gavin Newsom, has vetoed our menopause bill, not one, but 2 years in a row! But that’s OK, because he’s not GOING to be governor forever!” Berry urged.

She continued, “With the way he’s overlooked women, half the population, by devaluing us in midlife, he probably should not be our next president either! Just saying!”

Berry rallied the audience, stressing “I need every woman in this country to fight with me. But the truth is, the fight isn’t just for us women. We need men too. We need all of the leaders, every single one of you in this room. This fight needs you.”

The Menopause Care Equity Act aimed to boost research and education on women’s health, but Newsom vetoed it citing potential cost hikes for working women. Berry’s raw callout drew gasps, underscoring how even Hollywood elites are turning on him amid whispers of his 2028 aspirations.

Newsom’s “normalcy” sermon exposes the Democrats’ desperation after years of pushing radical agendas on gender ideology, unchecked immigration, and climate hysteria that have alienated the heartland. 

If this is their comeback strategy—masking extremism while California burns—good luck selling that to voters who’ve had enough of the chaos. Trump’s policies are winning because they’re grounded in reality, not performative tweaks.

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 Sat, 12/06/2025 - 16:20

Ken Griffin Dumps Last Penthouse In Crime-Ridden Chicago

Ken Griffin Dumps Last Penthouse In Crime-Ridden Chicago

Hedge fund manager Ken Griffin is on the verge of dumping his final piece of real estate in crime-ridden, far-left–controlled Chicago, and he hasn't looked back since moving Citadel's global headquarters to Miami.

Bloomberg reports that Griffin's penthouse at 800 N. Michigan Avenue, located in Park Tower, one of the premier luxury residential buildings along Chicago's Magnificent Mile, is under contract for $12.5 million. The price reflects a $3.25 million cut from July, yet remains well above the $6.9 million he paid during the Dot-Com bubble.

The sale of the penthouse marks the end of Griffin's holdings in a city plagued by crime, failed progressive policies, high taxes, and a political environment unfriendly to thriving businesses.

BBG added more color:

At another building, Griffin sold two condos to his longtime political rival, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who bought them for a combined $19 million in late 2024. Griffin has a net worth of more than $48 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Citadel maintains a downsized office in Chicago after moving from its namesake tower at 131 S. Dearborn that once served as the firm's headquarters.

"We've gone from probably 1,300 people in Chicago to a few hundred. From being the primary tenant of one of the largest skyscrapers to I think we'll be down to 2 floors in a year," Griffin recently said.

In 2021, Griffin compared Chicago to Afghanistan "on a good day."

Meanwhile, Citadel is thriving in South Florida and is set to build a $2.5 billion tower for its Miami headquarters.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 15:45

Texas Law Allowing Ivermectin To Be Sold Over The Counter Goes Into Effect

Texas Law Allowing Ivermectin To Be Sold Over The Counter Goes Into Effect

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

A Texas law allowing ivermectin to be sold over the counter went into effect Dec. 4, but rollout appears slow as pharmacies wrestle with how to proceed.

House Bill 25, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in August, allows pharmacies to sell the antiviral drug without a prescription.

Ivermectin gained popularity for off-label use during the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced support and criticism of the measure. The drug was discovered in the 1970s and developed to treat parasites in humans and animals, and has been studied for its cancer-fighting properties.

Medical freedom advocates supported the bill, but others, such as the Texas Medical Association, worried about health risks to patients.

“Removing clinical involvement is a risk to patient safety,” the group said on its website.

The law indicates a pharmacy may dispense the drug “in accordance with any written standardized procedures or protocols issued by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, including, if required, providing the person with instructions on the proper use of ivermectin.”

Tyler RX Pharmacy indicated it would eventually dispense ivermectin without a prescription, but said the protocols for doing so haven’t been finalized yet.

“The law states to follow the state Board of Pharmacy guidelines, but there are no guidelines in place yet,” the store’s pharmacist, Katelin Nuon, told The Epoch Times.

At Cody Pharmacy in Sulfur Springs, Texas, the store manager said they didn’t have ivermectin available yet because the law just went into effect, but advised checking back next week.

However, Republican state Sen. Bob Hall, who sponsored a companion bill in the Texas Senate, told The Epoch Times that pharmacies could sell ivermectin even if the pharmacy guidelines were not in place.

“There is nothing in the bill that requires the pharmacy board to do anything,” he said. “We’re checking with the pharmacy board to see if there is something buried in their rules that preempts this changeover.”

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Hall said he has received calls from constituents complaining that their local pharmacies claim they can’t sell ivermectin.

Despite this, Hall believes that independent pharmacies will take the lead in offering the drug to the public. He noted that some outlets have told him they intend to mail it to consumers if needed.

Hall said he has not received information that large retail pharmacies intend to sell the drug over the counter.

Texas is one of five states to legalize the sale of the drug without a prescription. The others are Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 15:10

The GRANITE Act: How Congress Can Strike Back Against Foreign Censors

The GRANITE Act: How Congress Can Strike Back Against Foreign Censors

Authored by Preston Byrne,

Please find below the draft text of the GRANITE Act, a bill I have offered to New Hampshire legislators for consideration for enactment in that state. It could serve as a template for a U.S. fightback against global censorship, if adapted for federal use.

It doesn’t really require a ton of explanation.

The gist is simple: the only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court, as we saw with Ofcom’s recent fine letter to 4chan and the strategy employed by Trump Media and Technology Group’s attorneys in their case against Alexandre de Moraes in the Middle District of Florida, is sovereign immunity.

Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that U.S. law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.

We should take that immunity away from them. Such a move would have teeth because these foreign countries’ economies would break down if they didn’t have access to the U.S. banking system. The UK, for example, has £47 billion custodied in North American banks in order to support its currency.

The GRANITE Act makes foreign censorship inbound to the U.S. a very simple cost/benefit exercise for these countries: you can try to censor an American citizen or corporation, but if you do, they can sue you, and you, Mr. Foreign Censor, are not judgment proof because your country needs access to the U.S. financial system to survive.

This also means that trial lawyers will be responsible for protecting Americans’ rights rather than the State Department/the Executive Branch. This will mean that instead of having to deal with nuisance demands from foreign bureaucrats, President Trump can move on to other, more important matters he has proven so very adept at, like bringing the peoples and nations of the world together in peace and harmony, and blame Congress and aggressive American trial lawyers if any foreigner complains about American rules.

I add: the statutory damages are set at a minimum of $10 million because the UK is threatening Americans with fines of $25 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. That is the scale of the abuse that American citizens currently have to tolerate from these foreign countries.

I have a feeling, if we create consequences for foreign censorship, inbound foreign censorship will stop.

So, I ask Congress: adapt this for federal use. Enact it. If you do this, you will end the foreign censorship problem in a day.

Model Bill – the GRANITE Act

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act (the “GRANITE Act” or the “Act”).

Section 2. Legislative Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the constitutional rights of New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial application of foreign Internet censorship laws that would restrict speech or compel disclosure of information in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.

Section 3. Jurisdiction and Venue

  1. The courts of this state shall have subject-matter jurisdiction over any action brought by a resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire corporation, or a person within the State of New Hampshire alleging that a foreign government, or any officer, employee, or instrumentality thereof, has:
    • (a) issued or attempted to enforce any law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, in each case occurring wholly within the United States; or
    • (b) sought to compel a New Hampshire resident or entity to comply with such foreign law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.
  2. Personal jurisdiction shall be deemed established whenever the foreign actor directs or transmits any demand, notice, threat, or other communication into the state or to a resident of this state, whether by electronic means or otherwise.

Section 4. Cause of Action and Remedies

  1. Any resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire who has been, or any person who is physically present in New Hampshire at the time they were, or any New Hampshire corporation who has been victimized by, conduct described in Section 3 may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against any person or entity responsible for that conduct or any foreign state authorizing that conduct. Such persons or entities responsible for the conduct described in Section 3 shall be jointly and severally liable for that conduct.
  2. Upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the foreign government or its instrumentality acted to chill, restrict, or penalize constitutionally protected expression or association, or otherwise infringe on any right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, the plaintiff shall be entitled to:
    • (a) the greater of:
      1. Treble actual damages; or
      2. statutory damages of not less than $10,000,000 (ten million U.S. dollars) or the equivalent dollar amount of the threatened fine on the date on which the fine was threatened, whichever is greater;

(b) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

(c) Injunctive and declaratory relief as necessary to prevent further violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 5. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

  1. A foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, or any person employed by such foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, that engages in conduct described in Section 3 shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
  2. The doctrine of sovereign immunity shall be deemed waived for any act undertaken to enforce or threaten enforcement of a foreign law that is contrary to the public policy or constitutional guarantees of the United States or the State of New Hampshire.

Section 6. Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments

No court of this state shall recognize, enforce, or give any effect to a foreign judgment, order, or administrative action that infringes rights protected by the United States or New Hampshire Constitutions.

Section 7. Construction

This Act shall be liberally construed to provide maximum protection for New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign censorship laws. Nothing in this Act shall limit any other cause of action or remedy available under federal or state law.

*  *  *

Update 1: Since the initial draft of this blog post, it has been converted into an actual bill and been filed in the State of Wyoming. New Hampshire to follow soon.

Update 2: The United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, has told GB News that UK censorship of Americans has crossed a “red line” and that a version of the GRANITE Act, presumably derived from the Wyoming bill, is on the verge of introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives. I can also personally confirm a derivative of the Wyoming GRANITE Act continues to move forward in New Hampshire and filing is expected in weeks.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 14:00

Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Say College Degree Isn't Worth The Cost: Poll

Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Say College Degree Isn't Worth The Cost: Poll

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Nearly two-thirds of Americans don’t believe that a college degree is worth its price tag, according to a recent NBC News survey.  

Sixty-three percent of registered voters said a four-year degree is “not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off,” according to the poll. 

Meanwhile, only 33 percent said a degree is “worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime.” 

The survey included 1,000 registered voters, with 655 interviewed by cellphone and 300 reached through an online questionnaire sent via text message.

Responses varied significantly depending on the respondents’ political party affiliation.

Only 22 percent of Republicans said college is worth the cost while 47 percent of Democrats said a degree is worth pursuing. 

Asked about the primary factor eroding their confidence in the value of a college education, respondents overwhelmingly cited escalating tuition costs.

Further, respondents were much more evenly split on the question eight years ago. In 2017, 49 percent felt a college degree was worth the price, while 47 percent disagreed, NBC News reported. 

Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.

“It’s just remarkable to see attitudes on any issue shift this dramatically, and particularly on a central tenet of the American dream, which is a college degree. Americans used to view a college degree as aspirational — it provided an opportunity for a better life. And now that promise is really in doubt,” Horwitt said. 

He also said he was surprised by how widespread the shift has been. Attitudes have changed across all groups, not just among those without college degrees.

“This is a political problem. It’s also a real problem for higher education. Colleges and universities have lost that connection they’ve had with a large swath of the American people based on affordability,” Horwitt said. “They’re now seen as out of touch and not accessible to many Americans.”

College tuition has surged, roughly doubling in the past 20 years, and doubling again from two decades before, The New York Post reported. 

At some universities, including the University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and Columbia, annual costs to attend the school are nearing $100,000, The College Fix previously reported. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:50

Journal Retracts 'Ghost Written' Monsanto Study Claiming Glyphosate Is Safe

Journal Retracts 'Ghost Written' Monsanto Study Claiming Glyphosate Is Safe

Over the past year massive scandals involving academic research have come under the microscope, after dedicated researchers uncovered rigged studies that made it through peer-review with flying colors, and are now being retracted. 

On Friday, the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal announced that it has retracted a review, safety evaluation, and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, after it emerged that Monsanto was heavily involved in its production. 

"This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings," the journal said in a statement. 

"Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content," and contributions by Monsanto employees were not disclosed, including in the acknowledgements section of the review. 

The journal also said that the authors may have been paid by Monsanto - which was also not disclosed. 

The Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology had been frequently cited in defending glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup, including citations on Wikipedia, researchers said in a paper published in September. Since 2017, multiple juries have concluded that Roundup exposure has resulted in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people. Bayer took over legal cases involving the matter after it purchased Monsanto in 2018, including a case that may be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. -Epoch Times

Meanwhile the study's lead author, Gary Williams - a former pathologist at New York Medical College, is MIA, according to an Epoch Times inquiry. 

An internal email from February 2015 presented as evidence in a 2017 court case revealed that Monsanto employees worked with the authors of the review, with one employee writing that it would be expensive to involve experts from all major areas in a review - and would be cheaper to simply involve certain experts and "we ghost-write" other sections. 

"We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000," the employee wrote. 

So of course, the journal retracts the dodgy study almost 10 years later - even as other journals - including Critical Reviews in Toxicology, attached expressions of concern co-authored by Williams because they said they authors didn't disclose the involvement of Monsanto employees and contractors in authoring their research. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:15

Impeachment Mania Returns In Time For The Midterm Elections

Impeachment Mania Returns In Time For The Midterm Elections

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The military has long had a saying that “when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When it comes to impeachment power, Democrats have long acted as if every problem is a high crime and misdemeanor.

After two impeachments against President Donald Trump (including what I labeled as an infamous “snap impeachment“), Democratic politicians and pundits are back calling for the impeachment of President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) was the latest to prepare articles of impeachment. He is demanding the removal of Hegseth over his use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to convey battle plans and the “double tap” order on a disabled drug boat.

The Signal app controversy was a legitimate objection raised by critics. The Pentagon inspector general recently found that such use can endanger both missions and personnel, even though it did not appear to have resulted in damage in this case. Nevertheless, the Pentagon is claiming that the report is a “TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth.”  That is hardly convincing. It is akin to Harris claiming that Gov. Josh Shapiro’s description of her book as “utter bulls**t” is a glowing review.

However, such a controversy does not even come close to meeting the constitutional standard for impeachment. Democrats did not call for the removal of Democratic presidents or cabinet members for such past controversies, including the use of social media and private email accounts.

The inclusion of the boat strike ignores how the war crimes story has collapsed this week. Even the New York Times and ABC News (and some Democratic members) now admit that it is not true that Hegseth gave an order to kill any survivors of these attacks or that such an order was issued by military commanders.

A finishing shot on a still floating vessel is not uncommon in war. There is a legitimate debate over the policy of striking these boats. However, in terms of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, he has the authority to strike such vessels outside the United States. Other presidents have asserted such authority. This includes President Barack Obama, who claimed in his “kill list” policy to have the right to kill even American citizens anywhere and at any time based on his unilateral decision that they represent an imminent threat to national security.

With respect to the laws of war, if the military had the authority to sink the boat, the commander could order a finishing shot or shots to complete the mission. It has long been common in war to deliver such finishing shots even when there are survivors on board or in the area of the vessel. The commander must not re-engage for the sole purpose of killing survivors. There is no evidence of any such order in this strike. The Washington Post based its sensational claim on a single anonymous source.

Throughout history (including the famed sinking of the Bismarck in World War II), there have been finishing shots delivered in sea engagements to destroy vessels.

The same is true with aerial attacks. It is common for the military to deliver multiple hits on a target if it is not completely destroyed despite the presence of wounded or survivors in the area. Once again, this does not mean the decision was correct or commendable in any given circumstance. Still, it falls within the discretion historically afforded to military commanders in achieving mission objectives.

In the end, the laws of war reflect the fluidity and uncertainty of military engagement. The “fog of war” is a reality of military conflicts, even with the added technological advances that we have today.

We still have not seen the full video and have not yet confirmed the timeline of orders. That will help establish if the successive strikes were plausibly tied to the mission objective of destroying the still floating vessel and stopping the salvaging of the drugs. It will also help establish that the boat and the drugs were indeed still viable targets. The latter recovery of survivors by the military would indicate that there was no “kill them all” policy with regard to survivors.

What is clear is that this is not even close to an impeachable offense.

Thanedar is not the only one reviving calls for impeachment.

Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta is calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump over his “hateful comments” about the Minnesota Somali community, which he claims are grounds for impeachment:

“What needs to be said that isn’t being said enough in our press over the last 24 hours is that the President of the United States said a blatantly, obviously racist thing in the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday when he said what he said about Somali immigrants in this country. That they don’t contribute anything, that they’re not of value. In no normal world should the President of the United States of America ever, ever say something like that to the American people or even say it privately… I mean, if the President of the United States says it privately, it means he’s a bad person, and we should get rid of him.”

But to me, that was an impeachable moment. There have been so many impeachable moments since Donald Trump has come back to the White House, but to blatantly say something as racist and as hateful and as nasty and cruel and mean-spirited as what he said yesterday. The impeachment proceedings should begin right now. But of course, they won’t.”

There is a reason why they won’t . . . because this is ridiculous. Many of us have objected to the President’s comments about whole groups in this country. It is wrong to attack all Somalis in this country. I have previously written about how many of these immigrants from authoritarian nations embrace the essence of our country in seeking a free and better life.

However, past presidents have also used offensive or objectionable terms to refer to groups in the United States from Hillary Clinton’s reference to black men as “super predators” to Joe Biden’s referring to school desegregation as forcing white students to study in a “racial jungle” or claiming that any blacks who do not support him “ain’t black.”

I also do not remember these critics denouncing the attacks on figures like Elon Musk over his nationality.

The suggestion that these comments by Trump are an impeachable offense is absurd.

There is little danger that such impeachments will move forward.

However, if Democrats retake the House, the impeachment impulse will be overwhelming.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 11:40

Is A Backdoor Gold Standard Coming?

Is A Backdoor Gold Standard Coming?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

For decades, I’ve been vexed over a monetary issue. How can we transition from the present fiat money system to a sound-money standard like we once had in the United States and the world?

Clearly the gold standard was superior whereas we now have a fiat standard that has mired the world in debt and big government. A central-bank digital currency with programmable debt-based money and omnipresent surveillance is the dystopian nightmare of which many dream.

But this would pile calamity on top of disaster.

What we really need is the gold standard back. But how could it happen? There has never been a viable transition plan.

Rather, I’ve seen many such plans but they all have their limits. A clean redefinition of the dollar as a title for physical gold has huge transition problems and probable pricing chaos. We don’t even know for sure how much gold the federal government owns now. President Trump had spoken of auditing Fort Knox but that hasn’t happened.

Many other plans for a new Bretton Woods falter on grounds that they depend on sound management by the central bank. Such a system does not allow for domestic convertibility and will therefore lack a mechanism of discipline and a proof of credibility. It would also plunge us back to the very problem that ruined that system in its first try: gold flows break when governments overextend.

A purely pricing model—whereby the Fed targets the gold price—requires a level of precision, judgment, and knowledge that the Fed lacks. If it cannot manage the system now, why should we think it could manage a gold-price standard well?

There is a political problem that afflicts even the best reform plan. Any transition to a sound system requires the cooperation of many parties that benefit from the status quo: government, industry, finance, and banks. They are all nuts for the fiat system despite how it has eroded the standard of living for the middle class and fueled endless rounds of booms and busts.

We are relying on government to reform itself. This problem is intractable.

Keep in mind that the 19th-century gold standard was itself codified in the form of legislation. The Coinage Act of 1873 recognized that gold was money. This was not so much an imposition but a bow to reality. Forty years later, the central bank came along and that began the long process of destroying sound money.

It’s hard to shake the idea that a new gold standard would be a wonderful idea. How do we get from here to there?

Recent trends in gold and silver prices provide a strong hint that we could be slouching our way toward hard money in any case, with or without official planning.

Both gold and silver are experiencing a stunning renaissance. You would have to be naive not to observe the significance of these moves. These trends amount to a vote of confidence in the real over the financial fictions of the fiat world.

Source: Bloomberg

Over 10 years, the price of gold has moved from $1.1K per ounce to $4.2K, a 256 percent increase. The price of silver has moved from $13 to $57 per ounce, a 315 percent increase.

This beats both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. This is an outstanding investment, one that beats dollar depreciation.

To be sure, the silver demand is driven by industrial interest. Gold is being pushed by investors. Still, to see the two move together suggests tremendous insecurity in the financial system. It could portend some significant moves in the future.

Demand has also increased based on new purchases from central banks and the new stablecoins (with a $308 billion market cap, up 50 percent in a year). Stable coins are trying to balance out their debt-dominated portfolios with some hard-money backing. This alone is remarkable, especially since intellectuals have been calling gold a “barbarous relic” for nearly one hundred years. Still to this day, these metals are considered to be safe havens.

The Basel III rules that took full effect in 2022 explicitly reclassified allocated gold as a zero-risk-weight asset again.

This is the first time since the 1970s. The timing is significant because this took place when the world economy was locked down and suffering from pandemic-related attacks.

Another crucial fact: more banks are today accepting gold and silver as collateral for dollar-based loans. This is a form of backdoor monetization. It is a small step for a liquid and portable metal to serve as money, with on and off ramps being provided by the banks themselves. Gold is already allowed to be used this way, and silver is on the way toward this status.

This path is consistent with F.A. Hayek’s speculations on the denationalization of money. He was an economist who had been writing for sound money since the 1930s. His plans were continually foiled by governments and the trends of his time. For his work on this topic, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974.

After this, he decided it was time to say the unthinkable. He wrote that governments would never reform the money in a good way because governments love bad money. He said that the best path forward would be for the banks to shepherd the change themselves. He posited that banks could create a new currency based on their own assets or on a commodity basket of real goods.

Hayek speculated that when the money fails, the banks’ own hard money could serve as the monetary safe haven.

To some extent, his vision for choice in currency is being realized within the crypto sector. It was designed to be a non-state money. Bitcoin itself took a different direction when the core developers refused to allow it to scale, as Roger Ver explains.

This led to forks of new tokens. Now there are thousands of them, many with privacy protection that far exceeds Bitcoin. They are the go-to choice for people who actually use crypto for transactions.

But now we are seeing the advent of hybrid models, such as stablecoins backed by physical gold, thus uniting the soundness of gold with the speed and low cost of blockchain exchange of ownership titles.

If the money fails this time, and even if government defaults on its debt, these monetary instruments could immediately swing into action.

If the dollar actually degrades to the point that it is not useful, new pricing structures could emerge rooted in crypto and/or hard money like gold and silver.

Would that not be fascinating if we eventually end up with a gold standard as fact even without legislation?

As in 1873, Congress can come along later and recognize reality after the fact.

Such a path would be consistent with the long history of money. It was never a creation of the state but rather emerged from markets. A new and better path to sound money in our times might travel the same trajectory.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 10:30

Anti-Free-Speech War Escalates As EU Unleashes DSA On Musk's X

Anti-Free-Speech War Escalates As EU Unleashes DSA On Musk's X

For years, many in the free speech community (most vehemently, Jonathan Turley) have warned about the threat of the European Union to free speech, particularly in the enactment of the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU has virtually declared war on free speech and is targeting American companies.

That war just began with the first DSA fine.

Not surprisingly, X was the chosen target - a company blamed by many in the EU and the U.S. for rolling back free-speech protections.

In essence, it’s punishment for not bending the knee to the EU’s iron-fisted control over online content.

As Modernity.news' Steve Watson points out, the fine reeks of the same vindictive playbook the EU has used since Musk took over Twitter in 2022. It’s no coincidence; Brussels has been gunning for him precisely because he’s turned the platform into a haven for unfiltered discourse, refusing to censor at the whim of unelected technocrats.

This isn’t a one-off slap; it’s the culmination of years of threats and harassment. Back in January 2023, EU Commission Vice-President Vera Jourová openly warned Musk that his “freedom of speech absolutism” wouldn’t fly, declaring the “time of the Wild West is over” and threatening sanctions if Twitter didn’t comply with DSA rules. She conflated illegal content with anything the elites deem offensive, setting the stage for today’s fine.

In October 2023, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton fired off a letter demanding X address “illegal content and disinformation” related to the Gaza conflict. Musk fired back, demanding a specific list of violations so the public could judge for themselves.

Breton’s vague accusations—citing repurposed images and unverified claims—highlighted the EU’s preference for opacity over accountability. Musk called it out: “List the violations you allude to on X, so that the public can see them.” The EU’s response was not forthcoming, but the threats continued.

Further, Musk brings receipts showing the European Union sent him a formal letter demanding that he censor Donald Trump during the 2024 US presidential election.

Since Musk’s acquisition, X has become a battleground for free expression, reinstating accounts banned under the old regime and prioritizing user-driven content over algorithmic suppression. But for the EU, that’s the problem.

Their DSA empowers regulators to dictate what platforms promote or demote, under the guise of fighting “hate speech” and “misinformation.” In reality, it’s a tool to silence dissent against open borders, climate hysteria, or any narrative challenging the globalist agenda.

This fine doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it’s part of a chilling pattern of EU overreach that threatens privacy and free speech across the continent.

Take the proposed Chat Control law, which would mandate backdoors into encrypted messages on apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

Sold as a child protection measure, it would scan billions of private conversations, exposing users to hacking, fraud, and government spying. Signal’s CEO Meredith Whittaker slammed it as a “catastrophic about-face” that betrays Europe’s privacy commitments, while experts warn of mass false positives and geopolitical abuse.

Then there’s Brussels’ aggressive enforcement tactics. In May of this year, the European Commission sued Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal for dragging their feet on DSA implementation—specifically for not appointing national coordinators or setting penalties. Critics see this as forcing member states into a surveillance straitjacket, where platforms must over-censor to avoid fines, stifling smaller voices and user privacy.

At the heart of it all is the EU’s obsession with controlling information flows. In a January 2024 speech at Davos, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared disinformation the “top concern” for the coming years, calling for a “new global framework” where governments and Big Tech collaborate to police AI and online content.

She praised the DSA for defining platform responsibilities, but the subtext was clear: crush platforms like X that don’t toe the line. Jourová echoed this, meeting with Meta and YouTube execs to ensure compliance while targeting Musk’s “absolutism.”

These moves expose the hypocrisy: the EU claims to champion democracy but builds an Orwellian apparatus that monitors, scans, and punishes speech. It’s not about safety—it’s about power.

This latest EU assault on X has infuriated US Vice President JD Vance, who yesterday, as rumors of the impending penalty circulated, took to X and posted:

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”

Vance’s previously blistering critiques of European tyranny sent shockwaves through Brussels. In a February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance tore into EU leaders for preaching democracy while arresting citizens for silent prayer, canceling elections, and ignoring voters on mass migration.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” he declared, labeling Europeans as more than “interchangeable cogs in a global economy.”

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called Vance’s opinions “unacceptable,” proving Vance’s point about normalized authoritarianism.

Vance’s words were prescient—today’s fine on X exemplifies how the EU weaponizes laws to crush free speech platforms, treating them as threats to their controlled narrative. With Trump back in the White House and Vance as a key ally, expect pushback: America won’t stand idly by as allies erode the very freedoms that define the West.

The $140 million hit on X isn’t just a fine—it’s a declaration of war on uncensored dialogue.

Musk’s platform remains one of the last major outposts where ideas flow freely, unhampered by globalist filters. As the EU tightens its grip, the message is clear: comply or be crushed.

As Jonathan Turley concludes, this is the first fine under the DSA and the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to comply with EU “values” on free speech.

Specifically, the European Commission has imposed a €120 million ($140 million) fine on X after finding that it misled users with its paid-for blue checkmark verification symbol, failed to provide researchers with access to data, and did not properly set up an advertising repository. 

X has 60 days to develop solutions to address the issues and 90 days to implement the changes, or it may face additional fines.

Under the DSA, the EU can impose fines of up to 6% of an online platform’s annual global revenue for failing to address illegal content, disinformation, or transparency requirements.

It is still investigating X as well as several other major US tech firms, including Apple, Google, and Meta, under the DSA and the Digital Markets Act.

This includes investigations for failing to carry out demands for censorship, including of American citizens.

This is just the first salvo in a war that some of us have warned is coming. We cannot be passive at this moment. The EU is threatening the very indispensable right that has long defined us as a people. Many in the United States are rooting for the Europeans to roll back free-speech protections at X and Meta. Some have appeared before the EU to call for this type of action. They could use the EU to achieve abroad what they have failed to accomplish in the United States. The results will be the same for Americans, who will find themselves subject to European censors and “values.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:55

Germany Scales Back Offshore Wind Auctions After Latest Flop

Germany Scales Back Offshore Wind Auctions After Latest Flop

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Germany moved to reduce the capacity it will auction in its offshore wind tender in 2026, following the flop in the latest auction without a single bid made.  

The German Parliament approved legislation narrowing the capacity in the 2026 tender to just 2.5 gigawatts (GW) to 5 GW, compared with an earlier plan of auctioning off 6 GW of offshore wind capacity and with as much as 10 GW offered in the auction in August. 

The August offshore wind auction without government subsidies failed to attract a single bid, alarming the local offshore wind sector, which is calling for a fundamental redesign of Germany’s renewable energy auctions. 

The Federal Network Agency’s auction for 10.1 GW offshore wind farms in the German part of the North Sea ended with no investor submitting a bid for any of the two proposed sites, the Federal Association for Offshore Wind Energy, BWO, said.  

The auction flop signals that offshore wind power developers are wary of taking on riskier, zero-subsidy projects amid rising costs and supply chain issues. 

In response to the failure in the August auction, Germany’s ruling coalition proposed reduced capacity up for grabs, and the proposal was approved by Parliament in a package also aimed at speeding up permitting and other approvals for offshore wind projects and power grid upgrades. 

“Offshore wind is facing a difficult market environment, both internationally and in Germany,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement carried by Bloomberg. Surging costs and tight supply chains deter offshore wind expansion, the ministry noted.   

Germany is expanding onshore wind installations but offshore wind capacity additions are nowhere near its targets. 

Days before the flop in the August auction, German industry associations said that offshore wind power installations had stagnated in the first half of 2025. For offshore wind to reach the ambitious government targets of boosting capacity to 70 GW by 2045, policy makers need to fundamentally revise the tenders and ensure additional revenue and planning security, the German wind energy association, Bundesverband WindEnergie (BWE), and several other sector groups said.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:20

French Soldiers 'Open Fire' On Drones Threatening High-Secure Nuclear Submarine Base

French Soldiers 'Open Fire' On Drones Threatening High-Secure Nuclear Submarine Base

A major security breach of French military airspace has been revealed Friday at a moment European officials have been hyping the 'hybrid warfare' threat from Russia, which has of late centered on many dozens of 'mystery' drone breaches in EU airspace especially near sensitive locations like airports.

French Marines opened fire on five unidentified drones that breached restricted airspace above a key nuclear submarine base Thursday evening, military officials said, according to EuroNews. But one official has said a "jammer" was hot and not necessarily live ammunition. 

via Telegram

At around 7:30pm local at the Île Longue naval base in Brittany, which importantly is the command center for France's fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, radar detected incoming unauthorized UAVs at the high-secure facility.

The marine infantry battalion responsible for protecting the site immediately deployed anti-drone procedures, which included firing several shots at the aircraft in an effort to disable and bring them down.

As it wasn't confirmed whether the drones were actually hit, the security forces initiated a large-scale search operation. Authorities still haven't confirmed that any drones were brought down or recovered.

The drones may have been electronically thwarted or intercepted, based on vague references from French military officials, but not much in the way of details have been offered: 

Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin confirmed that troops at the base intercepted an overflight, without detailing whether they fired shots, used electronic jamming or other means against the aerial intruders. It wasn’t clear who was responsible.

“Any overflight of a military site is prohibited in our country,” Vautrin said. “I want to commend the interception carried out by our military personnel at the Île Longue base.”

The installation is located near Brest in western France, and is guarded by more than 120 maritime forces alongside naval security forces, according to French media.

It hosts four ballistic missile submarines — Le Triomphant, Le Téméraire, Le Vigilant, and Le Terrible — and provides maintenance for the vessels which support the nation's nuclear deterrent. According to official policy, at least one nuclear submarine is deployed on patrol at all times.

"No link with foreign interference has been established," Frédéric Teillet, the public prosecutor in Rennes, was quoted in AFP as saying. He also indicated that no operators behind the drones have been apprehended or identified.

European officials have of late and without firm evidence been pointing the finger at Russian intelligence for a series of drone incidents near commercial and military airports and installations in northern Europe.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:45

UK Sanctions Russia After Inquiry Holds Putin Responsible For 2018 Novichok Poisonings

UK Sanctions Russia After Inquiry Holds Putin Responsible For 2018 Novichok Poisonings

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

The UK issued new sanctions on Russia on Dec. 4, after a public inquiry into the death of a woman poisoned by the nerve agent Novichok in the UK in 2018 held Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for her demise.

London also summoned the Kremlin’s ambassador for a response to the inquiry’s findings and over what it called an “ongoing campaign of hostile activity” against the UK.

The public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess concluded that Putin had ordered the 2018 Novichok attack by GRU agents on Sergei Skripal, a Russian defector and former GRU colonel, in Salisbury, Wiltshire, which eventually resulted in the death of Sturgess, who had no connection to Skripal or Russia.

“The Salisbury poisonings shocked the nation and today’s findings are a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. “Dawn’s needless death was a tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. My thoughts are with her family and loved ones.”

He said the UK “will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime” and “call out his murderous machine for what it is.”

“Today’s sanctions are the latest step in our unwavering defense of European security, as we continue to squeeze Russia’s finances and strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table,” he added.

Along with the GRU in its entirety, London specifically sanctioned eight cyber military intelligence officers, as well as three other GRU officers, it said were responsible for orchestrating hostile activity in Ukraine and across Europe, including plotting an attack on Ukrainian supermarkets.

The latest sanctions build on a string of packages that have been issued by the UK against Moscow in support of its ally, Ukraine.

Russia has always denied any involvement in the Salisbury incident and dismissed the latest move by the UK.

“The Russian side does not recognize illegitimate sanctions imposed under far-fetched pretexts in circumvention of the UN Security Council, and reserves the right to retaliatory measures,” Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, Russian state news agency TASS reported.

“The British can be confident in the inevitability of such measures.”

Zakharova criticized British allegations that the phone of Skripal’s daughter, Yulia, was allegedly hacked by GRU agents.

“Britain announced that Yulia Skripal’s ‘electronic device was hacked.’ Why won’t Yulia Skripal herself speak out about what’s going on? How has she been living all these years? What’s happened to her father? Why is hacking ‘Yulia Skripal’s electronic device’ equated to ‘undermining the integrity of the state?’” she wrote on Telegram.

“I’m tired of these tasteless tales from the English crypt.”

Sturgess, 44, died after being exposed to Novichok, which had been left in a discarded perfume bottle in Amesbury, Wiltshire, in July 2018.

Her death followed the attempted murder of the Skripals and then-police officer Nick Bailey, who were poisoned in nearby Salisbury in March of that year.

According to the public inquiry, they were harmed when members of a Russian GRU military intelligence squad smeared the nerve agent on Sergei Skripal’s door handle.

In the inquiry’s final report, published on Dec. 4, Judge Lord Hughes concluded that the attempted assassination of Skripal “must have been authorized at the highest level, by President Putin.”

Hughes said GRU agents Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov, and Sergey Fedotov were “acting on instructions” when they carried out the attack.

Following the report’s publication, Lord Hughes said: “The conduct of Petrov and Boshirov, their GRU superiors and those who authorized the mission up to and including, as I have found, President Putin, was astonishingly reckless.

“They, and only they, bear moral responsibility for Dawn’s death.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:10

Pages