Miranda v. Arizona: A Comprehensive Overview

iCivics provides valuable resources, including worksheets and answer keys, to explore Miranda v. Arizona, focusing on constitutional rights and criminal procedure understanding.

These materials delve into the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, self-incrimination, and the crucial right to legal counsel during police interrogations, aiding student comprehension.

The iCivics platform offers engaging educational games and simulations, alongside civic action plans, to deepen students’ grasp of this landmark Supreme Court case.

The Case Background

In March 1963, a kidnapping and sexual assault transpired in Phoenix, Arizona, setting the stage for a pivotal legal battle. Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old man, was subsequently arrested at his home on March 13th and taken into police custody for questioning. Crucially, the officers involved admitted they hadn’t informed Miranda of his constitutional rights prior to the interrogation.

This lack of notification became the central issue in the ensuing legal proceedings. The state contended that Miranda, having a prior criminal conviction, should have already been aware of his rights. However, this argument failed to sway the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld Miranda’s conviction despite the absence of a rights explanation.

This initial ruling ultimately paved the way for the case to reach the United States Supreme Court, where the fundamental questions surrounding self-incrimination and due process would be thoroughly examined, impacting criminal justice procedures nationwide. iCivics resources help students understand this complex origin.

The Arrest of Ernesto Miranda

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was apprehended at his residence in Phoenix, Arizona, following accusations of kidnapping and sexual assault. Police brought the 23-year-old Miranda to a police station for interrogation, initiating a chain of events that would reshape American criminal justice. The arrest itself wasn’t contested; rather, the subsequent procedures became the focal point of legal scrutiny.

It’s important to note that Miranda had a previous conviction on his record, a fact the prosecution later used to argue he should have been aware of his rights. However, the core issue wasn’t whether Miranda knew his rights, but whether the police fulfilled their obligation to inform him of them.

The circumstances surrounding his arrest – the lack of any advisement regarding his Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections – ultimately became the cornerstone of the legal challenge, leading to a landmark Supreme Court decision. iCivics materials detail the significance of this initial stage.

The Interrogation Process

Following his arrest, Ernesto Miranda was subjected to an interrogation by Phoenix police officers. Crucially, the officers admitted they did not inform Miranda of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. This lack of advisement proved pivotal to the case’s outcome.

During the interrogation, Miranda eventually signed a written confession, which was then used as key evidence against him in court. However, because he hadn’t been informed of his rights, the admissibility of this confession came into serious question.

iCivics resources highlight how this interrogation process directly challenged established legal norms, raising concerns about coerced confessions and the fairness of the criminal justice system. The absence of a “Miranda warning” – a now-standard practice – became the central issue, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Miranda’s Initial Trial and Conviction

Following his interrogation and the obtained confession, Ernesto Miranda was brought to trial in Arizona state court. He was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault, crimes carrying significant penalties. Despite his defense arguing the confession was inadmissible due to a lack of awareness of his rights, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

The court reasoned that Miranda, having a prior criminal record, should have already been cognizant of his constitutional protections. This decision disregarded the fact that he was never explicitly informed of those rights during the interrogation process.

iCivics materials emphasize how this initial ruling underscored a critical flaw in the system – the assumption of knowledge rather than ensuring informed consent. This ultimately paved the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a review of the Arizona court’s decision and a clarification of suspect rights.

The Core Legal Issues

iCivics resources highlight Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, focusing on self-incrimination and the right to counsel during police questioning, central to the case.

Fifth Amendment Rights

The Fifth Amendment, a cornerstone of the Miranda v. Arizona case, protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves – essentially, forcing someone to provide evidence against their own interests.

iCivics materials emphasize that this right isn’t simply about remaining silent; it’s about understanding that any statements made during a police interrogation can and will be used against the suspect in court.

Prior to Miranda, suspects weren’t always informed of this right, leading to coerced confessions. The case established that law enforcement must clearly communicate these protections to a suspect before questioning begins.

This includes the right to remain silent, the understanding that anything said can be used in court, and the right to an attorney, even if the suspect cannot afford one. iCivics’ resources demonstrate how this amendment safeguards against unjust convictions.

The amendment ensures fairness within the legal system, protecting citizens from self-incrimination and upholding due process.

Sixth Amendment Rights

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, meaning everyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney to assist in their defense. iCivics resources highlight that this right isn’t limited to those who can afford a lawyer; if a suspect cannot, one will be appointed to them.

Miranda v. Arizona significantly reinforced this right by requiring police to inform suspects of their right to an attorney before interrogation. This ensures a level playing field during questioning, preventing self-incrimination without legal guidance.

iCivics’ educational materials demonstrate how the absence of counsel can lead to unfair outcomes, particularly for those unfamiliar with the legal system. The amendment aims to provide effective assistance of counsel.

The case established that a suspect can invoke this right at any point during questioning, halting the interrogation until an attorney is present. This protection is vital for safeguarding individual liberties.

Ultimately, the Sixth Amendment, as clarified by Miranda, ensures a fair trial and protects against potential abuses of power.

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves – essentially, forcing someone to provide evidence against their own interests. iCivics materials emphasize that this right is fundamental to the American legal system, preventing coerced confessions.

Miranda v. Arizona directly addresses self-incrimination by establishing that statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible in court unless the suspect was informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent.

iCivics’ resources illustrate how police questioning, without proper warnings, can pressure suspects into unknowingly waiving their Fifth Amendment protections. This can lead to false confessions and wrongful convictions.

The “Miranda warning” – informing suspects they have the right to remain silent and anything they say can be used against them – is a direct result of this concern.

The case underscores the importance of voluntary statements, ensuring confessions are truly a product of free will, not coercion or misunderstanding.

Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel in criminal prosecutions. iCivics resources highlight that this right isn’t merely about having a lawyer during a trial, but also during critical stages like police interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona extended this right by requiring police to inform suspects they have the right to an attorney, and that one will be appointed if they cannot afford one.

iCivics materials demonstrate how the presence of counsel levels the playing field, protecting individuals from potentially coercive interrogation tactics and ensuring they understand their rights.

Without a lawyer, suspects may unknowingly make incriminating statements or agree to unfavorable conditions. The ruling aimed to safeguard against this vulnerability.

The case emphasizes that effective assistance of counsel is vital to a fair legal process, protecting the accused from self-incrimination and ensuring due process.

The Supreme Court Ruling

iCivics resources detail the 5-4 Miranda v. Arizona decision, establishing that constitutional rights must be respected during police questioning and custodial interrogations.

The 5-4 Decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona was a closely contested 5-4 decision, fundamentally reshaping how law enforcement interacts with suspects during custodial interrogations. iCivics materials highlight that this split vote underscores the significant legal debate surrounding self-incrimination and due process. The majority recognized that the inherent pressures of police questioning could coerce confessions, violating the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

This landmark case established that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights – the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney – before being interrogated. The iCivics curriculum emphasizes that this wasn’t about hindering police work, but ensuring fairness and protecting individual liberties; The dissenting justices, however, argued that the ruling would impede law enforcement’s ability to obtain crucial information and solve crimes, potentially favoring criminals over public safety.

Ultimately, the Court prioritized safeguarding constitutional rights, even at the potential cost of some convictions, solidifying a crucial precedent in American criminal justice.

The Majority Opinion

Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, articulated that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. iCivics resources explain how the Court reasoned that without procedural safeguards, suspects might unknowingly relinquish their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The opinion emphasized that statements obtained during an interrogation without informing a suspect of their rights are inadmissible in court.

The Court didn’t outlaw confessions altogether, but rather established a requirement for procedural protection. iCivics materials demonstrate that this protection necessitates informing suspects they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one.

This opinion aimed to level the playing field between law enforcement and suspects, ensuring that any confession is truly voluntary and not the product of coercion or ignorance of constitutional rights, upholding fundamental fairness within the justice system.

The Dissenting Opinions

Several justices strongly dissented in Miranda v. Arizona, arguing the ruling dramatically hampered law enforcement’s ability to effectively investigate crimes. iCivics resources highlight how these dissenting opinions feared the new rules would protect guilty individuals and hinder the pursuit of justice. They believed existing case law already adequately protected suspects’ rights.

Justice Harlan, a key dissenter, argued the Court’s decision was based on speculation about police interrogation tactics, rather than concrete evidence of widespread coercion. He felt the existing voluntariness test was sufficient, and the new requirements were unnecessarily burdensome. iCivics materials show this viewpoint.

The dissenters predicted a surge in suppressed confessions and a decline in convictions, ultimately weakening public safety. They maintained the Court had overstepped its bounds, legislating from the bench instead of interpreting existing law, a concern often raised in legal debates.

Impact of Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona profoundly reshaped police procedures, necessitating the “Miranda warning” to safeguard suspects’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, as iCivics details.

Miranda Rights – What Must Be Read

iCivics resources emphasize that the core of Miranda rights centers on informing suspects of their constitutional protections before interrogation begins. Specifically, law enforcement must clearly articulate that the suspect has the right to remain silent, preventing self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

Furthermore, officers are obligated to inform individuals that any statement they make can and will be used against them in a court of law. Crucially, suspects must also be told they have the right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed to represent them – upholding their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

These rights aren’t merely suggestions; they are legally mandated safeguards. iCivics’ materials, including worksheets and answer keys, highlight that a suspect’s statements obtained during interrogation are inadmissible in court if these warnings weren’t given and knowingly waived by the individual.

The “Miranda Warning”

The now-ubiquitous “Miranda Warning” – “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you” – stems directly from the Supreme Court’s ruling.

iCivics materials demonstrate how this standardized warning arose from the need to protect individuals during potentially coercive police interrogations. The warning isn’t a script, but it must convey these essential rights clearly and understandably.

Worksheets and answer keys provided by iCivics often present scenarios where students analyze whether a proper Miranda warning was given, and if a suspect’s waiver of rights was knowing and voluntary. Understanding the precise wording and implications of this warning is central to grasping the case’s impact on criminal justice.

Impact on Police Procedures

Miranda v. Arizona fundamentally altered police procedures across the United States, requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their constitutional rights prior to interrogation. iCivics resources, including worksheets and answer keys, illustrate this shift, emphasizing the need for documented warnings and voluntary waivers.

Previously acceptable interrogation tactics became questionable, forcing police departments to retrain officers and implement new protocols. The ruling didn’t prohibit police questioning altogether, but it mandated safeguards against self-incrimination.

iCivics’ educational materials often present case studies where students evaluate whether police actions adhered to Miranda guidelines, fostering critical thinking about proper procedure and the balance between public safety and individual rights. This has led to a more cautious and rights-conscious approach to investigations.

Changes in Criminal Justice

The Miranda v. Arizona decision instigated significant changes within the criminal justice system, extending beyond police practices. iCivics’ resources, including answer keys for case studies, highlight how courts now scrutinize the admissibility of confessions with greater intensity.

Prosecutors must demonstrate a valid Miranda warning was given and knowingly waived by the suspect before introducing a confession as evidence. This has impacted conviction rates in some cases, particularly those relying heavily on incriminating statements obtained during interrogation.

iCivics materials demonstrate how the ruling reinforced the adversarial nature of the legal system, emphasizing the importance of legal representation. The case spurred increased access to counsel for indigent defendants, ensuring a fairer process. The focus shifted towards protecting individual rights within the pursuit of justice.

iCivics Resources and Educational Materials

iCivics offers comprehensive Miranda v. Arizona resources, including guided reading materials, worksheets, engaging games, and detailed answer keys for effective student learning.

iCivics’ Coverage of Miranda v. Arizona

iCivics provides robust educational materials dedicated to Miranda v. Arizona, designed to foster a deep understanding of this pivotal Supreme Court case among students. Their coverage extends beyond a simple recounting of the facts, delving into the constitutional principles at play – specifically, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Central to their approach are meticulously crafted worksheets, often accompanied by readily available answer keys, allowing educators to assess student comprehension effectively. These worksheets guide students through the case background, the legal arguments presented, and the ultimate ruling delivered by the Court.

Furthermore, iCivics leverages interactive learning tools, including engaging games and simulations, to bring the complexities of Miranda v. Arizona to life. These resources help students grasp the practical implications of the “Miranda warning” and its impact on law enforcement procedures. The platform’s commitment to civic education ensures students not only understand the case itself but also its enduring relevance in contemporary society.

Worksheets and Answer Keys

iCivics offers comprehensive worksheets specifically designed to explore Miranda v. Arizona, serving as invaluable tools for educators and students alike. These resources aren’t merely fact-retrieval exercises; they encourage critical thinking about the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the implications of self-incrimination.

The worksheets systematically guide students through the case’s details – from Ernesto Miranda’s arrest and interrogation to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision. Questions prompt analysis of the legal arguments and the reasoning behind the ruling, fostering a deeper understanding of constitutional law.

Crucially, iCivics provides accompanying answer keys, enabling efficient assessment and feedback. These keys ensure educators can quickly evaluate student comprehension and address any misconceptions. The availability of these resources streamlines the learning process, making Miranda v. Arizona accessible and engaging for all learners, promoting civic literacy.

Educational Games and Simulations

iCivics elevates learning beyond traditional methods with interactive games and simulations centered around Miranda v. Arizona. These aren’t simply entertaining diversions; they’re carefully crafted educational experiences designed to immerse students in the complexities of the case.

Simulations allow students to step into the roles of police officers, suspects, and legal professionals, grappling with the challenges of balancing law enforcement with individual rights. Games reinforce understanding of the “Miranda warning” and the consequences of violating a suspect’s constitutional protections.

These dynamic tools foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills, encouraging students to apply legal principles in realistic scenarios. By actively participating, students develop a more nuanced appreciation for the importance of due process and the safeguards enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, solidifying their civic knowledge.

Civic Action Plans Related to the Case

iCivics extends the learning experience beyond comprehension with Civic Action Plans directly linked to Miranda v. Arizona. These plans empower students to become active participants in their communities, applying their understanding of constitutional rights to real-world issues.

Students might design public awareness campaigns educating peers about their Miranda rights, or advocate for policies promoting fair and equitable treatment within the criminal justice system. Plans could involve researching local police procedures and assessing their compliance with Supreme Court rulings.

These projects encourage students to engage in constructive dialogue, develop persuasive arguments, and collaborate with others to effect positive change. By translating legal knowledge into tangible action, iCivics fosters a sense of civic responsibility and empowers the next generation of informed citizens.

Contemporary Relevance

Ongoing debates surround Miranda rights, including exceptions and interpretations, while iCivics resources continue to educate students about its enduring impact on justice.

Ongoing Debates About Miranda Rights

Despite its foundational status, Miranda v. Arizona continues to spark debate regarding its application in modern law enforcement. Discussions frequently center on the “public safety exception,” allowing questioning without Miranda warnings when immediate danger exists.

Another point of contention involves the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a clear and unequivocal waiver of Miranda rights. Legal scholars and courts grapple with determining if a suspect truly understood and voluntarily relinquished their protections.

Furthermore, the impact of Miranda on securing convictions remains a subject of scrutiny, with some arguing it hinders investigations while others maintain it safeguards individual liberties. iCivics materials, including answer keys, help students navigate these complex issues, fostering critical thinking about the balance between public safety and constitutional rights.

The evolving landscape of interrogation techniques, coupled with advancements in forensic science, also prompts ongoing reevaluation of Miranda’s relevance and effectiveness.

Exceptions to the Miranda Rule

Several established exceptions temper the strict requirements of the Miranda ruling. The most prominent is the “public safety” exception, permitting questioning without warnings when public safety is at risk, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Another exception applies to “routine traffic stops,” where officers can ask basic identification questions without triggering Miranda. The “inevitable discovery” doctrine allows evidence obtained during an illegal interrogation if it would have inevitably been discovered through legal means.

iCivics resources, including accompanying answer keys, clarify these nuances for students, demonstrating that Miranda isn’t absolute. Furthermore, statements made spontaneously, without police elicitation, are generally admissible. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for a complete grasp of the case’s impact on criminal justice.

These exceptions highlight the ongoing judicial interpretation and refinement of Miranda principles.

The Future of Miranda v. Arizona

The longevity of Miranda v. Arizona faces ongoing scrutiny, particularly with evolving interrogation techniques and technological advancements. Debates continue regarding the balance between suspect rights and effective law enforcement, influencing potential legislative or judicial modifications.

The increasing use of digital evidence and sophisticated interrogation methods presents new challenges to applying Miranda’s protections. iCivics materials, including answer keys, encourage critical thinking about these emerging issues.

Future court cases will likely refine the scope of existing exceptions and address novel scenarios. The core principle – safeguarding against self-incrimination – remains vital, but its practical application will undoubtedly adapt. Continued civic engagement and education, as promoted by platforms like iCivics, are essential for preserving these constitutional safeguards.

The case’s future hinges on balancing individual liberties with public safety concerns.

The post miranda v. arizona icivics answer key pdf appeared first on Every Task, Every Guide: The Instruction Portal
.

How Canada's Only Leverage Over America Disappeared In An Instant

Authored by E.J. Antoni via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

I’d like to talk today about the recent events in Venezuela, specifically from an economic point of view, and who are the real winners and losers.

An aerial photo shows the Nave Photon crude oil tanker, carrying a shipment of Venezuelan oil, docked in Freeport, Texas, on Jan. 16, 2026. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

Let’s start with the obvious. The Venezuela operation is a win for America and the Venezuelan people. American consumers and businesses will benefit from lower prices while oil companies have a chance for bigger profits.

Venezuelans will benefit from increased investment, jobs, and profits in their country as well. This is why their stock market jumped 50, 60, 70, 80 percent after the U.S. takeover.

And if we recall that economic security is national security, then the new order in South America also simultaneously supports U.S. national security while undermining our greatest rival, China. In war, dependable access to oil is as important as dependable access to kinetic arms.

Access to ample, reliable flows of oil represents a key strategic interest. Removing one such flow from the Chinese sphere of influence and bringing it into our own is tremendous progress toward this goal. But the biggest loser of all isn’t China or Russia, it’s Canada.

Western Canada sends over four million barrels a day of heavy crude to American refiners that are equipped to handle this type of oil. But now, with access to the massive flows of Venezuelan crude, which is similar to the Canadian flavor, the United States no longer needs to rely on Canada to keep the refineries on the Gulf of America running at full capacity.

Instead, the oil shipments that previously went to China are already being redirected to American refiners—tens of millions of barrels worth just days after Maduro’s capture. And while the United States is paying full market price for that oil, don’t be surprised if oil prices start coming down because of this redirection.

After all, increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. As American investment rebuilds Venezuela’s severely neglected oil infrastructure, we can expect production and exports to the United States to only increase, simultaneously benefiting the American and Venezuelan people.

That’s why this is such a massive economic win for American families and businesses who will benefit from lower prices, courtesy of more energy supplies. And since energy affects the price of everything else in an economy, lower prices for products like gasoline will put downward pressure on countless other prices, providing relief after four years of inflation under the Biden administration.

Consider when you go to a grocery store how much of the price of food you’re buying is dependent on energy prices. First off, farmers and ranchers are fueling their tractors and other vehicles with diesel and gas. They’re also using synthetic fertilizers created with natural gas.

But how did the gallon of milk, the carton of eggs, or the bag of bread get to grocery store in the first place? It got there on a trunk. Fueled by oil. What I’m getting at here is that we seriously underestimate just how much the price of energy affects everything we do and everything we buy.

Bring down energy prices, and you put downward pressure on prices throughout the economy. That’s a win for American consumers and businesses alike.

And U.S. control of Venezuela is also a second chance for jilted American oil companies to again profit from nearly one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.

Years ago, those American companies poured investment into Venezuela to essentially modernize the entire industry there. For their troubles, these oil firms had their physical property confiscated and their intellectual property copied as the communists “nationalized” Venezuelan oil.

Of course, communist rule there was a disaster, as it has been everywhere, and the oil industry languished as infrastructure decayed, investment lagged, and production fell well below its potential. Venezuela pumps much less oil today than they did a quarter century ago. But this is poised to reverse.

Venezuela will now assuredly receive billions of dollars of investment from American oil companies, many of whom are champing at the bit to regain access to the largest reserves in the world. That will mean a windfall of jobs and income for the Venezuelan people, all of which could have been Canada’s, bringing us back to the story of the biggest economic loser here.

It didn’t have to be this way for the fifty-first state. But instead of welcoming oil and gas investment from the United States and building valuable infrastructure like pipelines, Canada has preferred to prioritize far-Left causes and an anti-energy agenda.

After recent events, not only is Canada losing its biggest crude customer, but it’s also losing its only real leverage in trade talks with the United States. This is an economic reality that few professional pundits seem to have grasped.

To be clear, the flood of cheap Venezuelan crude will not arrive in the United States overnight. It will take time, years in fact, to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and really ramp up production to replace most Canadian crude imports. But the writing is on the wall.

The United States, for a change, is firmly in the driver’s seat and master of its own destiny—and hemisphere.

The economic story here also goes well beyond oil too, although that’s what has gotten most of the attention. Venezuela is a veritable goldmine of other natural resources like rare earth minerals, lumber, bauxite (the primary source of aluminum), natural gas, and more. Canada just lost not only its leverage with oil, but just about every other one of its exports too.

Since the Canadian economy is much more dependent on exports than the U.S. economy is, and since nearly all Canadian exports come to the United States while relative few of ours go to Canada, the slowdown in trade between our two countries has very unequal effects.

In short, this has been very harmful to Canada and will be devastating in the long run. But it’s little more than a speedbump here in America.

President Donald Trump has effectively barred the door on Canada, and the latter will have few alternatives to completely opening every one of its markets to free and fair competition.

Of course, Canada can always choose to fall further into irrelevance and economic impoverishment by stubbornly continuing to snub American manufacturers, farmers, and workers.

Let me close by saying that if the Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans to stay out of the Western Hemisphere and the Roosevelt corollary established American intervention therein, then the Trump corollary has put a finer, and more economic, point on the matter that’s best summed up in two words: America first.

Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ZeroHedge. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:35

Iran Vows Prolonged All-Out War If Attacked As Trump Still Seeks 'Options'

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday warning the United States that Tehran will be "firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack" - following President Trump reiterating threats against the Islamic Republic.

"Our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack," he wrote in reference to the 12-day war of last June.

AFP/Getty Images: Iran is prepared for war but ready to negotiate, Iran's FM has made clear.

The top Iranian diplomat stated that this was not a "threat" but a "reality I feel I need to convey explicitly, because as a diplomat and a veteran, I abhor war."

Araghchi said his country is ready for all-out war, describing that "an all-out confrontation will certainly be ferocious and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House. It will certainly engulf the wider region and have an impact on ordinary people around the globe."

What's more is he described the most violent part of protests in Iran, which were met with vehement denunciations and warnings by Trump, in reality the result of an anti-Tehran conspiracy and effort by externally supported groups to sow chaos, destabilization, and to begin an insurgency:

As black-clad groups of masked terrorists used rifles and handguns to infiltrate protests and mow down innocent demonstrators on our streets, reports emerged in various media claiming that big cities in Iran had “fallen.” Other reports alleged the continuation of widespread armed violence. In reality, the violent phase of the unrest lasted less than 72 hours.

By many accounts, the ballistic and even hypersonic missiles which fell on Israel last June did significant damage, and put fear into Israeli leadership given just how many among the hundreds of projectiles sent, including drones, were able to evade Israel's anti-air defenses.

Iran's foreign ministry is issuing such forceful warnings given the crisis between Tehran and Washington doesn't appear fully over, at a moment a US carrier group and additional military assets are headed to the Middle East region. WSJ notes that 'options' are still being weighed by the administration:

After pulling back from strikes on Iran last week, President Trump is still pressing aides for what he terms “decisive” military options, U.S. officials said, as Iran appears to have tightened its control of the country and targets protesters through a crackdown that has killed thousands.

Meanwhile the WSJ, along with others among the mainstream media, is questioning where Trump the hawk is and why he's exercised restrained on the Iran question - in the typical fashion of the warmongering media. WSJ's editorial board wrote:

Araghchi’s not-so-implicit threat of war if President Trump orders help for the protesters... This is a threat against Americans, an attempt to intimidate the Trump Administration. We wonder how President Trump sees this threat, especially since the regime so clearly crossed his “red line” against shooting protesters.

Regardless, the American public won't stomach yet another drawn out forever war in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein is among the most deeply unpopular US military actions in history.

The dust has barely settled on 20+ year fruitless and deadly occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the severe limitations of US empire were confirmed (also as the Taliban remains in Kabul, and Shia pro-Iran governance is stronger than ever in Baghdad), and yet already the armchair interventionist chickenhawks in the media are eyeing another regime change war.

WOW. Strategic advisor to Iran's Parliament Speaker, Mahdi Mohammadi:

"We know that we are facing a regime-change war in which the only way to achieve victory is to make credible the threat that, during the 12-day war, although it was ready, did not get the opportunity to be…

— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) January 19, 2026

Probably (or rather, hopefully) Trump senses this, and is seeking de-escalation, also perhaps knowing there will be other future Iran protests and 'opportunities' to pull the trigger against Tehran. But it won't be some kind of easy in, easy out Venezuela scenario - and American troops might die.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:10

Somalia And The High Cost Of Low Trust

Authored by Mitzi Perdue via RealClearPolitics,

When news broke of the massive child nutrition fraud in Minnesota, many Americans reacted with disbelief. During the pandemic, roughly $250 million intended to feed hungry children was siphoned off, prosecutors say, and spent on luxury cars, real estate, and other indulgences. To most people, it appeared to be a shocking betrayal of public trust.

To me, it felt unsettlingly familiar.

Decades ago, long before Minnesota became synonymous with one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history, I had an experience in Somalia that permanently altered my perspective on aid, trust, and good intentions. It is why I read the indictments differently, not with surprise so much as recognition.

What struck me most about the Minnesota case was not only the scale of the theft but the silence surrounding it. The fraud appears to have operated in plain sight within tightly knit circles, yet few people spoke out.  

More than 40 years ago, when I was a rice farmer in California, American rice growers learned of famine conditions in Somalia. Competitors set aside their rivalry and donated an entire shipload of rice for humanitarian relief. I later traveled to Somalia, expecting to see that food had reached people on the brink of starvation.

It had not.

A powerful clan had taken control of the shipment. Once its own members’ needs were met, the remaining rice did not go to feed other Somalis. Instead, it was used to feed animals, while those outside the clan continued to go hungry.

At the time, I tried to explain what I had seen by blaming corruption, weak oversight, or a few bad actors. None of those explanations captured the deeper pattern. The behavior made sense only when I began to understand how differently trust and obligation were organized.

That realization came rushing back as I read about the Minnesota fraud.

According to federal indictments, the stolen money flowed through networks bound by kinship and loyalty. The theft was large, coordinated, and sustained. What stood out was not only who took the money, but who stayed silent. In societies with strong civic norms, whistleblowing is often praised, or at least protected. In tightly bound clan systems, speaking out can mean punishment.

Over time, I found language for what I had observed: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept from game theory that explains how cooperation and trust either compound or collapse. When two parties cooperate, both benefit and trust grows. When one cheats while the other cooperates, the cheater prospers and the cooperator becomes the loser. When both are defective, everyone loses.

High-trust societies solve this dilemma by extending cooperation beyond family and tribe. Laws, institutions, and norms reinforce the idea that cheating ultimately harms everyone, including oneself. Low-trust societies work differently. Trust is reserved for kin. Outsiders are assumed to cheat. In that environment, cheating is not necessarily immoral. It is often rational, expected, and even applauded.

Seen through this lens, both my experience in Somalia and the Minnesota scandal follow the same pattern. Institutions cooperated in good faith. Clan-based networks exploited that trust. Children and taxpayers paid the price.

Somalia represents the most destructive version of this equilibrium. When trust does not extend beyond blood ties, cooperation cannot scale. Investment dries up. Contracts mean little without enforcement beyond kinship. When everyone expects everyone else to cheat, no one can afford to cooperate.

In that context, Somalia’s ranking of 213th out of 215 countries in per-capita income is not shocking. It is almost inevitable. This is not an indictment of individual Somalis. We know that many, many Somalis live honest, productive lives, raise families, and contribute positively wherever they reside. Individuals can transcend the cultures they are born into. Social systems, however, change slowly and are likely to shape behavior.

Somalia sits at the end of a continuum, but the underlying dynamic is not unique to it. Whenever loyalty to the group eclipses loyalty to shared rules, corruption flourishes. The Minnesota scandal was not an aberration so much as a warning: When institutions assume trust without enforcing it, low-trust behavior fills the vacuum. Somalia shows what happens when that low-trust approach is entrenched.

Mitzi Perdue is a fellow at the Institute of World Politics and the co-founder of Mental Help Global, a philanthropy that uses AI to support mental health.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:45

Alberta Sees Large Turnout For Petition To Separate From Canada

Crowds of Canadian citizens stood in long lines across Alberta for hours this week to sign a petition for a referendum on leaving Canada - officially titled "A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence."  The petition requires at least 177,000 signatures in order to trigger the referendum, which would ultimately decide if the province will separate.

Petitions have 120 days to collect the signatures needed.  Pro-separation groups say they could get as many as 1 million signatures, which would be a clear indication that Alberta will leave Canada.  Alberta's population is currently 5 million people.

Some petition locations reported as many as 10,000 signatures in a day and the public response is described as "concerning" by critics who want to remain part of Canada's "constitutional monarchy."  Alberta is widely considered the most conservative province in the country and has been at odds with the far-left Canadian government (ruled by Ontario progressives). 

The referendum would mean a simply Yes/No question for voters on separation.  A majority (51% or more) would then lead to a legal process overseen by the Canadian federal government.  Come polls indicate that 60% of Albertan citizens are still opposed to the measure, however, the recent turnout for the petition suggests the tide is turning.  Recent conflicts with progressive elites in the Canadian government have driven Albertans to question their relationship. 

Alberta fought against the leftist government's pandemic lockdowns, church and business closures and draconian vaccination requirements.  They remain in opposition to Canada's new gun laws which are incrementally removing all firearms from private hands.  They have also been at odds with the federal government over resource development, energy policy, carbon taxation and economic marginalization. 

Essentially, Alberta is a different nation when compared to the Canadian norm.  It is also a commodity treasure trove that Canada exploits to feed its coffers while rarely giving anything back to provincial citizens. 

Wow, an absolute insane lineup of people - that goes entire city blocks - of people in Calgary waiting to sign a petition to make Alberta an independent sovereign nation. pic.twitter.com/HqB1xaJRs8

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 11, 2026

Canadian courts initially blocked a referendum question on separation, asserting that the implications of the question were too vague and did not align with constitutional requirements.  Instead of appealing the decision, Alberta turned to the legislature. Within days, the legislature passed Bill 14, amending the Referendum Act to remove the requirement that referendum questions align with the Constitution.  Separatists quickly got a revised referendum question approved, and the petition process resumed

Another obstacle to the separation is a lawsuit brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation goes far beyond provincial politics. The First Nation is seeking an urgent injunction to stop Alberta’s petition process.  They say a separation would be in violation of their original treaty with the Crown.  The claim sets up a possible loophole allowing the federal government to deny separation, but the notion that a Native treaty supersedes provincial law is rather thin.  Alberta's separation would simply mean that the Cree would have to negotiate a new treaty.

Arguments against the referendum say that Alberta is "landlocked", which would make its separation economically disastrous.  This is not entirely true.  Their shared border with the US and newfound sovereignty would allow the province to establish more significant oil pipelines (pipelines which the Canadian government has consistently blocked in the past).  This development along with greater resource exploration and an alliance with American interests would make Alberta one of the wealthiest regions in the western hemisphere.

Furthermore, Alberta stretches within 700 miles of the arctic, an area of the world which is quickly becoming central to geopolitics.  Early warning systems and NORAD bases in Alberta are integral to US security.  These bases could be shut down in the event that conflicts between Canada and the US escalate.  A free Alberta could become vital to US defense.

The debate over US ownership of Greenland is only one element of a larger global shift to the North.  Alberta's exit from Canada and potential alliance with the US could have vast implications for international relations.       

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:20

Under The Bus You Go, Kurds

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With the fighting continue to rage and north and northeast Syria between central government forces and the nation’s Kurdish minority, the US government appears to have decided that they are backing the former, and that US military support for the Syrian Kurds is over.

US envoy Tom Barrack declared the Kurds to have a "great opportunity" to be taken over by the Islamist central government of Syria, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He assured that the Kurds would definitely be offered "equal rights" under the law in this scenario.

AFP/Getty Images

In many ways, Barrack's comments were less about why they are no longer backing the Kurds than why they did in the past, saying at one point in the fight against ISIS, the US didn't consider the Assad government a "viable partner" so they backed the Kurds instead. Now, with the US seeing the HTS as aligned with their interest, that’s no longer the case, so they'll be backing the HTS instead.

Syrian Kurdish officials and locals have expressed disappointment with this turn of events, saying that after more than a decade of being aligned with the US they are being effectively "abandoned" at the exact moment the HTS has begun launching military offensives against Kurdish-controlled territory that the US helped the Kurds gain in the first place.

Though the US has broadly supported the Kurds through the Syrian proxy war and after, it has not been uniform. In 2019, Turkey launched an offensive against the Syrian Kurds and the Trump Administration at the time similarly (and controversially) withdrew backing for the Kurds, with President Trump famously claiming it was because he had just learned that the Kurds were not present at the Normandy Invasion during WW2.

This move may similarly be controversial, even if Normandy isn’t invoked as a justification this time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) had warned the HTS against continuing attacks on the Kurds and had warned that the US might reimpose sanctions against Syria if the attacks continued.

That position may have some support in the Senate, though it plainly does not within the White House, as President Trump has been loudly enamored with HTS leader and former al-Qaeda in Iraq figure Ahmed al-Sharaa, praising him as "young, attractive tough guy." When push came to shove, it was perhaps unsurprising that the administration chose Sharaa over the Kurds when the two sides were at odds.

The US has been expressing annoyance with the Kurds for not quietly submitting to Sharaa’s rule for months now, with Barrack, as the representative of the US Federal Government, declaring that they had learned "federalism doesn’t work" and that the Kurds should abandon any hope of autonomy within Syria.

Sharaa, for his part, has given the Kurds a four-day ultimatum to accept his terms for integration into the Syrian state. Since Sharaa had previously denied the Kurds a single spot in his cabinet and postponed parliamentary elections in Kurdish parts of the country, what if any representation that will actually entail remains unclear.

I am sorry to say I can confirm this https://t.co/1dP0yp2C1O

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

Whatever it is, however, the US clearly views it as sufficient.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:55

Justice Jackson Cites Racist 'Black Codes' As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” - a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms - could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026

Justice Jackson has never distinguished herself on the bench for her bright legal mind, but it was frankly remarkable to see her treating some of the most overtly racist laws in American history as potentially valid reference points for modern gun control. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:30

New Jersey Governor Orders State To Accelerate Solar, Storage And Virtual Power Plants

By Robert Walton of Utility Dive

On her first day in office Tuesday, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed executive orders seeking to freeze electricity cost increases, issue ratepayer relief in the form of bill credits, and increase distributed energy resources, including utility-scale solar and battery storage.

One order directed the state’s Board of Public Utilities to ensure bill credits by July 1 and to “consider pursuing a pause, abeyance, or modification of the schedule governing any proceedings in which electric distribution utilities seek approvals for rate increases or cost recoveries.” It also ordered the board to publish a study within 180 days of how to “modernize” the traditional electric utility business model, including opportunities to make utility revenue models “less dependent on capital spending.”

Another order focused on growing the state’s electricity supply and increasing efficiency. It directed regulators to initiate solicitations for solar and transmission-scale battery storage and to begin development of a virtual power plant program to be administered by electric distribution utilities and third-party suppliers in the state.

Sherrill, who made affordability and rising energy prices a focus of her campaign, said in her inaugural speech that the orders “will deliver relief to consumers and stop rate hikes.” 

“This will also create the conditions to massively expand New Jersey’s power generation, because more power in-state will help lower costs,” she said. 

Electric rates were a key issue in the governor’s race, particularly after bills spiked as much as 20% last year. Another increase is slated to go into effect this summer. The increases are a result of higher capacity prices in PJM’s recent auctions, which are held several years in advance and reflect both current and projected power demand. 

Residential bill credits will rely on the same or similar funding sources used in August 2025 to provide credits, according to Sherrill’s first executive order. Last year, the BPU said all 3.9 million New Jersey residential ratepayers of Public Service Electric and Gas, Atlantic City Electric, Jersey Central Power and Light, and Rockland Electric would receive $100 in direct bill assistance.

PSE&G emailed a statement responding to Sherrill’s orders, saying “steps must be taken to safeguard long-term energy reliability and cost effectiveness for residents as New Jersey relies on imported electricity for more than 40% of its power.”

“We are confident that open dialogue and information sharing will lead to workable solutions,” the utility said.

Grid advocates hailed the governor’s focus on developing new sources of energy.

“These executive orders are tackling peak demand, unlocking customer-sited resources, and speeding deployment of solar and storage,” Katie Mettle, New Jersey state lead at Advanced Energy United, said in a statement.

According to the second executive order, the BPU has 45 days to initiate a solicitation “for qualifying solar facilities or solar facilities in combination with storage” under the state’s Competitive Solar Incentive program. Within the same timeframe, the BPU must also open 3 GW of capacity for registration under New Jersey’s Community Solar Energy Program, “endeavoring to expedite the registration process by any necessary and appropriate means.”

Regulators must also accelerate the development of grid-scale storage through the Garden State Energy Storage Program by holding a solicitation within 45 days, launching Phase 2 of the program within 90 days, and “thereafter establishing a specific tranche of capacity for electric distribution utilities to develop to support interconnection of distributed energy resources and grid stability.”

And, within 180 days, the BPU must begin development of a virtual power plant program that aims “to drive down peak demand by aggregating behind-the-meter distributed energy resources.”

“Virtual power plants are a proven, cost-effective way to lower peak demand, improve reliability, and put downward pressure on energy bills,” AEU’s Mettle said.

Allison McLeod, interim executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, said the group was “particularly encouraged” by the actions aimed at solar and battery storage development.

“These are two of the fastest, most affordable tools we have to bring energy online and stabilize our grid,” McLeod said in a statement. “While taking some pragmatic steps to lower emissions and increase efficiencies in the near term with our existing fleet, New Jersey is continuing to lay the groundwork for a truly clean energy future.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:05

Second Biggest Australian Pension Fund Trimming US Dollar Exposure

It's not just the Danes who are virtue signaling their adherence to a dying globalist world order by loudly liquidating their tiny allocation of US Treasuries, which as Scott Bessent correctly pointed out they were already selling anyway and amount to a rounding error in terms of total US holdings...

When U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked how concerned he is about European investors pulling out of treasuries, Bessent said at a press conference at the World Economic Forum: “Denmark’s investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”… pic.twitter.com/CP7ULKtzps

— CNBC (@CNBC) January 21, 2026

... overnight Australia's second-biggest ​pension fund also said it is reducing its exposure to the US dollar through currency ‌hedging as falling interest rates and ongoing global volatility have investors around the world reassessing their U.S. allocations.

Andrew Fisher, Australian Retirement Trust's (ART) general manager of total portfolio management and resilience, told Reuters that the prospect of US rate cuts while some other major economies were expected to lift rates would weaken the dollar this ‌year. Financial markets have already priced in 50 basis points worth of interest rate ​by the Fed in 2026, whereas rates are expected to rise in Japan and Australia and remain steady in Europe.

ART has A$353 billion ($237.39 billion) of funds under management and is the second-largest fund in Australia's ‍A$4.5 trillion pension system, known as superannuation.

Fisher said while ART was not reducing its U.S stock holdings, it was increasing its currency hedging position to reduce exposure to a forecast weakening greenback.

"The U.S. dollar seems to be the ⁠one place where I think the U.S. administration is going to get what it wants, which ‍is a weaker dollar," Fisher told Reuters in an interview on Monday.

"They made it clear they want the dollar ‌to ‌weaken. It's hurting US competitiveness, and I think they're going to succeed."

Previously, almost all pension fund investors in U.S. equities would have very little currency hedging because the dollar was expected to rise on negative shocks.

A low-hedging strategy would insulate a fund because if the value of its U.S. stocks ⁠fell, it would be cushioned ⁠by the dollar also ​going down. ART holds about A$53 billion of U.S. stocks, according to the fund's figures.

"We're not going to change our allocation to U.S. equities, we're just going hedge more of the U.S. equities and unhedge more of the ‍other equities," Fisher said.

"Our Japanese exposure might be fully unhedged and our U.S. exposure might be much more hedged than it has been in the past to try and get that balance right," he said.

While the dollar traded ​near a six-week high last week, the currency has eased ‍this week against the safe-haven yen and Swiss franc after US President Donald Trump threatened additional tariffs on goods imported from European nations ​that oppose his planned takeover of Greenland.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:40

Waste Of The Day: Texas Southern Univ. Spending, Inventory In Shambles

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Texas Southern University has no idea where most of its inventory is located, ignored safeguards meant to prevent overspending, and reported inaccurate information to the Texas Comptroller, according to a state audit released Dec. 31. 

Key facts: University policy requires inventory to be physically counted every year, but a count has not happened since 2019, according to the audit.

Auditors randomly selected 60 pieces of property owned by TSU, and university employees were unable to locate 50 of them. 

Every piece of property must have a “custodian” responsible for its care. Half of the university’s property either had no custodian or had a custodian who no longer worked for TSU.

The university’s purchasing system was equally disastrous. Employees need signed approval before making purchases to ensure the school does not spend more than its budget allows. But auditors reviewed 60 random purchases and found that not a single one had approval.

Purchases over $25,000 must include a written contract, but 77% of a random sample of purchases had no contract. When contracts did exist, they could often only be located after “extensive research,” and 97% of them had incorrect information.

The school’s reported expenses were “significantly inflated” because school employees recorded many purchases twice in the university’s accounting software.

The university’s financial statements from 2023 and 2024 were completed months after the state deadline and contained “significant errors,” including misstating how much the school spent paying back bond debt.

In a written response, TSU President J.W. Crawford III agreed with all of the audit’s findings. 

Background: TSU is one of the nation’s largest public, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs. It received $111 million in state funding and $130 million in federal grants and contracts in fiscal year 2025. 

TSU had not been audited since 2006, according to Crawford.

Both the auditors and Crawford blamed some of the issues on staffing vacancies in warehouses and the Information Technology department.

Financial records support that claim. Payroll data obtained by Open the Books and university financial statements both show the school’s payroll expense decreased between 2019 and 2024 — a rarity for any college or public entity.  The nearby University of Texas at Austin, for example, increased its payroll by more than $500 million in the same timeframe.

Open the Books has not yet obtained Crawford’s salary. His predecessor, Lesia Crumpton-Young, made up to $434,000 in a single year.

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

Critical quote: “The results of the State Auditor’s report released today on Texas Southern University are beyond disturbing,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “The Governor, Speaker, and I have already taken action by putting a stop to any spending on any contracts other than ongoing university expenses to keep the school open. 

“It is my hope, for the sake of the students at the university, that TSU can continue. However, to do so, dramatic and permanent changes must occur immediately to comply with state standards.”

Patrick also directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate any potential criminal wrongdoing at TSU.

Summary: Any entity receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding should be able to track how the money is being spent.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:15

Operation Of Australia's Largest Coal Power Station Extended To 2029

Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The 2,880-megawatt Eraring coal-fired power station will continue to operate until 2029, operator Origin Energy has announced.

Eraring coal-fired power station, the largest in Australia, on the shores of Lake Macquarie southeast of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia. Nick Pitsas/CSIRO

The facility is the country’s largest power station by output and is situated on the banks of Lake Macquarie, north of Sydney in New South Wales (NSW).

In an announcement to the ASX (pdf), Origin said the move would reduce risks to system security, highlighted by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in its recent Transition Plan for System Security.

That report warned that, in NSW alternative energy assets required to “maintain system security are not currently scheduled to be operational before the announced retirement date of Eraring Power Station.”

“We’ve taken the decision to extend Eraring’s operations after assessing a range of factors, including the needs of our customers, market conditions and the important role the plant plays in the NSW energy system,” Origin CEO Frank Calabria said.

“Good progress has been made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure, including major transmission works and projects like our large-scale battery at Eraring, but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support [a] secure and stable power supply.”

The decision is aimed at providing more time for the delivery of renewables, storage, and transmission projects, he said. It also reflected uncertainty about the reliability of Australia’s ageing coal and gas fleet.

The company originally planned to close it in 2025, then extended it to August 2027 after the NSW Labor government struck a $450 million risk-sharing deal for the ageing facility, which committed the state to covering a percentage of losses up to $225 million per year if given advance notice by Origin.

About half of Australia’s national electricity grid is powered by black coal-fired power stations such as Eraring.

Government Welcomes Extension

The state’s Minister for Energy Penny Sharpe welcomed the announcement in a statement.

“My number one job is keeping the lights on and putting downward pressure on power prices. NSW is making real progress in replacing ageing coal-fired power stations. Since the election, we have increased the amount of renewable energy capacity in operation by almost 70 percent. That’s equivalent to Eraring’s capacity,” Sharpe said.

“Current energy security projections show NSW is expected to have sufficient energy supply when Eraring closes in 2029, thanks to new renewable generation and storage coming online.

“The agreement reached with Origin in 2024 gets the balance right and has so far not cost NSW taxpayers a single dollar.”

The guarantee is due to expire in August 2027.

Extending Eraring’s life is not expected to affect Origin’s 2030 emissions reduction targets or its long-term ambition to achieve net zero by 2050, the company said.

Beyond 2029, Eraring will remain a part of the National Electricity Market thanks to its battery, the first stage of which commenced commercial operation in 2025, with the final stages expected to come online in the first quarter of 2027. Once all stages are complete, the battery will deliver 700MW, providing an average storage capacity of 4.5 hours.

The power station first started operating in 1984, and Origin paid $75 million to take it over when it was privatised in 2013.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:25

Oklo Upgraded At BofA On Meta Deal

Bank of America upgraded Oklo from Neutral to Buy following Meta’s recent, massive nuclear deal. According to the BofA report (available to pro subs), Meta's agreement with the hyperscaler provides investors with “tangible evidence advanced nuclear is moving from concept to execution.”

Meta prepaid $25 million for Phase 1 of Oklo‘s nuclear campus construction in Ohio for approximately 150 MW of energy. The funding is expected to be used for fuel procurement, site preparation, and early development ahead of final PPAs.

With 16 reactors expected to come online between 2030 and 2036, this drives BofA’s 2036 targets to $5.9 billion in revenue (vs. $5.5 billion prior), 117 units (vs. 111 prior), and 6.7 GW deployed (vs. 6.3 GW prior), leading to a price target of $127, up from $111 prior.

BofA analyst Dimple Gosai, who covers US cleantech at the bank, highlights the sequencing of a ramp to 1.2 GW thanks to the Meta deal, which moves “Oklo‘s opportunity set from ‘conceptual’ to ‘actively financed’ development.”

The bank also expects longer-dated cashflow thanks to continued progress on fuel supply and licensing. Specifically for the Ohio nuclear campus, Phase 1 is projected at 150 MW from two reactors online in 2030/31, Phase 2 adding two more reactors in 2032/33, Phase 3 adding four reactors in 2033/34, and finally Phase 4 adding eight reactors in 2035/36.

BofA has yet to take into account any of the fuel recycling potential with regards to the mega-project announced for Tennessee. The campus in Tennessee is expected to include recycling and reprocessing facilities to convert used nuclear fuel from traditional reactors into fuel for Oklo‘s fast-spectrum Aurora reactors, as well as process plutonium for use in their Pluto reactor design. Pluto reactors are expected to be deployed at the recycling site in Tennessee as well.

Oklo also has multiple other projects, including the Air Force has in Alaska and likely many other hyperscaler deals on the horizon.

Not long ago, OpenAI boss Sam Altman left Oklo's board to preclude any conflicts of interest, hinting at a possible deal on the horizon with OpenAI.

The positive news still need to be counterbalanced with potential construction and operation headaches of these novel reactor designs. While it is not the first time the US has constructed sodium reactors, the time it takes to achieve operational proficiency and maintain availability greater than 90%, similar to the current commercial fleet, could take years or even decades.

More in the full note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:00

Fraud Is 'Fundamental' Part Of Child Transgender Medical Field

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

One of the architects of the Health and Human Services (HHS) review of medical interventions for pediatric gender dysphoria said in a recent interview that fraud is an integral part of the transgender medical field.

​Nearly a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to protect “children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” Leor Sapir, who assembled a team of experts to produce the HHS review, emphasized that doctors relying on unproven gender-affirming guidelines are misleading patients.

​Sapir, an HHS report author and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Epoch Times there is no solid evidence that puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery benefit children who reject their sexual identity, but that evidence exists that these procedures can cause harm.

​The 409-page HHS report states that psychotherapy, rather than unproven medical interventions, has greater benefits for children with gender dysphoria, reinforcing the need for evidence-based approaches.

​“Fraud is not just a feature, or, I should say, it’s not just something that happens in this field. It’s almost fundamental to the field itself,” Sapir said during an interview with American Thought Leader host Jan Jekielek that aired Jan. 15.

​Sapir said that doctors and organizations often rely on guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which he describes as an activist group that presents itself as a medical organization. The group is key in influencing current practice.

​WPATH doesn’t advocate for mental health assessments and helps make sure that the procedures are covered by insurance, he said.

​An Alabama lawsuit involving WPATH disclosed internal documents indicating that WPATH withheld negative findings about treatments for transitioning children, he added.

​Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, WPATH, and The Endocrine Society cite one another’s guidelines as evidence that the treatments are safe, he said.

​In part, support for medically transitioning children came about because it was framed as a civil rights matter, according to the report. Additionally, this led many in the medical community to neglect the evidence against it and to curtail debate.

​Medical organizations often formed specialized committees to recommend protocols for treating gender dysphoric children. For example, some committees focused on LGBT issues and, according to the report, members’ careers depend on supporting pediatric transitioning.

​The HHS report, titled “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” was originally released in May 2025. While it received many positive peer reviews in November 2025, it also received backlash from those supporting medical intervention for gender dysphoria.

​Sapir noted that the HHS review is unique because it is the first to address the ethics of medically transitioning children and to critique the language that inaccurately describes the procedures.

​“It seems so intuitively obvious that this is ultimately an ethical debate,” he said.

​Ethical considerations include an examination of the risks and benefits of treatment and the idea of patient autonomy, which allows the patient to choose whether to have a procedure.

​The report situates medical ethics within a historical context, referencing the Hippocratic Oath and the principle of “do no harm.”

​One potential harm is that children with gender dysphoria often later identify as gay, so they are disproportionately impacted by transitioning.

“We know, based on research, that a significant portion of these kids, if not socially and medically transitioned, will actually come out to be gay later on in life,” Sapir said.

Medical ethics has shifted toward informed consent, strengthening protections for patients against unwanted medical interventions. But the doctor still has an obligation to protect and promote patient health, especially when it comes to children, according to the HHS report.

​“Patients don’t get to demand treatments from doctors. Doctors have a professional, ethical obligation to only prescribe things that are more likely than not to benefit their patients and not likely to harm them,” Sapir said. ​“But in the context of gender medicine, the principle of autonomy has been reinterpreted to mean the doctors have to give patients what they want.”

​The very idea that children, some as young as 8 or 9, are mature enough to understand the consequences of puberty blockers and medical transition is called into question in the report. Medical providers “often fail” to inform patients that there’s no strong evidence that the procedures benefit those with gender dysphoria.

The report noted that language has “distorted the clinical picture” in pediatric gender medicine. Therefore, doctors should use language that is accurate and not misleading.

​Terms such as “gender-affirming care” were also called into question by the report. The procedure of removing breasts in physically healthy females is referred to in euphemisms such as “gender-affirming chest surgery” or “top surgery” rather than a mastectomy.

Likewise, phrases such as “sex assigned at birth” used in the industry imply that sex is determined subjectively rather than biologically.

“The American Psychological Association style guide, for example, classifies ‘birth sex’ and ‘natal sex’ as ‘disparaging terms’” because they imply that sex cannot be changed, according to the report.

​The test used to determine if a child is transgender is to ask the child, the report says. Children know who they are, according to advocates of the gender-affirmation model.

​“There is a conscious, deliberate, systemic effort in the field of pediatric gender medicine to treat children, even children who are not even in puberty, as if they’re mature adults,” Sapir said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:40

Trump Right About Arctic Security, NATO's Rutte Says

In what could have been the starting gun of Trump's de-escalation, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the US President was right about security in the Arctic.

“When it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right. Other leaders in NATO are right. We need to defend the Arctic,” the former Dutch prime minister said. “We know that the sea lanes are opening up.”

Rutte said that China and Russia were becoming increasingly active in the Arctic Circle, and acknowledged that this posed a problem for the alliance.

“There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are members of NATO. That’s Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, and the U.S.,” Rutte said.

“And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, and that’s Russia. And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right, we have to do more there, we have to protect the Arctic.”

Furthermore, as Guy Birchall reports for The Epoch Times, Rutte also praised Trump for upping the contributions from many NATO member states to the alliance’s budget.

“Do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain, Italy, and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2 percent in 2025 when they were only on 1.5 percent at the beginning of the year?” Rutte said.

“No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2 percent now.”

NATO's Rutte:

I know many of you criticize Trump. But do you really think that, without Trump, eight big economies in Europe—including Spain, Italy, and Belgium—and Canada would have reached the two-percent defense spending target in 2025?

At the beginning of the year, they… pic.twitter.com/KVmv0J6hXO

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 21, 2026

Rutte’s comments about NATO’s presence in the Arctic come as Trump’s stated ambition of annexing Greenland has driven a wedge between Washington and European allies.

Before departing for the summit, Trump expressed confidence that NATO and the United States would reach a deal on the Arctic island that benefits all parties.

“I think that we will work something out where NATO is going to be very happy and where we’re going to be very happy,” Trump said during a Jan. 20 White House press conference.

“We need it for national security and even world security. It’s very important.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance tour the U.S. military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on March 28, 2025. Jim Watson/AP

During his speech in Davos, the president ruled out taking the island by force but remained forthright in his insistence that the United States must acquire the territory.

“People thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said.

“We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. They have a choice: They can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.”

Trump also said that Denmark promised to spend “over $200 million to strengthen Greenland’s defenses” and that it has “spent less than 1 percent of that.”

He was referring to a 2019 commitment from the Danish government, made during his first presidency, when the idea of the United States taking control of the territory was first raised.

Copenhagen has not disputed that the implementation of that commitment has been slow.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:20

Source: Visual Capitalist

The post Countries With the Best Reputations in 2025 appeared first on The Big Picture.

Twice Bitten, Thrice Shy: What Oil Majors Want Before Betting On Venezuela A Third Time

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has encouraged American oil companies to reinvest $100 billion in Venezuela to spur energy production and to rescue Venezuelans from desperate poverty.

Oil companies, however, are taking stock of the decrepit state of Venezuela’s energy infrastructure after decades of communism, and seeing a number of critical impediments.

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure,” Trump stated in a Jan. 11 press conference following a meeting with top oil executives.

Venezuela has the world’s largest known oil reserves, estimated by rating agency S&P at 300 billion barrels, which are located in a region along the Orinoco River called the Orinoco Belt. At its peak—and with investment and expertise from oil majors including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Total, and Norway’s Statoil—Venezuela produced more than 3 million barrels per day and was America’s largest foreign supplier.

America’s gulf coast refineries were built to process the heavy sour crude from Venezuela, and they can refine it much more efficiently than the light crude produced from fracking. But trade with Venezuela slowed to a trickle after then-president Hugo Chavez seized the assets of western oil companies in 2007, leading to the imposition of U.S. sanctions. Since Venezuela’s wells and other equipment were nationalized, output collapsed by about 70 percent and is currently less than 1 million barrels per day, according to statistics website Worldometer.

Venezuela thus presents a massive opportunity for Western oil companies to rebuild what had once been a top global oil producer. But daunting problems remain.

“Commercially, the upside is long-life reserves, portfolio diversification, and service and infrastructure opportunities if the country becomes investable again,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told The Epoch Times.

“But the investment case only works if companies can actually control operations, get paid, and move barrels transparently—otherwise the ‘gain’ is trapped capital and political risk.”

Venezuela Currently ‘Uninvestable’

On Jan. 9, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods expressed little enthusiasm for an immediate return to Venezuela, stating in a meeting hosted by Trump at the White House that the country, in its current state, is “uninvestable.”

“We’ve had our assets seized there twice,” Woods said. “And so, you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen here and what is currently the state.”

In an aerial view, the Exxon Mobil Baytown Refinery is seen in Baytown, Texas, on Jan. 13, 2026. President Donald Trump has threatened to sideline Exxon Mobil from Venezuela's energy market after expressing that he "didn't like Exxon's response," while making a push for oil companies to begin investing there. Exxon remains interested and is prepared to send a team to assess the existing oil infrastructure. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Patrick Pouyanne, CEO of Total, likewise said that he would consider investing in Venezuela again at some point, but it is “not high on my agenda.”

Venezuela first expropriated the assets of western oil companies in the 1970s and again in 2007. By contrast to many governments in the Middle East and Africa that had done the same, Venezuela refused to compensate oil companies for their losses, leading the companies to sue and win in U.S. and international courts, claiming damages of around $60 billion.

Oil companies will likely want these claims to be paid before putting new money into Venezuela, but the country has little means to do so. Oil production has dwindled to less than 1 million barrels per day and, even at that level, still comprise about two-thirds of the government’s entire budget. China has replaced the United States as the top importer of Venezuelan oil, currently buying an estimated 80 percent of it, but at a discount.

And while Venezuela faces tens of billions of dollars in claims from western oil companies, it is now indebted to China as well. According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Chinese banks have at least $10 billion in outstanding loans to Venezuela.

Venezuelan Crude Expensive to Extract

Beyond these factors, there are also technical problems. Venezuela’s oil reserves, though abundant, are a particularly dense and sulfur-rich form of crude oil that requires a level of investment and expertise to extract and process that only the world’s largest companies can provide, experts say.

“Venezuela has very large reserves, but when we’re talking about the actual production of them, they’re very difficult to produce and very expensive to produce,” Kenny Stein, a policy expert at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Epoch Times.

Another issue for America’s oil companies is that the full extent of the damage to Venezuela’s infrastructure has yet to be assessed, and the cost of rebuilding it could go well beyond the $100 billion figure that has been estimated.

“The total investment required is not immediately clear, given the lack of transparency under the Chavez and Maduro regimes, but it is likely to be substantial and exceed initial estimates,” Ryan Yonk, senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times. “Rebuilding the oil infrastructure is likely to be a long-term project spanning multiple years and potentially decades, rather than the short-term expectations some hold for rapid development and immediate effect.”

Experts say that equipment located in Venezuela has not only been neglected but pilfered as well.

“The infrastructure, the wells, the pipelines, the entire oil industry in Venezuela has been really stripped down to the bone and is barely functional,” Stein said. In addition to theft by government officials, he said, “employees of the state oil company have been stealing copper from their facilities to sell to feed their families.”

Oil companies will likely want government co-investment in some form to help pay for the reconstruction, Yonk said.

Another issue when deciding whether to invest in Venezuela is that Western oil companies must weigh it against the alternatives.

“They could go to Brazil or Guyana, or places in the United States, that are all less expensive to produce,” Stein said. “There would be faster production, they’re not as volatile, and you’re not as much at risk of losing everything.”

Aerial view of an oil well in eastern Monagas, in Maturin, Venezuela, on Feb. 13, 1998. Bertrand Parres/AFP via Getty Images

What It Will Take

For all these reasons, it will take significant changes for Venezuela to attract capital again, experts say.

“U.S. companies will not commit serious capital to Venezuela without a credible reset on rule of law,” Isaac said. “That means binding contract protections, enforceable dispute resolution, and a settlement framework for legacy expropriation and unpaid joint-venture debts.”

Oil companies will likely seek guarantees from the U.S. government that oil sanctions will not be reimposed, that whatever agreements they enter into will be honored, and that they can operate safely and repatriate whatever profits they may earn, he said.

“Without those conditions, any U.S. presence will stay limited to short-cycle, low-exposure activity,” Isaac said.

Exxon Mobil’s CEO stated that he is willing to take initial steps to help with Venezuela’s reconstruction “while these longer‑term issues are being worked.”

“We haven’t been in the country for almost 20 years,” Woods stated. “We think it’s absolutely critical in the short term that we get a technical team in place to assess the current state of the industry and the assets to understand what would be involved to help the people of Venezuela get production back on the market.”

If Exxon is invited by the Venezuelan regime and has security guarantees from the Trump administration, Woods said he is “ready to put a team on the ground.”

Chevron is the only U.S. oil major currently operating Venezuela, producing about 240,000 barrels per day in a joint venture with PDVSA, the country’s state-owned oil monopoly, though experts say much of that effort is simply to preserve the assets they already have in the Orinoco Belt.

“Chevron’s has continued to operate there, but basically doing the bare minimum to keep their wells from being ‘bricked,’” Stein said. “Because of the thickness and tar-like state of the oil, if you don’t keep it continually maintained and flowing at a minimum level, the well will be destroyed.”

Nonetheless, Chevron’s vice chairman Mark Nelson told Trump on Jan. 9 that he believed they could double their output in Venezuela immediately.

An incremental increase in Venezuela’s oil production is more likely than a rapid return to pre-Chavez levels, Isaac said, predicting that the country could reach approximately 1.3 million barrels per day within a couple years, and perhaps 2 million barrels per day within a decade.

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on Jan. 9, 2026. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Strategic and Economic Goals

Despite the hesitancy of oil majors to commit significant capital to Venezuela at this point, the Trump administration has stated its strategic interest in preventing China and other U.S. adversaries from stepping into the void.

During an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Venezuela had become “a crossroads for the activities of all of our adversaries around the world.”

For Venezuelans, however, the riches of oil have been both a blessing and a curse.

Calling Venezuela “a case study in the perils of becoming a petrostate,” a 2018 study by the Council on Foreign Relations stated that “since it was discovered in the country in the 1920s, oil has taken Venezuela on an exhilarating but dangerous boom-and-bust ride that offers lessons for other resource-rich states.”

In what has been called “Dutch disease,” developing countries that suddenly get rich from the discovery of natural resources develop a singular dependence on those resources, leaving other sectors of the economy to languish while government corruption and theft proliferate, with little of the wealth ultimately going to benefit the citizens at large.

For this reason, some analysts say that the best solution for Venezuela is to establish a system of free markets, democratic traditions, stability, and the rule of law, similar to what Poland and Chile have done since emerging from authoritarian regimes. Key elements of Poland’s reforms included a legal system that protected property rights, political stability under a democratic system, privatization of state-owned companies, a stable currency, and a tax regime that allowed investors to earn a decent return.

“Under the ‘warm embrace of communism,’ [Poland] was an economic basket case,” the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a nonprofit founded by free-market economists Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore, stated in an op-ed.

Having embraced democracy and free markets, Poland recently achieved GDP growth rates of about 4 percent per year, and is predicted to overtake the UK in GDP-per-capita by the end of this decade, they said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:00

The Quiet Spread Of AI-Generated 'Brainrot' Across Social Media

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Elephants drop-kicking crocodiles while breaking the laws of physics, bewildering deepfakes of politicians and deceased public figures, and seemingly animated children’s videos of Jesus fighting the Grinch: generative artificial intelligence (AI) is sweeping across online video platforms and may now account for a sizable portion of YouTube’s short-form video feed, recent research shows.

After being accused last year of causing users to end up in psychiatric wards and allegedly helping multiple depressed teenagers take their own lives, generative AI tools are also inspiring new genres of online content.

AI-generated images and clips were found in 21 percent of the 500 short-form videos screened in a study released last November by the video editing software company Kapwing, with some of the channels analyzed amassing millions of subscribers and billions of views.

Some, such as India-based channel Bandar Apna Dost, were estimated to generate millions of dollars in YouTube ad revenue annually. These channels are found worldwide, with those based in Spain and South Korea garnering the “most devoted viewerships,” according to the study.

“Generative AI tools have dramatically lowered the barrier to entry for video production,” Rohini Lakshané, an interdisciplinary technology researcher, told The Epoch Times.

“So, the channel can churn out massive amounts of content and maintain a high frequency of posting. Channels using these methods can flood recommendation feeds simply by volume, irrespective of intrinsic quality.”

Here’s what we know about “brainrot” and “AI slop,” what’s at stake for viewers and content creators, and why you might want to pay closer attention when browsing social media.

‘Brainrot’ and ‘AI Slop’

Kapwing determined that 33 percent of the videos it screened after creating a new account on YouTube appeared to have the hallmarks of “brainrot” content, which Oxford defines as “trivial or unchallenging” and considered to deteriorate a “person’s mental or intellectual state.”

Existing long before the advent of generative AI, “brainrot” includes memes, humor, nonsensical skits, videos of children or animals engaging in “silly” actions or behaviors, and other forms of content that minimally engage users intellectually or convey little or no meaning beyond randomness or absurdity.

Combining generative AI with “brainrot” characteristics gives rise to the emerging genre many refer to as “AI slop,” which Kapwing defines as “careless, low-quality content” generated with AI tools that is intended to “farm views and subscriptions or sway political content.”

By its definition, what content may be considered as “brainrot” or “low-quality” can vary from person to person. For example, one person might describe all short-form “comedy” videos as “brainrot,” while another might find them genuinely entertaining and choose a different label.

The same may be said about “AI slop,” as some content creators, such as Montreat College language professor T. Michael Halcomb, use generative AI tools as an extension of their own academic work.

Halcomb, who also parodies “AI slop” and “brainrot” with his student-led comedy club, told The Epoch Times that he uses AI tools to make short-form videos based on posts he writes on his blog, deploying the technology to create video clips, clone his voice for narration purposes, and generate text on the screen.

There’s a lot of overlap between users that maintain a human element while taking advantage of AI tools and those merely using AI to create what others would refer to as “slop” or mass-produced content aimed at farming views, he said.

“I do think the human element isn’t completely gone. It just allows humans to speed up things,” Halcomb said, adding that even some of the so-called “AI slop” channels such as Spain’s “Imperio de jesus,” which features AI-generated animations of Jesus fighting Satan and the Grinch, play into “shock humor” and absurdism—driving curiosity among viewers.

There’s also a “lore” element to many of these videos, as the channel above has repeated story tropes that build on previous videos, which Halcomb compared to “inside jokes” in comedy, allowing one video to lead to another, and so on.

Looking at the Bandar Apna Dost channel, which, according to its creators, features a “realistic monkey in hilarious, dramatic, and heart-touching human-style situations,” the videos utilize AI for everything from their visuals to background audio.

The videos are popular, Lakshané says, because they mimic scenes from popular Indian films and display “the trope of a hypermasculine male protagonist who commits illegal or abusive acts or commits superhuman feats, and, at times, has an outlandish amount of social or political power.”

“The videos in the channel are disjointed and do not follow a storyline or narrative. No prerequisite knowledge or context is required to watch the short videos. There are characters, such as one with a likeness of the Incredible Hulk—named Hulku—which gives the videos an appeal and broad demographic reach,” she said.

Other channels may use less overt AI, or AI harder to detect for some viewers, like a video found by The Epoch Times, which “looks” like a real safari video of an elephant protecting another from a crocodile.

But once viewers see the second elephant drop kick the crocodile more than 30 feet in a way that breaks the laws of physics, it becomes much clearer that the video was made with AI, even though its creator seemingly went to great lengths to make sure the OpenAI-made tool Sora’s watermark only appears on a single frame—three seconds in—on the eight-second video.

A screen displays examples of AI prompt-created videos, made with Xai’s Grok app in London on Jan. 12, 2026. Leon Neal/Getty Images

Risks of AI-Generated Videos

As with the example above, many AI videos are intentionally generated to look as lifelike as possible, which increases the risk of deception and misinformation online, some organizations say.

AARP, a nonprofit and advocacy group for Americans aged 50 and older, warned last month that “AI slop” videos are making it increasingly difficult for some users to “detect what is real.”

The organization noted ChatGPT creator OpenAI’s decision in October 2025 to block “disrespectful” AI-generated “deepfake” videos depicting the likeness of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in its Sora 2 video creation app.

Quickly generated “AI slop” deepfake videos also permeated online platforms throughout the 2024 presidential election, and the Brennan Center for Justice warned last March that AI videos could have serious impacts on future voting cycles.

Science researchers are worried this phenomenon may creep into medical information and educational videos, where there are “specific hazards to learning from purportedly educational videos made by AI without the use of human discretion,” according to a study released by the National Library of Medicine in November 2025.

That study screened 1,082 online videos in the “preclinical biomedical sciences” educational category and found that 5.3 percent appeared to be “AI-generated and low quality,” suggesting the technology is still in slow adoption among online medical information content, but that its proliferation may be slowly increasing.

Even in the absence of misinformation, the “AI slop” videos that are sweeping across YouTube and TikTok have psychological impacts on users, Jeff Burningham, a tech industry venture capitalist and author of “The Last Book Written by a Human: Becoming Wise in the Age of AI,” told The Epoch Times.

“I think it’s pretty probably self-evident as to why it’s becoming popular, and it’s not something that I or we as a collective society should be proud of,” he said.

“It preys on kind of our most base desires. And I think it’s an indication of dopamine over discernment … [and] engagement over insight.”

Burningham says in his book that the real danger with AI isn’t necessarily the technology itself, but the “atrophy of human attention and awareness.”

A woman holds a phone displaying the Youtube app, in this file photo, on Aug. 11, 2024. Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

Results of Experiment

The Epoch Times created a new YouTube account using a new email address on a private web browser to prevent previous browser cookies from impacting the type or genre of videos first seen.

We then analyzed the first 300 short-form videos shown on YouTube after initially logging into the account and found that the vast majority—88 percent—had the characteristics of “brainrot,” with little or no meaning beyond the absurd, random, or attention-grabbing.

However, some of these videos fell into gray areas, particularly within the amorphous “comedy” genre, making it difficult to pin down exactly how many would fit the “brainrot” category, which Halcomb says is largely subjective.

In our analysis, only 8 percent of the first 300 videos seen on the new YouTube account appeared to be AI-generated, with some using AI-images, while others—like the elephant video and another that features a woman hiding in her car’s hatchback to escape a horde of wolves trying to attack her—appear to be fully AI-generated video clips.

We did not see videos from any of the channels mentioned in Kapwing’s study under its “Most Subscribed AI Slop YouTube Channels,” which may come down to location or other variables, particularly if previous browser cookies can influence which videos a new account sees on the platform.

Another possibility is that AI slop, even though it’s increasingly growing in popularity, is simply not yet outpacing the other forms of so-called “brainrot” that The Epoch Times did see in its experiment: meme videos, people performing skits in front of their cameras, and bizarre attempts at comedy that are otherwise filmed and edited by real people.

Even if AI-generated content explodes in prevalence as some predict, its rise may not be as apocalyptic as some fear as long as humanity can face this existential reckoning moment as an opportunity to evolve, Burningham said, describing AI technology as a “cosmic mirror to humanity.”

“A reflection can be a powerful thing, because you see yourself a little more clearly, and with that, you know additional clarity—you’re able to pivot or change. Now, will humans do this? I don’t know,” he said.

“It’s hard to be optimistic, but this is the opportunity that I think that AI allows us. These things thrive because right now, attention is cheap and it’s fragmented in a million different ways, and we’re exhausted. But my fear, obviously, and I think the danger of AI slop is when attention collapses, so does wisdom, so does memory, and so does meaning, and that’s a scary place for humanity.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 16:20

Pope Leo Evaluating US Invitation To Join Trump's Gaza Board Of Peace

Pope Leo XIV has been invited to join President Donald Trump’s "Board of Peace," according to a fresh Wednesday statement from the Vatican’s secretary of state. "We’ve also received this invitation and the pope received it and we are looking at what to do. We are researching and I believe it’s a question that demands a little time to be considered in order to give a response," the Vatican’s number two, Pietro Parolin, told journalists at an event in Rome.

So neither a yes or no has yet been given in response. The Vatican had throughout the 2-year long Gaza war constantly spotlighted the issue and called for immediate peace. But the Vatican could actually be "considering" the invitation.

via Associated Press

Leo has also been outspoken on the protection of Palestinian Christians, also after his predecessor Francis was known to phone Gaza City's lone Catholic Church each night in solidarity, when the strip was under constant bombardment from Israeli forces.

As the first American pope, he carried on Francis' theme of standing up for the downtrodden, and his very first Christmas sermon stated that God ​had "pitched his fragile tent" among the people of the world. "How, then, ‍can we not think of the tents in Gaza, exposed for weeks to rain, wind and cold?" he posed.

However, Leo has generally been less 'political' and more diplomatic than his predecessor. 

But this doesn't mean his American cardinals have been quiet on world events. According to The Washington Post this week:

Echoing concerns of Pope Leo XIV over a new era of unilateralism and warfare, the three highest-ranking U.S. Catholic archbishops on Monday said “the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world” has been thrown into question by a resurgence in the use or threat of military force, including in Venezuela and Greenland.

The archbishops, Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of D.C. and Joseph Tobin of Newark, in a statement released Monday, amplified comments by Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, who earlier this month lamented the demise of multilateralism.

“In 2026 the United States has entered into the most profound and searing debate about the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world since the end of the Cold War,” the archbishops wrote. “The events in Venezuela, Ukraine and Greenland have raised basic questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace.”

There are reports that some US Roman Catholic bishops have even said Catholic servicemembers could conscientiously object to carrying out orders to invade or occupy Greenland.

As for the Gaza board, invitations have been sent to a broad group of countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, including US allies and key regional players. Already, countries and leaders as different and geographically distant as Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Vietnamese Communist Party chief To Lam have accepted their invitations. Putin has also been invited.

It is shaping up to be a 'mini UN' of sorts, as the peace board plan calls for an international council to manage reconstruction financing, security coordination, and political cooperation in Gaza - all while working in cooperation with a Palestinian technocratic administration.

Yet there are other peculiar aspects. For example Bloomberg recently reported that the Trump administration is asking nations interested in holding a permanent seat on a proposed Gaza Strip "Board of Peace" to pledge at least $1 billion in funding. Otherwise they will just hold a three-year seat, according to some initial details. Would the Vatican contemplate this?

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 15:40

Watch Live: President Trump's (Delayed) Interview With CNBC's Joe Kernen

President Trump will sit down for an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.

Earlier, Trump gave a speech at the World Economic Forum where he touted the strength of the U.S. economy and criticized Europe, saying it "is not heading in the right direction."

Trump also doubled down on his desire to take control of mineral-rich Greenland, but said he wouldn’t use force to achieve this goal.

“People thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said in the highly anticipated address to the WEF.

The question is - will Trump refocus his attention on domestic matters - affordability - or keep going on the earlier more interventionist speech.

This will also be the first opportunity for President Trump to respond to the EU's decision to freeze the trade deal with the US... and unleash their ACI.

Watch live (due to start at 1300ET delayed start to 1400ET):

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 15:10

US Slaps Down French Calls For NATO Drills In Greenland, Mocks Macron

Among the big and more notable quotes to come out of President Trump's Davos address is his statement that he "won't use force" to take over Greenland while calling for "immediate negotiations" to discuss the "acquisition" of the Arctic territory by the United States from Denmark.

"This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America," Trump said before the World Economic Forum. Still, he asserted "That's our territory." He added: "The fact is, no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States. We're a great power, much greater than people even understand. I think they found that out two weeks ago in Venezuela."

via Reuters/India Today

Denmark has greeted the part of Trump's remarks wherein he said he won't use military force as "positive". Leading European powers are still trying their best to flex their might, however.

As French President Emmanuel Macron addressed the summit, donning his aviator shades, he called on NATO allies to conduct a military exercise in Greenland amid Trump's bellicose rhetoric related to potentially seizing the Danish territory..

"France calls for a NATO exercise in Greenland and is ready to contribute to it," Macron's office confirmed Wednesday just ahead of Trump's arrival and speech in Switzerland. 

It remains unclear whether Macron also has US military participation in mind, or whether this would be a purely European NATO thing. Since near the beginning of Trump's recently ramping up his rhetoric over Greenland, shortly on the heels of the Venezuela operation to overthrow Maduro, the Europeans have pursued an alternative strategy to divert Trump into assisting with joint Arctic monitoring. 

He's complained of inroads in the resource-rich region by Russian and China, and so Europe is seeking to satisfy Trump's call for Greenland to be a secure American outpost. EU leaders then hope he would eventually give up the idea of owning Greenland.

But Washington is seeing through this, with top US officials quickly pushing back against the idea of NATO drills there. Speaking on the sidelines of the WEF, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took a swipe at Macron:

He described as “inflammatory” statements on Tuesday by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who said Europe preferred “respect to bullies” and “the rule of law to brutality”, and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who promised an “unflinching” tariff response.

“If this is all President Macron has to do when the French budget is in shambles, I would suggest he focuses on other things for the French people,” Bessent said. He urged leaders in Davos not to show “reflexive anger” and “bitterness”.

Already France along with a handful of other EU nations has dispatched a small military contingent to Greenland and has plans to send more sea, air and land forces. Even Canada is said to be mulling some kind of troop deployment.

The bus “Greenland Excursions” taking the handful of European troops we sent for Arctic Endurance NATO drill is somewhat emblematic of the whole situation. pic.twitter.com/rsOQ398ua8

— Zeitgeist Explorer⚡ (@ZeitgeistExplo1) January 15, 2026

As for the NATO secretary-general, the alliance's chief Mark Rutte kicked off the week by telling reporters that he does "not at all" see NATO as in crisis, brushing off much of the escalating Greenland back-and-forth.

"I think we are really working in the right direction," Rutte said - but we can imagine Putin and Kremlin officials are currently kicking back to enjoy the popcorn and the show, also as the Ukraine war has momentarily taken a back seat among Western officials.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 15:00