Canada Is Building The Wrong Army For The War That Is Coming

Authored by Andrew Latham via RealClearDefense,

The next major land war will not reward elegance, boutique modernization, or the comforting belief that advanced technology can replace mass and endurance. It will expose armies built on fragile assumptions. Concealment has largely disappeared. Attrition has returned as a central fact of combat. Sustainment shapes outcomes as decisively as firepower. Yet the Canadian Army remains organized, equipped, and intellectually anchored to a vision of warfare that belonged to yesterday’s world. The problem is not a simple modernization lag or a lack of new kit. It is a deeper conceptual failure—a refusal to absorb how radically and irreversibly the character of land warfare has changed.

That is the larger point. The key change is not this or that technology. The battlespace itself has changed. Artificial intelligence, proliferated drones, commercial satellites, autonomous strike systems, and persistent ISR have combined into a transparent, data-rich battlespace where everyone is on the move, movement is tracked instantly, concentrations are targeted rapidly, and supply lines are targeted as soon as they begin to form—an environment already documented in assessments of modern conflict. An army that cannot scatter, regenerate while under fire, and sustain itself while under persistent observation is not going to muddle through. It is going to break.

Transparency and the End of Concealment

Western armies have operated on the assumptions of concealment and intermittent detection for a generation. Those assumptions are no longer valid. The contemporary battlespace is full of aerial surveillance, open-source commercial satellite imagery, digital emissions that reveal every vehicle and headquarters location, and loitering munitions that make ground above those locations perpetually contested—patterns captured in recent operational analyses.

The issue is time: the time between being discovered and being targeted. The time between when a headquarters can command and when it becomes a targeting point. The time between declaring a movement and becoming a target.

Survival requires dispersion, deception, mobility, and an entire operating paradigm built on the idea that you are observed all the time. The Canadian Army knows about the emergence of drones, ISR, and digital exposure, but it has not yet internalized the ways that they change land warfare’s fundamentals.

Attrition Has Returned—and Canada Is Not Ready

Precision fires promised surgical, inexpensive war. In reality, they have intensified attrition: the ability to strike targets more often, more reliably, and more predictably. Ukraine has demonstrated the scale of this shift: modern war is industrial, not surgical. It consumes people, equipment, ammunition, drones, and spare parts at rates far beyond what most Western forces planned for in peacetime, as shown by studies of wartime industrial demand.

The Canadian Army is not designed for this reality. It is small and brittle. It is optimized for controlled, expeditionary contributions, not for open-ended, high-intensity conflict. Ammunition stocks are low. Maintenance capacity is thin. Replacement cycles are slow. Mobilization—across industry, reserve forces, and training pipelines—is largely theoretical, even as official modernization documents highlight the fragility of the current model.

You can have a small and lethal army if it is small and lethal through design and deliberate choice. You cannot have a small, hollow, and unprepared army if it has to fight for extended periods. In an attritional war, those features are decisive.

Sustainment as a Front-Line Fight

The rise of long-range strike, drones, and cyber means that the old rear area is no more. Supply lines are now a front-line fight from start to finish. Supply depots, railheads, ports, repair facilities, and fuel infrastructure are all high-priority targets. If an enemy cannot stop forward brigades, it will attempt to starve them. Analyses of modern logistics under fire emphasize that industrial capacity and resilient supply networks—not efficiency—determine strategic endurance.

An army for the future must be able to fight under conditions of intermittent resupply, contested and damaged infrastructure, disrupted and overloaded communications, and near-constant threats to supply lines. Planning and organization must prioritize resilience, redundancy, and regeneration rather than peacetime efficiency and timeliness.

The Canadian Army still plans as if reliable resupply were a given and rear areas could stay intact. The moment a capable adversary enters the fight, those assumptions are shattered.

Dispersion, Autonomy, and Command Under Fire

Land warfare favors armies that can fight dispersed but connected, decentralized but coordinated. Small units must be able to operate at will even when isolated or cut off. Junior leaders must be able to act without micromanagement. Commanders must know their communications will be lost and they must be able to exercise control while that loss is happening. Contemporary doctrinal analysis underscores exactly this requirement for decentralized command in contested environments.

This is a question of more than new radios or drones. It is also a cultural issue. The instinct for centralization, risk aversion, and procedural control stems from the experience of peacekeeping and counterinsurgency missions, not from the needs of a high-tech, fully contested battlespace.

The institutional habits and instincts of the Canadian Army are still oriented to a previous world. It is those habits that will be unprepared when the next world comes.

The Arctic and Continental Reality

Canada’s geography adds to the problem. The Arctic is no longer a distant, largely theoretical frontier. It is now a theatre of competition defined by opposing surveillance architectures, long-range strike systems, and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities—conditions mapped in recent assessments of Arctic security. Continental defense is no longer just about aerospace warning. It is also about protecting energy networks, ports, radar sites, satellite uplinks, and the digital infrastructure that underpins modern life, as reflected in NATO’s forward defense posture.

A land force built for small contributions overseas cannot do all that. Canada needs an army that is also oriented toward persistent continental defense, NATO high-intensity operations, and hybrid resiliency. Canada does not have that. Instead, it has something far smaller and far less capable—an assessment echoed in recent readiness evaluations.

Radical Redesign, Not Cautious Incrementalism

Add drones, experiment with AI tools, rewrite doctrine. It is the typical Ottawa response to a problem of this nature. It is also not remotely enough. This is a structural problem, not a superficial one. Canada faces a conceptual failure, not a cosmetic one. A conceptual failure cannot be solved by bolt-on solutions.

What is needed is redesign. Force structure, reserves, sustainment, mobilization, training, and even strategic purpose must be rethought. This means jettisoning some assumptions that have been bedrock in Canadian defence since the Kosovo and Afghanistan era. It also means facing political realities about cost, scale, and what it is to be a responsible nation in this new moment. Emerging analysis of “hiding vs. finding,” sensor-shooter compression, and mass-versus-quality dynamics illustrates how unforgiving the next battlespace will be.

Optimism that everything is fine is a costly illusion. The faster you are wrong, the greater the cost.

The Cost of Illusion

The transformation of land warfare is happening before our eyes, under real fire. Armies that adapt late lose deterrence, relevancy, and influence. Canada does not need the biggest army in NATO. It needs an army designed for the realities of transparent, attritional, technologically saturated land warfare where endurance—not elegance—is the definition of combat power, themes reinforced in the latest assessments of the future competitive security environment.

Steel will matter. Silicon will matter. But none of it will matter until Canada has rethought how it prepares for land war – and makes the necessary changes. Waiting until events force that remaking is asking for a much harder reckoning in far worse circumstances down the road.

Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 16:05

Russia Captures Another Ukrainian Town While Zelensky Still Insists On Altering Trump Peace Plan

Russian forces continue their steady battlefield gains this week, but Kiev is still seeking to grasp at establishing some sort of leverage at the negotiating table, as the Trump peace plan is still being pushed in back-and-forth US dialogue with Moscow representatives. 

Over the past some 24 hours, Russian troops have captured the settlement of Zarechnoye in the southeast Zaporozhye Region, according to the defense ministry (MoD). "Battlegroup East units kept advancing deep into the enemy’s defenses and liberated the settlement of Zarechnoye in the Zaporozhye Region," the MoD said Wednesday according to TASS.

via Reuters

The military further issued a grim figure, claiming that the Ukrainian army lost over 1,400 troops in a single day across all front line areas. Additional armor and combat vehicles were also reportedly destroyed.

After weeks ago Ukraine finally lost the strategic logistics hub of Pokrovsk, it's been setback after setback for Kiev from there. The pace of Russia's advance has only steadily increased. Reuters conveys Ukraine's response, which seeks to frame it as a strategic retreat:

Ukrainian forces have pulled out of the embattled eastern town of Siversk, Kyiv's military said on Tuesday, as Russian troops wage a battlefield offensive aimed at threatening key cities critical to Ukraine's defences in the east. Sloviansk is a northern anchor of the so-called "fortress belt" of cities in Ukraine's heavily industrialised Donbas region, which Russia has demanded Kyiv cede before it ends its war.
"The invaders were able to advance due to a significant numerical advantage and constant pressure from small assault groups in difficult weather conditions," Ukraine's General Staff said in a statement.
It said it had withdrawn soldiers to preserve lives and resources, adding that they had, however, inflicted heavy losses on the enemy.

And yet, President Volodymyr Zelensky is still pressing for a fresh meeting with President Donald Trump to discuss "sensitive issues" - given Washington and Moscow seem closer than ever to reaching common understanding on the peace deal, after the Miami meetings.

Zelensky has laid out that territorial control of Ukraine's eastern industrial heartland remains unresolved. The US plan hinges on Ukraine giving up territory, specifically in the east where its forces are clearly on the backfoot.

"We are ready for a meeting with the United States at the leaders’ level to address sensitive issues. Matters such as territorial questions must be discussed at the leaders' level," said Zelensky in comments released by his office on Wednesday.

Russia is currently reviewing the latest draft from the US side, after marathon talks in Florida, and a response is soon expected from President Putin.

Below is how Russian media presents Ukraine's current attempts to modify the Trump plan, providing insights into the main disagreements:

Zelensky disclosed the details during a briefing with journalists on Wednesday, claiming the draft largely reflects a joint Ukrainian-American position, while several key issues remain unresolved.

Among the most contentious provisions is the proposal regarding the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which is currently fully controlled by Russian forces. Kiev wants the plant to be jointly operated by Ukraine and the US on a 50-50 basis instead of Washington’s proposed trilateral management involving Russia.

The territorial issue, described as the most difficult, would also place the burden of concessions on Russia despite its vast military gains. One option outlined in the plan would require Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine’s Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Sumy, and Nikolayev regions, while freezing the conflict along current front lines in Russia’s Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions. 

And there's also this point of contention, per the same report: "Provisions previously linked to Russian language rights and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have been replaced with broadly worded commitments to educational programs promoting tolerance and anti-racism."

Kiev still insists on a mere freezing of the front lines, and not a permanent political settlement of the eastern territories' status. Zelensky has proposed that troops "remain where we are".

The Kremlin's demands for territory actually includes areas where some Ukrainian forces are still present. Putin has warned that this either gets settled at the negotiating table or on the battlefield, and has rejected any short-term 'freeze' which won't ultimately solve the crisis.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 15:30

How The Soviets Replaced Christmas With A Socialist Winter Holiday

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Leftist revolutionaries have long been in the habit of reworking the calendar so as to make it easier to force the population into new habits and new ways of life better suited to the revolutionaries themselves.

The French revolutionaries famously abolished the usual calendar, replacing it with a ten-day week system with three weeks in each month. The months were all renamed. Christian feast days and holidays were replaced with commemorations of plants like turnips and cauliflower.

The Soviet communists attempted major reforms to the calendar themselves. Among these was the abolition of the traditional week with its Sundays off and predictable seven-day cycles.

That experiment ultimately failed, but the Soviets did succeed in eradicating many Christian traditional holidays in a country that had been for centuries influenced by popular adherence to the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion.

Once the communists took control of the Russian state, the usual calendar of religious holidays was naturally abolished. Easter was outlawed, and during the years when weekends were removed, Easter was especially difficult to celebrate, even privately.

But perhaps the most difficult religious holiday to suppress was Christmas, and much of this is evidenced in the fact that Christmas wasn’t so much abolished as replaced by a secular version with similar rituals.

Emily Tamkin writes at Foreign Policy:

Initially, the Soviets tried to replace Christmas with a more appropriate komsomol (youth communist league) related holiday, but, shockingly, this did not take. And by 1928 they had banned Christmas entirely, and Dec. 25 was a normal working day.

Then, in 1935, Josef Stalin decided, between the great famine and the Great Terror, to return a celebratory tree to Soviet children. But Soviet leaders linked the tree not to religious Christmas celebrations, but to a secular new year, which, future-oriented as it was, matched up nicely with Soviet ideology.

Ded Moroz [a Santa Claus-like figure] was brought back. He found a snow maid from folktales to provide his lovely assistant, Snegurochka. The blue, seven-pointed star that sat atop the imperial trees was replaced with a red, five-pointed star, like the one on Soviet insignia. It became a civic, celebratory holiday, one that was ritually emphasized by the ticking of the clock, champagne, the hymn of the Soviet Union, the exchange of gifts, and big parties.

In the context of these celebrations, the word “Christmas” was replaced by “winter.” According to a Congressional report from 1965,

The fight against the Christian religion, which is regarded as a remnant of the bourgeois past, is one of the main aspects of the struggle to mold the new “Communist man.” … the Christmas Tree has been officially abolished, Father Christmas has become Father Frost, the Christmas Tree has become the Winter Tree, the Christmas Holiday the Winter Holiday. Civil-naming ceremonies are substituted for christening and confirmation, so far without much success.

It is perhaps significant that Stalin found the Santa Claus aspect of Christmas worth preserving, and Stalin apparently calculated that a father figure bearing gifts might be useful after all.

According to a 1949 article in The Virginia Advocate,

at children’s gatherings in the holiday season … grandfather frost lectures on good Communist behavior. He customarily ends his talk with the question “to whom do we owe all the good things in our socialist society?” To which, it is said, the children chorus the reply, ‘Stalin.’

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 15:05

Naval Reactors For AI Data Centers

Commerce Scretary Lutnick appeared on Fox News, discussing new energy for data centers.

As we have noted previously, energy prices continue to spike near data center facilities across the US. Lutnick claimed data centers are going to provide additional power generation and capacity to the grid along with the construction of their facilities to lower the energy prices, but so far this has not been the case.

The additional costs of infrastructure to the wider grid that come with higher demand are not covered in the higher rates paid by the hyperscalers. Many of the costs extend to equipment outside of the immediate vicinity of the new power consumer, such as upgrades and maintenance to upstream transformers and powerlines. Maybe the rest of the US should copy what Texas does...

Make "behind the meter" mandatory https://t.co/ZEcmX5Ge0e pic.twitter.com/bCBnwx2E5g

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 24, 2025

And while multiple companies and developers are working on solutions for on-site, "behind-the-meter" power for AI data centers - with little practical success to date - one power developer has formally proposed an idea that has been informally discussed for years. 

HGP Intelligent Energy, a Texas power developer, is proposing to use reactors from US Navy submarines and aircraft carriers to power a data center project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The company claims redirecting two retired naval reactors could produce about 450-520 MW of power in what would be the fastest way to add new baseload power to the grid while the commercial nuclear industry struggles to get back on its feet.

The likelihood of this proposal being accepted by the US government is extremely low. The idea that the government will allow a private company, even with deep coordination with the DoE/DoW, to own or operate one of the most strategic assets in the US government’s arsenal, is absurd. Naval reactors have multiple differences compared to traditional commercial reactors, most notably the extremely high enriched uranium content, which is over 90%, compared to traditional reactors which are less than 5%.

In addition to concerns about proliferation of weapons grade uranium, there are also concerns of how the reactors can operate after they are removed from their submarines or carriers. The reactors are removed from their vessels and decommissioned due to no longer being able to operate as designed at their old age. There are likely multiple concerns with safely operating the reactor in its aged status with respect to reactor physics and material integrity. You can't just stick lower enriched fuel inside a reactor designed for highly enriched fuel, the geometry of the core alone will likely not allow for proper operation.

Still, the recommendation of involving the nuclear navy with the reinvigoration of the nuclear industry does hold value. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is the most successful nuclear program in history, with over 7500 reactor years of safe operation. Their expertise with reactor plant construction and operation would likely benefit the commercial nuclear industry in multiple ways.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 14:40

"Stupid In America" Turns 20

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

In January 2006, ABC’s John Stossel’s brutally honest documentary, “Stupid in America,” first aired. At the time, he referred to it as “a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America’s public schools, and it’s about time we face up to it.”

Stossel exposed the ineffectiveness of many government-run schools. But now, 20 years later, things are even worse.

Test scores from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), released this year, show that 33% of 8th graders—a higher percentage than ever—are reading at the “below basic” level.

Additionally, only 22% of high school seniors are proficient in math, down from 24% in 2019, and 35% are proficient in reading—the lowest score since NAEP began in 1969—down from 37% in 2019. Also, a record-high percentage scored at “below basic” levels in both math and reading compared with all previous assessments.

The results of the latest NAEP U.S. history and civics tests, administered in 2022, were atrocious. The scores show that just 13% of 8th-graders met proficiency standards in U.S. history, meaning they could explain key themes, periods, events, people, ideas, and turning points in the country’s history. Additionally, about 20% of students scored at or above the proficient level in civics. Both scores are the lowest ever recorded on these two tests.

The most recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), a test administered to 650,000 4th and 8th graders in 64 countries, reveals that average U.S. math scores declined sharply between 2019 and 2023, falling 18 points for 4th graders and 27 points for 8th graders. Internationally, this places the U.S. 22nd of 63 education systems for 4th-grade math and 20th of 45 education systems for 8th-grade math.

Furthermore, average U.S. math scores for 4th- and 8th-grade students reverted to 1995 levels, the first year the TIMSS assessment was administered.

Could a lack of spending be the problem?

Hardly. According to Just Facts, which researches and publishes verifiable data on the critical public policy issues of our time, the U.S. spent about $1.4 trillion on education in 2024. The bulk of the spending, $946 billion, goes to elementary and secondary education, while $277 billion is spent on higher education and $130 billion on libraries and other educational services. This total breaks down to $10,237 per household in the U.S., 4.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product, and 13% of the government’s current expenditures.

Would smaller class sizes help?

Again, no. Nationally, class size has been shrinking over time. Since 1921, the student-to-teacher ratio has fallen from 33:1 to 16:1. The subject was analyzed extensively by Hoover Institution senior fellow Eric Hanushek, who examined 277 studies on the effects of teacher-pupil ratios and class-size averages on student achievement. He found that 15% of the studies showed an improvement in achievement, 72% saw no impact, and 13% found that reducing class size had an adverse effect on achievement. While Hanushek admits that children might benefit from a small-class environment in some cases, he says there is no way “to describe a priori situations where reduced class size will be beneficial.”

If schools aren’t emphasizing the basics, what are they teaching instead?

Sex and gender nonsense, for one. The Heritage Foundation discloses that 16 states force transgender lessons on children. The organization’s “Gender Ideology as State Education Policy” report highlights the education standards and frameworks of states that encourage gender ideology, defined as “the subordination or displacement of factual, ideologically neutral lessons about biological sex with tell-tale notions such as ‘gender identity,’ ‘sex assigned at birth,’ and ‘cisgender.’”

The National Education Association, which holds enormous power over the nation’s teachers and students, plays an outsized role in sex indoctrination. At its most recent national convention in July, the NEA instructed teachers on the nuances of so-called “neopronouns and xeopronouns,” while also instructing them on ways to subvert conservative “villains” and their own “internal oppression.”

In Seattle, schools ask students as young as ten years old probing questions about gender identity, according to internal documents obtained by National Review. “The survey results are then shared with a group of third-party organizations for research purposes, including Seattle Children’s Hospital Research Institute and the local county government. Other regions of the country distribute similar surveys under various names.”

Forcing left-wing politics on students is also fashionable. A report by the Goldwater Institute, released in January, shows how politically skewed our schools are. The organization reports that about 25% of American classrooms use Marxist Howard Zinn’s work.

Zinn’s best-selling book, A People’s History of the United States, which is used in conjunction with the online “Zinn Education Project,” misinforms students and borrows from Karl Marx to present American history as a “conflict between capital and labor,” Goldwater discloses.

The question then becomes, what do we do about decaying, perverted, and far-left government-run schools?

The best scenario would be the total privatization of education, but that will never happen. Short of that, parental choice is best, which, as I noted last week, is expanding rapidly.

Today, more than 1.5 million students across 34 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico participate in 75 programs. The momentum behind school choice stems from families seeking alternatives to government-run schools.

But with about 54 million school-age children in the U.S., the vast majority still attend public schools.

For real change to happen, parents need to step up. In states without a private choice program, the best option for parents is to educate their children at home, just as they provide food, clothing, and shelter. In fact, homeschooling continued to grow across the United States during the 2024-2025 school year, with an average increase of 5.4%. This is nearly three times the pre-pandemic growth rate of about 2%.

Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’” Too many children are miseducated these days, and to turn things around, we must stop looking to the government for solutions.

Being stupid in America doesn’t have to be an ongoing condition, and for the sake of our children and the country’s future, things need to change—ASAP!

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 14:15

Land Of Confusion: The Great Reset In Motion

Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardian.org,

The global disruptions we have seen in recent years are frequently presented as a chaotic sequence of events: a ‘pandemic’, inflation, energy shortages and war.

Little wonder that most people are confused. However, a structural analysis reveals a more deliberate controlled demolition of the 20th-century social contract.

We are witnessing a transition from a productive capitalist model, which required a healthy mass labour force, to what Yanis Varoufakis calls a techno-feudalist order.

The engine of this transition was a desperate financial stabilisation strategy carried out by means of a public health event. As identified by Professor Fabio Vighi, the global financial system reached a point of terminal instability in late 2019, evidenced by the collapse of the US repo market (where banks lend to each other).

By freezing the real economy through lockdowns, central banks performed massive liquidity injections to save the banking-finance tier. If that money had entered a functioning economy, it would have triggered hyper-inflation. By keeping the population at home, the elite performed a stealth bailout that preserved the dominance of the financial class by sacrificing the productive middle class.

However, a geopolitical reset also had to take place. For decades, Germany’s economy relied on three pillars: cheap Russian gas, high-tech exports to China and a US security umbrella. By late 2025, all three have been fractured. As Prof Michael Hudson notes, the ‘sabotage’ of the Nord Stream pipelines was a structural necessity for the Western financial elite.

If Germany continued to integrate with Russia and China, it would have created a power pole independent of the US dollar. The conflict in Ukraine served a purpose: it resulted in Germany replacing Russian pipeline gas and being forced into a massive build-out of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure and reliance on LNG from the US. Unlike pipeline gas, LNG must be super-cooled, shipped and re-gasified, a process that is inherently 3–4 times more expensive.

The result is that, in 2025, German industrial output is at its lowest since the 1990s. Heavy industries like BASF (chemicals) and ThyssenKrupp (steel) are relocating to the US or China. Meanwhile, Germany is pivoting from an industrial giant by betting on creating jobs in the likes of the green energy sector (including becoming a ‘hydrogen hub’), semiconductors and microelectronics, robotics and biotech and diverting its capital into a €150 billion annual defence spend.

At the same time, while Germany collapses, the City of London thrives on global volatility. Among other things, the City is the global hub for war risk insurance and energy brokerage. When a pipeline is destroyed or a strategically important shipping lane is threatened, the price of war risk insurance triples. The London insurance market (Lloyd’s) extracts these ‘risk premiums’ from the global economy.

The City’s brokers treat geopolitical instability as a volatile asset class. Even as British households are crushed by energy bills, the financial centre remains profitable by extracting wealth from the very chaos that foreign policy helps to manufacture.

Moreover, the City of London has secured its position as the indispensable middleman of the transatlantic energy pivot. While the physical gas originates in the US and is consumed in Europe, the financial and legal architecture of this trade is almost entirely managed in London.

Commodity brokers and exchanges like ICE (Intercontinental Exchange) in London have seen record volumes in LNG futures and derivatives. These are financial bets on the future price of gas. As volatility increases, the fees and commissions extracted by London-based traders and clearinghouses skyrocket.

More than 90% of the world’s marine insurance, including the specialised, high-premium coverage required for LNG tankers, is underwritten through Lloyd’s. By enforcing strict war risk premiums on any ship entering European waters, London effectively imposes a private tax on every molecule of gas that replaces the lost Russian pipeline supply.

This ensures that while European industry is struggling with high energy costs, the City’s financial firms extract a massive toll from the logistics of the replacement supply.

Of course, the structural readjustment of economies leads to huge social tensions.

This is where the ‘Russian threat’ comes in. It has been elevated to an all-encompassing internal narrative used to manage domestic dissent and to galvanise the public to rally behind the flag. The bogeyman serves a vital psychological function by converting the growing anger of the impoverished into a patriotic duty to endure hardship.

Under this regime of ‘permanent emergency’, any industrial action, protest or systemic critique can be branded as malign foreign influence or subversion, allowing the state to use new, expansive policing powers to suppress internal friction.

To justify the redirection of billions in tax revenue away from failing public services and into the military-industrial complex to create ‘growth’ in a failing economy (a desperate attempt to revive a collapsing neoliberalism—see chapter two here), the state must maintain a high-decibel level of existential fear. In the UK, the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 explicitly frames militarisation as an engine for growth, using the spectre of a Russian invasion to legitimise a state-subsidised transfer of wealth to high-tech defence contractors.

By manufacturing a permanent state of war-footing, the elite ensure that a main pillar of the economy is the one that directly serves the security of the state, while the population is told that their dwindling healthcare and pensions are a necessary sacrifice for national survival.

In this respect, we also see the changing status of the human being. In the industrial era, the state ‘subscribed’ to the working class, investing in the NHS and education because it required a fit population to drive production. Artificial intelligence, robotics and economic decline increasingly make much of this labour force redundant.

As capital may no longer find the reproduction of labour desirable or profitable, the state withdraws its subscription. The visible rot in the NHS is the result of deliberate divestment. (The UK private health insurance market has surged to a record £8.64 billion, a nearly 14% year-on-year increase.)

If the worker is no longer required for production, the state views healthcare as a ‘non-performing cost’ to be liquidated.

When a population is no longer an asset but a fiscal liability, the state moves from care to managing exit. It’s no accident that we have seen calls for the rapid legalisation of assisted suicide across the West. It might also help to explain the prescribing of midazolam and do not resuscitate orders in care homes during the COVID event. Data shows that the UK government purchased vast quantities of midazolam (two years’ worth of stock in just two months) in early 2020.

In 2025, official impact assessments noted that legalising assisted dying would result in “considerable cost savings” for the NHS and state pension system—estimated at up to £18.3 million within a decade for pensions alone. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Impact Assessment (May 2025) officially quantified the ‘benefits and pensions’ impact. It estimated that by year 10, the state would save roughly £27.7 million per year in unpaid pension and benefit payments due to assisted deaths.

By accelerating the ‘offboarding’ of the non-productive elderly (whatever happened to the COVID era marketing slogan of ‘saving granny’?), the system wipes billions in future pension liabilities off the state balance sheet.

Moving forward, what can we expect? We will see the elite continue to rollout the narrative of permanent emergency under the guise of climate crisis and Russian threat to provide the ideological discipline required to justify a boosted austerity.

Meanwhile, digital ID and central bank digital currencies will create a system of total surveillance. In this emerging system, the citizen is replaced by the ‘managed subject’, whose access to the economy is contingent upon a social credit score.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 13:25

"Clean Up Your Act": Nearly 100 Minnesota Mayors Speak Out Against 'Fraud, Unchecked Spending'

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Almost 100 Minnesota mayors banded together to tell Gov. Tim Walz and state lawmakers that they object to citizens suffering from higher taxes and reduced services—problems they blame on state spending and rampant government program fraud.

The Minnesota capitol building in St. Paul, Minn., on Dec. 8, 2025.Jenn Ackerman for The Epoch Times

The message, conveyed in a two-page letter, can best be summed up by saying, “Clean up your act,” Diane Cash, mayor of Crosby, a small city in north-central Minnesota, told The Epoch Times on Dec. 23, a day after the letter was sent.

The mayors are urging state leaders, “Put the brakes on the spending—and compare the spending to the results that you’re getting for your dollars,” Cash said.

She said it’s significant and unusual for that many mayors to line up and take a stand.

Cash said the movement began with nine mayors “and grew from there.” In all, 98 of the state’s mayors signed the letter—a mayoral coalition representing about 11.5 percent of the state’s 856 cities. The mayors of the state’s two largest cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, both Democrat strongholds, were absent from the group, who hail from mostly small and mid-size cities across the state.

Many mayoral posts in Minnesota are nonpartisan, Cash said, and their concerns should also be bipartisan.

“It’s not Republican or Democrat,” she said.

The mayors’ main concern: Their cities are getting insufficient funds from the state to pay for basic services. Cash said, “We all asked for road money, and we’re just not getting it.”

At the same time, citizens are seeing taxes go up while the state burned through an $18 billion budget surplus—and is now facing a $3 billion deficit. That’s according to the state economic forecast report.

Those figures come amid a federal prosecutor’s estimate that $9 billion may have been lost to fraud in the state’s generous social-services programs since 2018.

“Every taxpayer in Minnesota is paying too much, and too much is disappearing,” Cash said.

In the letter, the mayors wrote that “fraud, unchecked spending and inconsistent fiscal management” at the state level are hitting cities. As a result, the mayors are struggling “to plan responsibly, maintain infrastructure, hire and retain employees, and sustain core services.”

The mayors say the state relied on the one-time surplus to pay for programs that require ongoing funding; now it likely cannot sustain existing programs or invest in new ones.

The Epoch Times sought comment from Walz and received no reply prior to publication time.

A local TV station, KSTP, reported that a spokeswoman sent a statement on Walz’s behalf. “The Governor’s focus on lowering property taxes is exactly why he has provided more funding than any administration in history directly to local governments.”

“The surplus went directly back into the bottom line of local governments: $300 million for their police and fire departments, the largest infrastructure budgets in state history ... the largest-ever increase in flexible local government aid, and property tax relief directly to taxpayers.”

However, the mayors’ letter says: “Cities are the level of government closest to the people, responding when snowplows don’t arrive, when streetlights or water mains fail, when businesses need permitting help, or when seniors seek support.

“Every unfunded mandate or cost shift forces us into difficult choices: raise taxes, cut services, delay infrastructure, or stretch thin city staff even further,” the mayors said. “This strain now extends to the very core of community safety—our police officers and firefighters.”

Because of rising levies and “state-imposed costs,” cities are having trouble affording additional public safety staff, the mayors wrote.

Citing the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the mayors also said Minnesota is “slipping in national economic rankings.” Among the 50 states, Minnesota ranks 46th in growth of median household income; the North Star State also ranks worse than at least 30 states on measures such as job growth, labor force growth, and “overall tax competitiveness.”

On average, cities and counties alike are poised to levy taxes exceeding 8 percent for 2026, the mayors said, adding: “These increases are not simply local decisions; they stem directly from state policies, mandates, and cost shifts that leave cities with no choice but to pass these burdens on to homeowners and businesses.”

The one-two punch of increased taxes and reduced services seems to hit harder in a small city like Crosby, population 2,300, Cash said. About 22 percent of residents live at the poverty level, she said, and many are over age 65 and rely on fixed incomes.

Cash knows of people who live in a 900-square-foot house, “and they saw their taxes triple in the past three years.” She attributes those increases to additional levied taxes on top of home valuations, which rose dramatically with inflation during the past few years. Houses that used to sell for $20,000 are now commanding several times that amount, she said.

And, Cash said, she knows several people who moved out of a paid-in-full home, partly because they couldn’t shoulder the tax burden; they relocated to government-subsidized housing.

In closing, the mayors said: Our residents deserve better than deficits, economic decline, and policies that push families and businesses away. We, as mayors, can only support our cities for so long before the heavy hand of state mandates and financial pressure demands more than our communities can provide.”

“Our state owes it to our citizens to practice responsible fiscal management and to stop taxing our families, seniors, and businesses out of Minnesota,” the mayors said. “We urge the Legislature to course-correct and to remember that every dollar you manage belongs not to the Capitol, but to the people of Minnesota.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 12:45

Intel Slides After Nvidia Halts Tests Of 18A Tech, White House Signals Chip Giant Not "Too Strategic To Fail"

After President Donald Trump publicly attacked Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan in August, writing, “The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,” Intel rushed to arrange a White House meeting that became a turning point for the struggling chipmaker which was on the verge of failure, Reuters wrote in a new report.

Tan, a veteran venture capitalist with a long history of investments in China, prepared for the meeting, seeking support from influential allies including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.

The roughly 40-minute Oval Office meeting included Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and focused on how Tan would stabilize and rebuild Intel at a moment when US semiconductor policy had become a central national priority.

During that meeting, Tan agreed to the proposal which was already reported and which saw the US government receive equity in Intel in exchange for additional CHIPS Act funding. The agreement delivered $5.7 billion in cash, made the U.S. government Intel’s largest shareholder, and conferred on the company what many investors now describe as a “too-strategic-to-fail” status.... although maybe not.

After the deal, Tan pledged to “make Intel great again,” which Lutnick posted under the caption, “The Art of the Deal: Intel.” The government’s involvement quickly helped "improve" Intel’s standing with potential partners and customers eager to align with the administration’s industrial strategy.

Sure enough, since Tan became CEO in March, but really since the deal with the Trump admin, Intel’s stock has climbed about 80%, far outpacing much of the broader market. The new momentum helped secure major investments, including $5 billion from Nvidia and $2 billion from SoftBank.

Technology lobbyist Adam Kovacevich called the government deal a “lifeline” for Intel, suggesting the company’s leadership and strategic direction might have been in jeopardy without it. At the same time, Tan began a sweeping internal restructuring, cutting roughly 15% of Intel’s workforce, flattening management layers, and pushing for faster, more engineering-driven decision-making across the organization.

That's the good news. The bad news is that, well, despite the optics little has changed.

As Reuters notes, despite the improved deal flow (or at least perception thereof) and the political backing (in exchange for a pound of flesh equity), Intel’s core manufacturing challenges remain and the Commerce Department appeared to make it clear that they are not a guaranteed priority, and in fact more dilutions for the benefit of taxpayers may be on deck. 

Intel is not "too strategic to fail" one official told Reuters refuting the prevailing market mantra which assumes the opposite, adding that "Secretary Lutnick talks to all parties rather than prioritizing calls for Intel’s sake."

And while the company claims that its advanced chip process is “progressing well,” there was more bad news - which apparently never rose to the level of 8K importance - after Nvidia recently tested Intel’s 18A manufacturing technology and chose not to proceed. Even after investing billions, Nvidia made no commitment to manufacture its chips at Intel, and Tan acknowledged the limited scope of the partnership, saying, “Right now we are focused on collaborations."

But now that the forced deal "honeymoon" period is over and the stock is once again drifting lower, Tan may want to consider focusing on delivering results because the goodwill that the CEO bought by going in bed with Trump is almost over.

In response to the Reuters report, INTC stock dropped as much as 4%, and down almost 20% from its recent high at the start of the month. It still has a long way to fall to the low $20 where it traded before the company announced its "tactical alignment" with the US government.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 12:25

Federal Judge Bars Trump Admin's Funding Cuts To Sanctuary States

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration’s plan to divert Homeland Security funding from states that fail to assist with certain federal immigration efforts.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 13, 2025. Justin Hamel/AFP via Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy’s ruling on Monday sided with a coalition of 12 attorneys general that sued the administration this year after being informed that several states would receive reduced federal grants as a result of their sanctuary jurisdiction statuses.

The order affects funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had cut more than $233 million from Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. These funds are part of a $1 billion program tied to risk assessments and primarily go to local law enforcement and emergency services.

The group of a dozen attorneys general included those from California, Illinois, and New Jersey, who all wanted to participate in challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.

In her 48-page ruling, McElroy ruled that the government’s funding decisions wrongly took into consideration states’ positions on immigration enforcement.

“What else could defendants’ decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round numbered amounts—including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums—be if not arbitrary and capricious? Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result,” McElroy wrote.

The judge then ordered DHS to reinstate the previously announced funding allocations to the plaintiff states.

“Defendants’ wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is particularly troublesome given the fact that they have been entrusted with a most solemn duty: safeguarding our nation and its citizens,” McElroy wrote. “While the intricacies of administrative law and the terms and conditions on federal grants may seem abstract to some, the funding at issue here supports vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs.”

McElroy highlighted the recent Brown University attack, where a man killed two students and injured nine others, as an instance where the $1 billion federal program would be crucial in responding to such a tragedy.

“To hold hostage funding for programs like these based solely on what appear to be defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful,” the Rhode Island-based judge stated in her ruling.

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said the department will fight the order.

“This judicial sabotage threatens the safety of our states, counties, towns, and weakens the entire nation,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “We will fight to restore these critical reforms and protect American lives.”

The White House did not return a request for comment.

The lawsuit dates back to September, when 11 states and the District of Columbia took aim at the administration’s directive to slash funds to sanctuary areas, arguing it violated federal law and was meant to coerce compliance with immigration policies.

A federal judge permanently blocked DHS in October from withholding $34 million for New York City’s transportation security due to its sanctuary status, calling the action “arbitrary, capricious, and a blatant violation of the law.”

An August ruling barred funding blocks to 34 cities and counties over sanctuary policies, extending injunctions against immigration-related grant conditions.

In April, a judge blocked Trump’s broader defunding efforts against sanctuary cities such as San Francisco and Santa Clara, California, following suits against executive orders.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 12:05

Strong 7Y Treasury Sale Sends Yields To Session Low In Final 2025 Auction

After two poor, disappointing coupon auctions earlier this week, when global yields were surging thanks to the circus that is Japan, we have come to the final note auction of the year, and yes... this one was not quite as bad. 

The sale of $44BN in 7Y notes priced at a high yield of 3.930%, up from 3.781% in November and the highest since July. That said, the auction stopped through the 3.933% When Issued by 0.3bps, and followed 4 consecutive tailing auctions.

The bid to cover was 2.509, up from 2.459 last month and the highest since July, if just below the six-auction average of 2.520.

Unlike the week's previous coupon auctions, which saw a slide in foreign demand, the internals were stronger and Indirects took down 59.04%, up from 56.65% and the highest since August's 77.5%. And with Directs rising to 31.6%, just shy of a record high, Dealers were left with just 9.34%, the lowest since July.

Overall, this was a stronger auction than the subpar fare observed earlier this week, which is handy since this was also the final auction of the year, helping push yields down to session lows. Of course, we now have an entirely new year to look forward to and with an onslaught of deficit-funding debt on deck, far more ugly auctions on deck.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 11:57

Today, in the CalculatedRisk Real Estate Newsletter: Question #9 for 2026: What will happen with house prices in 2026?

Excerpt:

Earlier I posted some questions on my blog for next year: Ten Economic Questions for 2026. Some of these questions concern real estate (inventory, house prices, housing starts, new home sales), and I’ll post thoughts on those in this newsletter (others like GDP and employment will be on my blog).

I'm adding some thoughts, and maybe some predictions for each question.

Here is a review of the Ten Economic Questions for 2025.

9) House Prices: It appears house prices - as measured by the national repeat sales index (Case-Shiller, FHFA, and Freddie Mac) - will be mostly flat in 2025. What will happen with house prices in 2026?

he following graph shows the year-over-year change through September 2025, in the seasonally adjusted Case-Shiller Composite 10, Composite 20 and National indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000). The Case-Shiller Home Price Indices for "September" is a 3-month average of July, August and September closing prices. September closing prices include some contracts signed in May, so there is a significant lag to this data.

The Composite 10 NSA was up 2.0% year-over-year. The Composite 20 NSA was up 1.4% year-over-year. The National index NSA was up 1.3% year-over-year.

There is much more in the article.

Federal Judge Upholds New York's Driver's Licenses For Illegals

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to New York’s Green Light Law, upholding the state’s issuance of driver’s licenses to individuals without requiring proof of legal U.S. residency.

People line up at the New York State DMV in New York City on April 28, 2025. Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci (Biden) in Albany determined that the Trump administration, which challenged the law under President Donald Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, failed to back its claims that the state law usurps federal law or that it unlawfully regulates or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit against the state over the law in February, naming Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, as defendants.

“As I said from the start, our laws protect the rights of all New Yorkers and keep our communities safe,” James said in a statement on Dec. 19. “I will always stand up for New Yorkers and the rule of law.”

Nardacci stated that her job was not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter. Rather, she said in a 23-page opinion, it was to assess whether the Trump administration’s arguments established that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which grants federal laws precedence over state laws.

The administration, she wrote, has “failed to state such a claim.”

The Green Light Law was framed as improving public safety on the roads, as people without licenses sometimes drove without one or without having passed a road test. The state also makes it easier for holders of such licenses to get auto insurance in an attempt to minimize accidents involving uninsured drivers.

Under the law, people without a valid Social Security number can submit alternative forms of ID, such as valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. Applicants must still obtain a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license.” The program does not apply to commercial driver’s licenses.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit sought to strike down the law as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them.”

It noted a provision that requires the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner to notify people who are in the country illegally when a federal immigration agency has requested their information.

In 2020, during Trump’s first term, his administration sought to push New York into changing the law by preventing anyone from the state from enrolling in trusted traveler programs.

Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo offered to restore limited federal access to driving records, but stated he would not allow immigration agents to see lists of people who applied for the special licenses available to immigrants who couldn’t prove legal residency in the country. The administration restored New Yorkers’ access to the trusted traveler program after a short-lived legal battle.

In the lawsuit thrown out Tuesday, the administration contended that it would be simpler to enforce federal immigration priorities if federal authorities had unhindered access to New York’s driver data. Nardacci, agreeing with a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a county clerk’s prior challenge to the law, stated that such information “remains available to federal immigration authorities” via a lawful court order or judicial warrant.

In December 2019, former ICE acting director Tom Homan, now Trump’s border Czar, called the law an “enticement” that minimizes the illegality of illegal immigration by providing benefits.

“There’s absolutely no reason to give a privilege of a driver’s license to someone who is here in violation of the law,” Homan stated.

In February 2020, a New York sheriff said the law hinders human trafficking investigations by restricting DMV data sharing with federal agents.

“So, if Border Patrol came and said, ‘Hey, we want to look through your records because we’re looking for this guy,’ I can’t share our investigation with them if it has DMV data,” Wayne County Sheriff Barry Virts said.

That same month, the Department of Homeland Security banned New Yorkers from enrolling in trusted traveler programs, with acting Secretary Chad Wolf citing the law’s barriers to DMV data access as the reason.

New York responded with a lawsuit, alleging the ban was punitive and harmed residents.

The Associated Press contributed to this report 

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 11:25

Holding Pattern: Coast Guard Awaits Special Forces Unit To Execute Venezuela-Linked Tanker Seizure

Update (1120ET):

U.S. Coast Guard forces remain in a holding pattern this week, awaiting the arrival of specialized teams to assist in the interdiction and seizure of the Venezuela-linked oil tanker Bella 1.

Reuters reports that the Coast Guard is awaiting one of two specialist units, known as Maritime Security Response Teams (MSRTs), which can board the tanker by rappelling from helicopters under hostile conditions.

MSRT units are called in for non-compliant vessels, hostile crews, or situations involving weapons, sanctions evasion, or national security threats. Regular Coast Guard boarding operations are not equipped to handle such situations.

Earlier this month, President Trump ordered a "blockade" of sanctioned oil shipments to disrupt Venezuela-Cuba-China flows, aiming to pressure and create instability in Caracas that would ultimately lead to further economic ruin across Cuba.

"There are limited teams who are trained for these types of boardings," Corey Ranslem, chief executive of maritime security group Dryad Global and previously with the U.S. Coast Guard, told Reuters.

The problem with a limited number of MSRT units is that it will complicate President Trump's gunboat diplomacy, as hundreds of dark tankers are operating to ensure 900,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan crude flows to Asia.

*   *   * 

President Trump's reposturing of the U.S. military forces toward the Western Hemisphere - effectively Monroe Doctrine 2.0 - reinforced this week by the deployment of additional special-operations aircraft, troops, and equipment into the Caribbean, as U.S. forces apply gunboat diplomacy against Venezuela to disrupt crude oil flows routed through Cuba and onward to China, a campaign that, if successful, could spark regime instability in Caracas, and amplify economic and political stress in Cuba as well.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that a "large number of special-operations aircraft, troops, and equipment" arrived in the Caribbean region early this week - a movement of military assets and personnel confirmed by U.S. officials and flight-tracking data.

According to the WSJ:

At least 10 CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which are used by special-operations forces, flew into the region Monday night from Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, according to an official. C-17 cargo aircraft from Fort Stewart and Fort Campbell Army bases arrived Monday in Puerto Rico, according to flight-tracking data. A different U.S. official confirmed that military personnel and equipment were transported on planes.

It isn’t clear what types of troops and equipment the aircraft were transporting. Cannon is home to the 27th Special Operations Wing, while the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, an elite U.S. special operations unit, and the 101st Airborne Division are based at Fort Campbell. The first battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment is based at Hunter Army Airfield, at Fort Stewart.

The 27th Special Operations Wing and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment are trained to support high-risk infiltration and extraction missions and provide close air and combat support. Army Rangers are trained to seize airfields and provide security for specialized forces, such as SEAL Team Six or Delta Force, during a precise kill or capture mission.

In a separate report, defense and security media outlet Army Recognition, citing open-source intelligence accounts on X, indicated that the U.S. military is ramping up deployments of F-35A stealth fighter jets, intelligence aircraft, and electronic warfare platforms across the Caribbean.

David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, an aerospace think tank, told WSJ that the "prepositioning forces" in the region are "to take action." He said the movement of such assets indicates that the administration has already decided on a course of action.

"The question that remains is to accomplish what?" Deptula said.

Trump's gunboat diplomacy - seizing two sanctioned tankers and targeting a third earlier this week - should be viewed as a pressure campaign to disrupt Venezuela-Cuba-China oil flows. It's always about following the money, and in this case, that oil money props up the Maduro regime.

Jorge Piñón, a Cuban exile who tracks the island's energy ties to Venezuela at the University of Texas at Austin, told WSJ earlier this week that once crude oil flows are cut, this would act as a domino effect and create regime instability in Caracas, warning that "it would be the collapse of the Cuban economy, no question about it."

According to analytics firm Kpler, Caracas has shipped nearly 900,000 barrels per day this year and relies on 400 dark-fleet tankers to transport the crude, much of which is bound for China.

"Venezuela has been remarkably effective at masking both origin and ownership of crude and therefore at evading financial and trade-related controls," Kpler analyst Dimitris Ampatzidis told Bloomberg. "That's why Washington has increasingly moved from purely financial measures to physical disruption."

The military buildup across the region and the use of gunboat diplomacy are clear signals of the U.S. intent to force regime change in Venezuela by disrupting Maduro's funding lifelines; China responded earlier this week, and Beijing is not pleased about crude oil disruptions.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 11:20



 

 

At the Money: The New Deregulatory SEC with Michelle Leder  (December 24, 2025)

Big changes are afoot at the Securities and Exchange Commission. More IPOs, more crypto, and less enforcement are coming as the SEC becomes smaller and much more corporate-friendly. What might this mean for investors?

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Michelle Leder is a researcher covering corporate SEC filings; she founded the research service “Footnoted,” focusing on uncovering material information hidden in corporate SEC filings. She’s the author of the book, “Financial Fine Print, Uncovering A Company’s True Value.”

For more info, see:

Footnoted *

Book: “Fine Print, Uncovering A Company’s True Value.”

LinkedIn

Twitter

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

INTRO: Breakin’ rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and’a the law won
I fought the law and’a the law won

 

What’s going on with the rules for company disclosures? Are they changing what’s happening with crypto companies, mergers and acquisitions, even executive comp. It’s now under a new regime at the SEC and some shareholder activists are crying foul.

What’s going on with the new deregulatory zeal?

To help us unpack all of this and what it might mean for your portfolio, let’s bring in Michelle Leder. She is an SEC filing specialist and founder of the research service “footnoted” focusing on material information hidden in corporate SEC filings. She’s also the author of the book, “Financial Fine Print, Uncovering A Company’s True Value.”

Let’s start out talking about the new regulatory stance, or I should, should I say deregulatory stance at the SEC? It’s a little easier. It’s a little more corporate friendly. What’s the state of regulations for public companies these days?

Michelle Leder: Obviously the basic rules haven’t changed. the 1933 act is still there, all of those rules are still there. It’s the enforcement that is, a bit up in the air.

Shutting studies are showing that the SEC is doing a lot less enforcement these days. and some of it is partly due to staffing issues, right? Like the SEC, I think a lot about 20% of the staff have left. Since the beginning, well, since January 20th, since, since, uh, Trump Term 2, people left or they took the buyout or, or what have you.

But, enforcement, either by number of cases or the size of the settlements. The SEC is justkind of sleeping – they’re just not as active as they’ve been in the past. And that’s been well documented by some academic studies and some other people who follow that part of the SEC.

There’s also been, uh, the dismissal of several big name cases. So it’s overall a deregulatory environment, much more so than, the first Trump administration.

Barry Ritholtz: You mentioned the reduction in headcount. The IRS has seen a large headcount reduction, and that legitimately shows up in both enforcement and collection actions. The, the Senate, uh, released report last year, you can actually see for every dollar they spend on the IRS, here’s how much we generate in taxes collected.

That reduction has been some attrition, some of it from Doge. It sounds like you’re saying the SEC is seeing. A very similar reduction. Did, did I hear you right, did you say it’s more than 20% of the staff? Is that enforcement staff or just across the board? I think it’s across the board.

Michelle Leder: Across the board, and presumably it would include, administrative folks?

it’s, it’s the numbers I’ve seen, it’s about 28. Percent across the board. And of course the SEC has a lot of contractors, like outside people. So I think it also includes contractors. there’s no definitive headcount that I’ve seen, but this has been reported, by multiple outlets. That’s around 20%.

Barry Ritholtz: There’s a new sheriff in town. Paul Atkins is the head of the SEC. Tell us a little bit about the philosophy. And policies of the new SEC chairman?

Michelle Leder: He is a former SEC commissioner, so, this is not his first time, at,the SEC, but it is the first time that, he’s chairman. He’s an attorney.you don’t. Have to be an attorney to be an SEC commissioner. But almost always it is an attorney who is doing it

He’s known for being a big booster of crypto in between the time, like when he left the SEC last time and, went to work, in private practice he was, representing a number of crypto firms. He is of course taking that, background with him to the SEC. I joke around like, and I’m gonna be dating myself here, but like, that, uh, episode of the Brady Bunch where it was like “Jan, Jan, Jan”. Well this is like “Crypto, crypto, crypto.”

That’s all it seems like the SEC is really focused on,and there’s normally, the other thing is that there’s normally five SEC commissioners, and there’s only been four since Atkins came on board. It’s typically, uh, the party in power. So the Republicans named three commissioners, and then the party out of power. The Democrats named two, but there hasn’t been, I’m sorry, not the president has to name the SEC commissioners. So three from,  the majority party and two from the minority party.

Needless to say, there hasn’t been a democratic, uh, commissioner that’s been named. So they’re operating with only four.

And it’s, so there’s basically only one person who is kind of like sounding the alarm on all this crypto stuff. Anytime there’s like a new regulation or like a change in regulations, it’s interesting to see what’s said there about all of these changes that are going on

Barry Ritholtz: Beyond crypto I’ve heard Atkins, uh, talk about,the initial public, uh, offerings market, and he wants to jumpstart again. I kind of laughed at make IPOs great again. What, what are your thoughts on the regulation that some people have said the burdensome reporting requirements are leading American companies to stay private longer. What are your thoughts there?

Michelle Leder: There is, some regulation that probably could be trimmed, but do you do it with like, a scalpel or do you do it with like a chainsaw? I think with anything, there’s things that can always be made better and improved, right? But this wholesale approach to like all regulation is bad. It’s costing people money is a little bit of an overkill,

You can make an argument for example, they nixed the climate rules that they had been working on forever. You could probably make an argument that, maybe the climate rules went a little bit too overboard; it was gonna be cumbersome for companies to do, you know.

But climate change is real and some companies are impacted by it more than others. And, there should be disclosures. Because there is a risk to investors about that.

Barry Ritholtz: Let’s talk about what’s probably the single biggest idea that’s been floated by President Trump, doing away with quarterly earnings reporting. You’re an SEC geek. What does this sort of thing mean from your perspective and, and what does it mean for investors?

Michelle Leder: First of all, let’s remember, I think they say like, oh, small companies. This is not like your corner store, your little bodega in Manhattan and they’re suddenly having to like, put out a 10 K or a 10 Q.

These are publicly traded companies that are asking me and thousands of other investors for our, for our money to grow their business and to, build their businesses. Now this idea that you can throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

Could there be a little bit less in the quarterly earnings. Yeah, maybe we don’t have to do like the PowerPoint presentation and the detailed earnings call and like the big thing, but still report earnings, and, give people a taste of what’s going on.

Going to every six months would be really bad for investors overall. Maybe it’ll benefit the, the largest, most sophisticated investors, but other people who are invested in stocks, it’s just bad news — a lot can happen in six months to say the very least.

Barry Ritholtz: A lot happens in three months, so, yeah. So let’s, let’s talk about executive compensation. I have a lot of, a lot of questions to throw you away with this,

Obviously we have to start with Elon Musk and the trillion dollar package that the board approved. I don’t see any way how he ever gets anywhere near that amount of money, but still it seems like just crazy sky’s the limit amount of compensation.

Are, are these giant stock grants a new trend? Is this something that’s here to stay?

Michelle Leder: There’s of course always been stock grants. and you wanna reward someone, I’m all about, rewarding someone for doing a good job, right?

If a CFO, manages or a CEO manages to turn around the company, they should be rewarded. That’s what, that’s what capitalism is about. Right?

What we’re seeing in the wake of the Elon vote, where shareholders overwhelmingly approve the compensation. And, Tesla is sort of a special situation because it’s like a cult of personality – I can’t think of many other CEOs, let’s say, that have that kind of platform that kind of, personal, identification to, obviously because of X and, and all of his followers on X and the fans of Tesla, the cars and everything. So it’s this a bit of a unique situation.

But we’re seeing in the wake of that situation, we’re seeing a number of examples where executives are also being rewarded and what seems like outsized awards. It’s almost like, well, Tesla did it, so why can’t we? It’s almost like it’s created like a green light for, giving away additional equity,

I was just looking the other day ZoomInfo, which is a company that sells all our information to whoever, the highest bidder, gave its founder and its CEO.

The guy had been there, has been there 18 years. And it gave him nearly 10 million shares to incentivize him. Does this guy really need 10 million shares to be incentivized? He’s been at the company 18 years, so where’s the guy going? Also the stock is not doing so great. So why is he being rewarded again?

It comes down to the stock is doing great. Reward the CEO, reward the C-suite, you know? But if the stock isn’t doing good and you’re giving away 10 million shares to someone. You know who’s been there to incentivize them. You shouldn’t need to be incentivized to like turn the stock price around.

Barry Ritholtz: Let talk about executive compensation clawbacks. How often do we see either the company or its shareholders or perhaps the SEC saying, Hey, this compensation. Uh, was, was very,undeserved, unearned, and we’re gonna try and claw some of this back. Tell us about that…

Michelle Leder: Usually you’re seeing that on the plaintiff lawyer side, like, of course there’s a very active plaintiff’s bar here in the US where, if a company says that they’re gonna earn 25 cents a share, and suddenly they, report 20 cents a share, there’s, a whole group of lawyers + law firms that, will then sue the company and try to, do clawbacks and that type of thing. You’re not really seeing that on the SEC side so much.

Most companies, or I would say a majority of companies do have clawback policies, but usually it’s kind of rare that, uh, they claw back money. I can really only think of a couple of examples. where there’s been, a claw back of compensation. It’s not something that happens all that regularly.

Barry Ritholtz: You mentioned crypto earlier. What is the regulatory framework look like for crypto? How have the rules changed? It seems like the SEC has fully embraced this.

Michelle Leder: There’s just a general, lessez faire approach to crypto at the SEC, whereas, which is very, very different, than the prior. SEC chairman Gary Gensler. he was all about regulating crypto and, and trying to call it into account and, and, making sure that, it wasn’t, scamming people. And I would say that the current SEC is basically, a 180 degree turn from that.

And in fact, I feel like crypto in terms of some of their rules and regulations, it seems to be the only thing that they care about. they’re talking about, combining with doing, regulatory combinations to kind of make it easier to do this.

I think in general, different people have different views about crypto. I think that anything that makes it easier for people to get into crypto, especially less sophisticated investors, is, is problematic. I don’t think like someone’s grandma should be in crypto

Barry Ritholtz: What about cyber security disclosures? That, that seems to be a new requirement. It, it seems to be really important in the financial industry. How important is, is cybersecurity to any publicly traded company?  What, what are their obligations there?

Michelle Leder: A couple years ago in 2022, the SEC put in new rules – again, this was under Gary Gensler – that required a lot more disclosure about cybersecurity incidents.and they required companies to actually disclose this in an 8K using a section, a particular section, so that it could be found very easily. instead of a cyberissue, if you were looking for cybersecurity incidents, you can find them pretty quickly.

But, companies are still disclosing this in haphazard ways. Even though they’re required to disclose this in a specific section of the eight K, many companies are not doing that.

And to be fair, the problem with a lot of these cybersecurity incidents is when companies first disclose them, they don’t know if it’s gonna be like a, a five, thousand dollars fix or a 500 million dollars fix.

Oftentimes, it takes time to get in there, figure out what’s really going on. But of course, these hacks and these cybersecurity incidents have gotten a lot more, sophisticated these days. I’m sure like, I can’t count the number of text messages I get that seem alert.

I got a new one the other day, someone put an event on my calendar. And was waiting for me to accept it. And I’m like, how did you even, find this on my calendar? There’s a lot of scamming going out there, and you can imagine if you’re like a big company with a lot more money than, Michelle Leder has that, the efforts are a lot more intense to try to figure out poke holes.

Unfortunately there’s bad actors out there and cybersecurity, is, is much more important. we do everything online these days. We pay our bills online, and so there’s a lot of incidents that are going on, some of which we probably don’t even know about.

Of course, if it’s very big, we kind of remember the ones, like Home Depot had an incident a number of years ago. I feel like, the number of times I’ve gotten an email from Kroll offering to like from some company offering to like, secure my, identity for a year has grown exponentially recently.

Barry Ritholtz: To wrap up, there’s a new deregulatory regime in Washington DC. It’s very crypto friendly. It’s not particularly ESG or climate change friendly, and it’s gonna have an impact on what companies are obligated to disclose to their shareholders. We’ll find out the impact of this over the next few years.

I’m Barry Ritholtz You’ve been listening to Bloomberg’s at the Money.

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post At the Money: The New Deregulatory SEC appeared first on The Big Picture.

Tennessee Judge Postpones Abrego Garcia Trial Amid Claims Of Vindictive Prosecution

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Tennessee overseeing the criminal case involving El Salvador national and long-time Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia has canceled a trial date for the human smuggling case, pending a decision on whether to dismiss the case entirely over the defendant’s allegations of vindictive prosecution.

A trial date in the case had been set for Jan. 27, but U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw of Nashville, Tennessee, in a Dec. 23 filing ordered to change the proceedings to an evidentiary hearing for the government to make its case against the allegations at 9 a.m. on Jan. 28, 2026.

From the arguments and evidence made in the proceedings, which could span a few days, Crenshaw will determine whether the case will proceed to trial or be dismissed.

“The Court has already found that Abrego has made such a showing, entitling him to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on why the government is prosecuting him,” Crenshaw wrote in the order.

“Given this, the burden has shifted to the government to ’rebut [the presumption] ”with objective, on-the-record explanations“' for charging Abrego.”

The indictment in Tennessee against Abrego Garcia came in May, which the defense noted was after a judge in Maryland—overseeing a separate civil case that will determine whether the government can deport the defendant—ordered his return from a prison in El Salvador to Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury and charged with conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens.

The alleged crimes happened during a 2022 traffic stop by Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers, in which he is accused of having worked with co-conspirators to knowingly smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States.

However, an immigration judge in 2019 ordered that, while Abrego Garcia had entered the United States unlawfully in 2011, the government was not allowed to deport him to El Salvador over a credible fear of persecution by gangs in his home country.

While the order did not bar his removal to safe third countries, Abrego Garcia stayed in the United States with a deportation hold for El Salvador.

Despite this hold, the Trump administration did indeed deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s maximum security CECOT prison in March, which the administration later said was an “administrative error.” In April, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

In its appeal, the defense argues that the government only started pursuing charges against Abrego Garcia after his deportation to El Salvador made national headlines. He pleaded not guilty in June, and in August, he rejected a plea deal to be deported to Uganda.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are attempting to have the case dismissed, arguing that the government is pursuing a vindictive and selective prosecution against their client for successfully fighting his removal to El Salvador in the other case.

The Department of Justice has denied the allegations and provided internal emails and an affidavit from acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert McGuire, who said he sought the indictment based on his belief that Abrego Garcia committed a federal crime.

“I received no direction from anyone at the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or any other source on the question of whether to seek or not to seek an indictment in this case,” he said.

The Trump administration maintains that Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant who should face the law if found guilty of human smuggling.

Crenshaw said in a ruling on Oct. 3 that there was a “realistic likelihood that the prosecution against [Abrego Garcia] may be vindictive.” The ruling allowed for the defense to seek discovery and testimony from government officials about their decision to bring the charges.

However, Crenshaw said in the Dec. 23 order that the subpoenas requested by the defense for three high-ranking Justice Department officials—Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh—will only be approved if the case is allowed to proceed to the next step.

The evidentiary hearing will focus on the government’s rebuttal of the defense’s motion to dismiss on grounds of vindictive prosecution.

The government has said it will call on testimony from Supervisory Special Agent John VanWie of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Baltimore, Special Agent Rana Saoud of HSI Nashville, and perhaps McGuire in the hearing.

In the Maryland case, the government continues pursuing the deportation of Abrego Garcia, now to Liberia.

Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis is overseeing that case. Xinis has expressed concern that the country to which Abrego Garcia is deported could eventually send him back to El Salvador. He has requested to be deported to Costa Rica, but the Trump administration is pursuing deportation to a list of countries in Africa.

“If the government were to say today, we’re going to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica,” a defense attorney told a court on Dec. 22, his client is prepared to go “as soon as this afternoon.”

Abrego Garcia remains out on bond in Maryland with his family after being released from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, due to a temporary restraining order that prevents him from being taken into custody while Xinis considers the case.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 10:45

Tim Cook Buys Nike Stock At Bear-Market Extremes

Apple CEO Tim Cook bought another tranche of Nike shares in the open market, according to new insider filings. The purchase comes after roughly four years of share-price declines, with shares trading below Covid-era prices and at 2017 levels, pressured by softer demand in China and mixed channel trends in North America.

Cook made his second purchase of Nike shares this year, buying $2.95 million worth, equivalent to 50,000 Class B shares, at a weighted average price of $58.97 on Monday.

In total, Cook owns 100,000 shares and has been on a buying spree in the four-year bear market. Cook has been buying Nike shares since 2014 (mostly purchases late in the year).

Looking back at Cook’s share purchases during the four-year bear market, the stock did not sustain an upward trend immediately afterwards. Still, Bloomberg noted that shares were up about 2% in premarket trading on the news.

It’s important to note that sentiment around Nike shares is extremely bearish. Goldman Sachs analysts, led by Brooke Roach, said last week that she had become “incrementally cautious” following dismal earnings, particularly as demand in China continues to slide. The report can be found here.

If only there were a way for Nike to stop being so woke and get Chinese consumers to buy their Air Force 1s again.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 10:25

Are European Hawks Finally Sobering Up For Christmas?

Russia's outspoken deputy chair of the Security Council and former president Dmitry Medvedev has continued what he does best - mocking and trolling European leaders over their Ukraine stance. He has reacted on social media to recent remarks by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, saying he was struck by what he described as a noticeably softer approach toward Russia.

Even France's Emmanuel Macron has also of late reached out to Moscow, seeking to enter direct dialogue with President Putin over the future of the conflict. This is in large part appears motivated by Europe not wanting Washington to control the narrative on potential peace settlement.

Writing on his channel on the "Max" platform, Medvedev said he was surprised by the two leaders' positions, arguing that they appeared to diverge from what he called the prevailing European Union narrative of a "Russian threat," which he said has been driven by Brussels.

Years prior, Medvedev with his family at a Christmas church service, Wiki Commons.

His comments come amid ongoing high tensions between Russia and Western countries, but as some European officials begin also to signal a more measured view of the likelihood of a direct military confrontation.

Medvedev wrote with in his characteristically sarcastic tone, "The 'European peacemakers' caught me off guard."

"Pistorius stated he doesn't believe a war between NATO and Russia is imminent, and Stubb acknowledged that Russia has no interest in attacking member countries of the alliance," he continued.

And then questioned, "What’s going on? Are they finally sobering up, or have the Christmas holidays already begun?"

As a reminder, Christmas in Russia falls on January 7th, which is Russian Orthodox Christmas based on the older, pre-Gregorian calendar.

TASS notes to its readers that in Europe on Dec. 25 and after, "These days typically mark a holiday period extending through New Year’s. In Germany, festivities often feature mulled wine and flaming punch, while in Finland, they enjoy even stronger Swedish glogg."

As for Pistorius' recent remarks in an interview with Die Zeit and elsewhere, he's apparently distanced himself from alarmism within NATO. Now he's saying he does not believe in a scenario of a full-scale war between Russia and the alliance. The German defense chief was actually pushing back against other hawks, a rarity:

He was commenting on remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who said the Alliance must be prepared for a war “on the scale experienced by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers”. Pistorius responded bluntly, saying this was most likely a figurative exaggeration. “I do not believe in such a scenario. In my view, Putin does not intend to wage a full-scale global war against NATO.” At the same time, he stresses that this does not remove the need to rearm the Bundeswehr. Recently, he said that the past summer may have been “the last peaceful one” for Europe.

So now Medvedev is responding somewhat positively with a warmish Christmas greetings of sorts, while also in his fashion saying essentially 'told ya so'.

Just last month, Boris Pistorius warned a German newspaper that Europe may already have seen its last peaceful summer and that Russia and NATO could be at war next year.

Now he says there will be no Third World War and that talk of a NATO–Russia conflict is “figurative… https://t.co/ON8uLCI8zR

— Brian McDonald (@27khv) December 23, 2025

Moscow, including Putin himself, has taken pains to make clear that there are no plans for some kind of expansion of the war into NATO countries, and that Russia is not looking to reconstitute a lost empire or the Soviet Union.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 09:45

Cocaine Dogs & 'Safe Space Ambassadors': Rand Paul Airs The Festivus (Budget) Grievances

Via BattleSwarmblog.com,

Happy Festivus to those who celebrate! In keeping with the spirit of the season, Sen. Rand Paul has graced us once again with his traditional airing of grievances.

Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) released a report Tuesday detailing $1.6 trillion in government waste, in keeping with his annual “Festivus” tradition of airing grievances against wasteful federal spending.

A whopping $1.2 trillion of that wasteful spending is interest payments on the ballooning national debt, according to the report, which contains numerous examples of government programs Paul considers to be useless and fiscally irresponsible.

“Last Festivus, we clamored over the national debt reaching over an astronomical $36 trillion. Shockingly, in one short year, the career politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have managed to reach nearly $40 trillion in debt, without so much as a second thought. When asked who’s to blame for our crushing level of debt, the answer is ‘Everyone.’ This year, Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, the most we ever have,” Paul’s report reads.

“Congress keeps shoveling money toward pet projects and special interests while hardworking Americans pay the price through inflation and crushing interest rates – even after President Trump took action to end most foreign aid programs.”

A staunch fiscal conservative, Paul releases the “Festivus” report every year to playfully draw attention to the U.S. national debt and excessive federal spending.

His grievances are directed towards the Trump and Biden administrations, especially on welfare spending, Covid-19 policy and foreign policy.

“I have no grievances with @POTUS, zero, none, nada, zilch. Mr. President, I wish you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a successful third term,” Paul joked on social media.

“…ok, do you think he stopped reading yet? Cause I do have one or two grievances, and I think we have to be fair and list them against both sides,” Paul added.

Festivus origins snipped, because everyone’s familiar, or they can click that first link.

Paul’s report cites numerous examples of bizarre experiments and training programs the U.S. taxpayer is funding.

For instance, the National Institutes of Health spent $5 million to give dogs cocaine.

I bet Hunter Biden would have carried out that research on a “cost plus” basis.

Similarly, NIH spent $13.8 million on beagle experiments pioneered by former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The Department of Health and Human Services is spotlighted several times in Paul’s “Festivus” report.

HHS spent $1.5 million to combat drug use in “latinx” communities through influencer marketing campaigns and $1.9 million on a mobile phone intervention meant to help reduce obesity among latino families in the Los Angeles area.

Another L.A.-focused HHS program was a $936,000 marketing campaign towards certain LGBT subcultures to inform them about STD testing and treatment.

HHS had another drug-oriented project in New York City, where the agency spent $2.1 million to collect saliva and conduct surveys at EDM clubs and festivals.

Additionally, HHS gave $3.3 million to Northwestern University to create “scientific neighborhoods,” hire “safe space ambassadors” and form committees with the purpose of dismantling “systemic racism.”

No discussion of budget pork be complete without covering the social justice graft.

A major HHS expense that previously drew scrutiny was the $22.6 billion it spent on welfare and other expenses for illegal immigrants during the Biden administration. Likewise, Paul’s report mentions the $7.5 billion of congressional funds allocated for the Biden administration’s EV charger network, which only built 68 charging stations nationwide.

The National Science Foundation is also highlighted in the report for its spending on questionable research.

NSF and other agencies spent $14 million to have monkeys play a video game inspired by the Price is Right game show.

Moreover, the NSF spent $2.4 million on programs that promote bugs as food for human consumption.

Skipping over the DoD’s dolphin training program, which people adjacent to it have told me is very effective.

Two of the largest expenses Paul’s report features are nearly $200 billion of Covid-19 relief funds for schools and $187 billion the Federal Reserve paid to banks for interest on funds the banks maintain at the Fed.

Flu manchu is the fraudcow insiders continue to milk.

For all the Trump47 Administration’s manifest successes, it has not enjoyed overwhelming success cutting the budget. DOGE was a great start, but then they shut it down. For the survival of America, DOGE needs to be the beginning of Trump47’s budget cutting efforts, not the totality of them.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 09:25

Soaring Memory Costs Sink Nintendo Shares; Goldman Says Selloff Is Buy-The-Dip Opportunity

Prices for LPDDR5 DRAM (Low-Power Double Data Rate 5 Dynamic Random-Access Memory) tripled this fall, as we noted in October in "Chatbots: Soaking Up the World's Power, Water, and Memory." LPDDR5 is a form of system memory that delivers higher bandwidth and greater power efficiency than prior generations, making it well-suited for laptops, smartphones, and the explosion in demand for AI-enabled devices.

Update: two months later https://t.co/Q4TPIrpzxV pic.twitter.com/O3KTKxZOVE

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 22, 2025

Goldman analyst Maho Kamiya told clients on Tuesday that concerns about rising memory prices and the absence of top-down tailwinds have sent Nintendo shares spiraling. After a 27% decline from its early November peak, the analyst asks whether the selloff has become overdone.

"Some investors think that Nintendo will be selling Switch 2 at a loss and gross profit falling into the red. While rising memory prices are a risk factor that could depress hardware margins, we think concerns are somewhat excessive," Kamiya said.

In a separate report, Goldman analyst Minami Munakata maintained her bullish view on Nintendo and also addressed rising memory price concerns:

In light of rising memory prices, we note some discussion in the equity market assuming that Nintendo Switch 2 hardware could fall into the red at the gross profit level. While it is true that rising memory prices are a risk factor that could depress hardware margins, we think concerns are somewhat excessive, because:

1. Nintendo holds a certain amount of component inventory and does not conduct spot transactions with its supply chain, so we believe the short-term earnings impact will be minor (our assumption),

2. The Nintendo Switch 2 is expected to see cost reductions from mass production going forward, and

3. Management has commented that, as a general rule, its policy is to pass on cost increases, including tariffs, to the selling price.

We re-emphasize that in the dedicated game console business, content such as software is highly profitable and is the source of profits for the business model. Nintendo has built a solid position by owning numerous titles with high global popularity and name recognition, such as Super Mario Bros. and Pokémon. We expect that, similar to the PS4-to-PS5 transition, an expansion in revenue per hardware unit, driven by software backward compatibility and an increase in the third-party title pipeline, will drive earnings in the Nintendo Switch 2 generation.

Munakata even told clients that the recent stock plunge in Tokyo is an "opportunity" to "add to position"...

We see the recent share price correction as an opportunity to add to positions ahead of full-scale earnings growth accompanying the Nintendo Switch 2's penetration from FY3/27, and the April 2026 release of The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, a prime example of IP utilization. We maintain our Buy rating.

The chart:

We suspect the conversation about soaring memory prices will be a hot topic for some tech companies during the next earnings season.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 09:05

Trump Admin Bans Anti-Free Speech EU Globalists From Entering US

America finally draws a line in the sand against foreign meddlers...

Modernity.news Steve Watson details below that the Trump administration has slapped visa bans on former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other ‘anti-disinformation’ activists, accusing them of coercing American social media companies to censor viewpoints they dislike.

The move signals a zero-tolerance policy toward extraterritorial censorship, especially after the EU’s recent assaults on Elon Musk’s X.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid it out clearly: “For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.”

For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.

Today, @StateDept will take steps to…

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 23, 2025

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Sarah B. Rogers stated “These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil.”

Today, the United States issued SANCTIONS reinforcing the "red line" I invoked on @GBNEWS. Namely: extraterritorial censorship of Americans.

Today's sanctions target the censorship-NGO ecosystem.? https://t.co/kaefDo11uh

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

The list includes Thierry Breton, who notoriously threatened Elon Musk over hosting a 2024 interview with Donald Trump on X. Others barred are Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who worked with Democrats like Amy Klobuchar to “kiII Musk’s Twitter”; Joan Donovan, founder of The Critical Internet Studies Institute; Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public; and Jim Davey, co-founder of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

WE’VE SANCTIONED: Thierry Breton, a mastermind of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, while serving as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he published a letter using the DSA to threaten @elonmusk ahead of his livestream interview with President…

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

WE'VE SANCTIONED: Clare Melford. She leads Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a UK-based organization that monitors websites for “hate speech” and “disinformation”. If you question Canadian blood libels about residential schools, you're engaging in “hate speech” according to… pic.twitter.com/5F3fU4hf4R

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

WE’VE SANCTIONED: Josephine Ballon, co-leader of HateAid, who flags disfavored speech throughout Europe under the Digital Services Act. In addition to her running an official “trusted flagger” body under the DSA, she serves on Germany’s Advisory Council of the Digital Services…

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

Our targets are foreign, but you'll notice that some collaborated with U.S. bureaucrats on Murthy-style speech suppression. Don't worry: we're pursuing transparency, truth, and reconciliation at the @StateDept, too.

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

As @SecRubio has noted, today's list is illustrative not exhaustive. We stand "ready and willing to expand" it.https://t.co/eS65g6i8OP

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

This retaliation comes amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the EU. As we previously detailed, Brussels hit X with a $140 million fine under the Digital Services Act for refusing to comply with their censorship demands, marking a blatant attack on free expression.

Musk fired back fiercely, declaring the “EU commissars are responsible for the murder of Europe” and calling to “Dissolve the EU and return power to the people.” He highlighted X’s surge in popularity across Europe despite the fine, noting it became the top news app in every EU country.

The broader feud intensified when EU Council President Antonio Costa warned Trump to “keep his hands off Europe” amid the free speech crackdown. Costa condemned U.S. “interference” in European affairs, ignoring the bloc’s own slide into authoritarian control over online content.

Trump himself has blasted Europe’s direction, urging citizens to confront unchecked migration and over-regulation that’s “endangering the continent as we know it.” In interviews, he stressed, “Europe has to be very careful… We want to keep Europe Europe,” and called the EU’s fine on X “nasty” and unjust.

Breton, who left the European Commission in 2024, has slammed the ban as a “witch hunt,” comparing the situation to the US McCarthy era when officials were chased out of government for alleged ties to communism.

“To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is,” he declared on X.

Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back? ?

As a reminder: 90% of the European Parliament — our democratically elected body — and all 27 Member States unanimously voted the DSA ??

To our American friends: “Censorship isn’t where you think it is.”

— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) December 23, 2025

France also condemned the visa ban on Breton, but the Trump team remains unmoved. This action underscores America’s commitment to protecting its tech giants from foreign regulatory harassment, prioritizing sovereignty and open discourse over globalist dictates.

As Brussels doubles down on surveillance tools like the DSA and proposed Chat Control laws, which threaten privacy by scanning private messages, the U.S. pushback exposes the hypocrisy of EU elites preaching democracy while building an Orwellian framework.

With Trump in charge, expect more defense of freedoms against such overreach. This ban on Breton and his allies is a clear message: Attempts to censor U.S. platforms from abroad will face consequences. The era of tolerating globalist bullying is over.

[ZH: To all of this we have one simple response: ]

Hey Imran, f**k you!

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/24/2025 - 08:45