Chinese Hackers Reportedly Breached Phones At "Heart of Downing Street"

Chinese state-linked hackers reportedly accessed mobile phones “at the heart of Downing Street” as part of a long-running cyber-espionage campaign targeting telecom networks worldwide, according to Fox News.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe the breaches began as early as 2021, though they were publicly revealed in 2024 after American officials warned allies about widespread intrusions into global telecommunications systems.

The campaign targeted several countries, including the U.S. and members of the Five Eyes alliance. Investigators say the attackers may have gained access to the data of millions, with the ability to monitor calls, read messages, and track locations.

Former U.S. national security adviser Anne Neuberger said the “Chinese gained access to networks and essentially had broad and full access,” allowing them to “geolocate millions of individuals” and “record phone calls at will.”

Fox News reports that a source told The Telegraph that the breach reached “right into the heart of Downing Street,” raising concerns that senior U.K. officials may have been affected.

In response, U.S. agencies urged telecom companies in 2024 to strengthen security. A joint advisory in August 2025 warned that Chinese state-sponsored groups, including one known as “Salt Typhoon,” were continuing to target networks globally.

The Telegraph also reported “many” hacking incidents affecting British government phones, particularly during former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s term from 2022 to 2024.

Former Israeli intelligence chief Yuval Wollman said Salt Typhoon is “one of the most prominent names” in cyber-espionage, with operations extending across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

China has previously denied the allegations, calling them “baseless” and “lacking evidence.” U.K. officials have not yet commented on the latest reports.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/28/2026 - 04:15

UK's Government-Controlled Digital ID Is Not The Optional Convenience It Is Being Sold As

Authored by David Thunder via 'The Freedom Blog;,

The UK government has pledged to introduce a digital ID system for all UK citizens and legal residents by the end of the current Parliament (so no later than 2029). The integration of digital ID into government services, though already under way, has hitherto been largely voluntary. However, is is becoming steadily less optional, as the government has said it will now be required as a precondition for work in the U.K, and a version of it (GOV.UK One Login) is already being imposed unilaterally upon company directors throughout the U.K.

Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has suggested in a recent interview (19/11) that digital ID is completely optional and will simply make government services more accessible and convenient. But this is a rather disingenuous sales pitch. On the one hand, Starmer himself insists that digital ID will be required as a precondition to work legally in the U.K; on the other hand, like any new technology, there will be a transition period, but voluntariness is unlikely to last forever.

Evidently, the government will not immediately require everyone to use a digital ID in their interactions with government agencies. But as digital ID becomes more normalised, it will likely become as compulsory as holding a passport for international travel. Can you really imagine a modern government allowing “hold-outs” to stay in the physical world while digital ID systems become the norm?

Providing citizens with an easy way to seamlessly verify their identity when they access government services may seem like the “efficient” thing to do. However, this apparent efficiency comes at a high price, exposing citizens to significant risks of government over-reach, surveillance, and system failures.

The old “clunky” system, in which there was bureaucratic redundancy and replication and in which physical ID cards had to be shown to access discrete government services made it more difficult for the government to comprehensively monitor and control a citizen’s choices in real time, and meant a single point of failure in the system did not necessarily compromise all of a citizen’s important data, or disable citizens’ ability to access public services.

The problem with universal digital ID overseen by the State is not that a dystopian State will be born overnight, or that all our data will be stolen the day after the scheme is initiated, but that the architecture of authoritarian control will be set in motion, and the potential repercussions of serious data breaches and system failures will be significantly enlarged.

According to a House of Commons Research Briefing, government statements suggest that “there will be no centralised digital ID database.” But as the same briefing points out, civil rights group Big Brother Watch stresses that “even decentralised systems can behave like centralised ones if identifiers link data across platforms.”

The creation of a digital ID system for accessing a wide range of public services clearly poses grave risks of abuse, given the evident conflict of interest of governments who both oversee the architecture of a digital ID system, and have incentives to extend their control over citizens’ lives.

Unlike a traditional physical ID system, in which there is a local gatekeeper who opens the gate to a service based on limited information - typically, a service-specific database - a digital ID system could, in some future iteration, permit a remote gatekeeper to use an AI algorithm to analyze a citizen’s data and history (unlocked by their ID) and ration their access to a service to induce compliance with the government’s preferred policies. This scenario becomes even more plausible given the momentum behind centralised digital currencies, which could offer governments direct leverage over citizens’ income and spending choices.

Do such scenarios seem far-fetched? If the digital ID system is controlled, overseen and effectively programmed by centralised governments and their agencies, and is already intended as an obligatory verification procedure for employment rights, there is certainly no technological impediment to governments extending the logic of digital surveillance and control, through “mission creep,” to other sectors of social life.

For example, just as a government uses digital ID to track someone’s employment history and residency status as a way of corroborating their right to work, surely it could also use digital ID to track someone’s health history or vaccination status as a criterion for the right to, say, attend public venues, use public transport or enter the country?

And if the same digital ID is associated with a “digital wallet” tied to CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), then what is preventing a government from capping a citizen’s spending on international travel once they reach their “carbon allowance”? What if a government-regulated digital ID is required for citizens to post content on social media? This scenario, which is far from fanciful, would give governments leverage to restrict “non-compliant” citizens’ social media activities.

So much for the technological feasibility of leveraging a digital ID system to exert ever greater control over citizens’ lives. Now, do we think government officials are so profoundly committed to civil liberties that they would balk at the thoughts of leveraging digital ID programmes to engage in far-reaching forms of surveillance and control over citizens’ lives? We hardly have grounds for optimism, given Western governments’ abysmal track record during the Covid era, when they were prepared to lock down citizens in their homes based on scientifically flimsy theories of disease control, and “make life hell” (to use a loose translation of President Macron’s notorious expression) for citizens who opted out of an experimental vaccine.

Besides the substantial risks of government surveillance and over-reach, there is a very real risk that citizens’ data may be more exposed to cyber-attacks in a more ambitious, integrated and data-rich digital ID system, and that the very ability to access public services may be as fragile as the weakest point in the system.

On the one hand, government-overseen databases, no less than privately managed databases, have notoriously been compromised, time and again, by serious data breaches and leaks over the years. An increasingly complex and wide-ranging system, linking an ever wider pool of citizens’ data, will be sure to attract the interest of international hackers. On the other hand, if and when these systems experience major glitches, such as the recent outage of internet security company Cloudfare that took ChatGPT and X offline, public services may experience major disruptions, if not paralysis. We want resilience, not just efficiency.

There are more and less safe and efficient ways to harness the technology of digital ID. But the development of digital ID systems should be managed by a complex web of service providers who can develop competitive solutions to the technical problems they pose, under a broad legal framework, and reliance on such systems should be maximally voluntary.

We are living through a major crisis of trust in public institutions. Governments have shown themselves to be unworthy stewards of the ship of State, and citizens are right to distrust their intentions and competence. There could hardly be a worse time - and I’m not saying there ever was a good time - to entrust politicians with an ambitious digital ID programme plagued with risks of government surveillance, technocratic over-reach, system failures, and data breaches.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/28/2026 - 03:30

EU 'Celebrates' Replacing One Massive Energy Dependency With Another One

EU member states on Monday finally signed off on a legally binding ban on Russian gas imports, locking in a hard deadline to sever the bloc's remaining dependence on Russian energy flows by late 2027.

The move turns Brussels' long-running pledge to cut Moscow energy loose into enforceable law, nearly four years after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or what Putin calls the Special Military Operation, which has still not been legally declared by Russia to be an official state of war.

Eric de Mildt/Greenpeace

Under the deal, the EU will shut the door on all Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports by the end of 2026, followed by a complete ban on pipeline gas by September 30, 2027.

A limited escape hatch was built in for those countries struggling to replace Russian supply and fill storage ahead of winter. These can push the pipeline cutoff to November 1, 2027.

Before 2022, Russia accounted for more than 40% of the EU's gas supply - a figure which has fallen to roughly 13% by 2025. But there's still a sizeable gap between Brussels' political messaging and the bloc's actual energy behavior. As Reuters reports:

Last month, the five biggest EU importers spent 1.4 billion euros ($1.66 billion) on Russian energy, mostly on gas and LNG, data from the non-profit Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air showed. Hungary was the biggest buyer, before France and Belgium.

Here's how the president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, announced the ban Tuesday: "We have just signed the ban on Russian gas into law. Europe is securing control of our energy supply and strengthening our autonomy."

There's only one obvious problem in all this from a supposed European 'energy independence' perspective, summarized well in the following:

They’ve just locked themselves into total dependency on the US, the country they claim to want to become “independent” from. Utter clowns. https://t.co/yO5UdBMTAY

— Thomas Fazi (@battleforeurope) January 27, 2026

Another commenter, a European libertarian, reacted as follows: 

What an idiot stooge, willing to do anything for power. This is the tragedy of Europe: with such a "leadership" we assure our continued submissiveness to the US.

And journalist Mark Ames roundly mocks these new 'boasts' EU energy freedom in the following remarks, and invoking the Greenland crisis, on the below clip:

Danish PM bragging how they swapped out their dependence on cheap Russian gas, which posed a theoretical threat, for dependence on expensive US gas, a direct existential threat to Denmark. Must be that high European IQ that race science weirdos rave about.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen:

I think, or I hope, that all Europeans can now see that it was a huge mistake to be dependent on Russian fossil fuels. We should never have been.

And now we have to make sure that we will have no dependencies on other countries outside… pic.twitter.com/J9o6c0HXYe

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 26, 2026

"We’ve replaced one massive dependency with another one," Henning Gloystein, a managing director for energy at Eurasia Group, told The NY Times. "That looked fine three years ago, but now it doesn't."

That same Tuesday NYT report points out that soon after the Feb.2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, "The United States came to the rescue. Tankers loaded at U.S. terminals shipped large volumes of liquefied natural gas to European ports in the Netherlands, France and Belgium, among other destinations, helping to replace the Russian fuel and calming markets."

And the report follows with this epic and ironic line, highlighting the elephant in the room: "Not long ago, those gas flows looked heroic. Now, they are raising eyebrows. Since beginning his second term, President Trump has sought to use trade as leverage in disputes with other countries, including his recent push to take over Greenland."

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/28/2026 - 02:45

EU's Deadly New Weapon Against Press Freedom: Already Wreaking Havoc

Via Remix News,

In an extraordinary case that could decide the future of press rights in Europe, Berlin-based German-Turkish journalist Hüseyin Doğru is currently under European Union sanctions for his reporting, which left him completely unable to access his bank account for months.

Under orders from the EU, his assets were frozen, and these sanctions were dispensed with no trial or appeal. Currently, Doğru says he is not even allowed to leave Germany.

As Berliner Zeitung reports, Doğru completely exhausted all financial means, telling the paper that his bank has completely blocked access to his previously approved minimum subsistence allowance of €506. He stated that he can no longer support his family or even buy food for his two newborn children.

“Not only I, but also my wife and my three children are effectively being sanctioned,” Doğru, a left-wing journalist, said in the interview.

“The sanctions themselves stipulate that I am entitled to access to essential funds. The fact that my bank is nevertheless blocking these funds violates applicable law in my view,” he told the Berlin newspaper.

Since then, he has won some reprieve and regained access to his account on Jan. 22 through the actions of his lawyer, but a legal battle over the sanctions is continuing.

UPDATE: Comdirect finally (and unwillingly) restored my account access—only after public and media pressure. Thank you ALL for supporting me. Next goal: lift the sanctions, not just against me, but against all punished for expressing their opinions. https://t.co/P6rdkNhCC8

— Hüseyin Dogru (@hussedogru) January 22, 2026

There are now fears that the extraordinary case may be a sign of where the future is headed, where an authoritarian EU can censor and financially ruin dissidents and journalists with no oversight or judicial review. Notably, similar sanctions could also be deployed against others, such as Roger Köppel, the Swiss editor-in-chief of the weekly Die Weltwoche.

Doğru has been on an EU sanctions list since May 2025, with Brussels arguing that his pro-Palestinian journalistic work incites “ethnic, political, and religious discord” and therefore, he allegedly supports “destabilizing activities by Russia.” Notably, he filmed a number of the occupations of Berlin universities by pro-Palestinian activists.

The basis for the sanctions was his alleged connections to Russia, but the Berliner Zeitung indicates that so far, no proof has been presented to confirm this accusation, and more importantly, there was no trial or evidence provided to support this accusation.

“Brussels justifies the measures by saying that he is using his pro-Palestinian journalistic work to stir up ‘ethnic, political and religious discord’ and thus allegedly ‘destabilizing activities that support Russia.’ The EU has not yet publicly provided any concrete evidence of a connection to Moscow,” wrote the paper.

Germany couldn’t do it, but the EU could

In a recent interview on Youtube, which included the Greek progressive Yanis Varoufakis, Doğru provided further details about his case, including why these sanctions came from the EU and not Germany.

“And this now all applied to me the first time in the form of a sanction, but the German government did not do it directly with me. They, as Yanis said, pass it over to the European Union because in Germany, they could not do that in a legal way, because the backlash is still there in this bourgeois democracy. The little backlash, if it comes to their own citizens, which I am, even though they don’t maybe accept me as such. But if a journalist is in court here, he has a lot of rights.

But if you go through the European Union, the European Commission, there is no judge, there is no hearing, there is no evidence. It’s an extrajudicial act of… and the EU says sanctions are not punishment, they are punitive to change your behavior for the benefit of the European Union, which is not a punishment. So, it’s an extrajudicial execution of a journalist. 

But now coming back to the beginning, why is that happening? They’re all laid that out and they’re testing it with me for the first time. And what makes the whole situation unique is that the first time, if they can get away with it, this is going to soon happen to you guys as well, or even those who attacked us.”

The sanctions had a devastating effect on Doğru and illustrate how they could be used to silence nearly any journalist, whether on the left or the right.

“I’m not allowed to pay my lawyer. I’m not allowed to buy water. I’m not allowed to provide my child with food. I’m not allowed to work. I’m not allowed to buy medicine. Every single monetary transaction with me is forbidden. Technically, you’re not even allowed to give me a basket of food because I could turn that technically into money. And this is forbidden.

And if I violate or you do, I don’t know about you, but if I were to violate one of these things, I could face like five years of prison time by avoiding sanctions technically, but they went further. I’m sanctioned, I’m on that list, but they also technically sanctioned my wife and our unborn twins because they froze older accounts.  She is not allowed to receive her salary right now.

So in this moment, we technically have no money that we can access to go and buy something. There is also the problem because a lot of activists, journalists, colleagues, politicians and family members even said, ‘Should we send you money?’ We said, ‘Don’t do that. Don’t do that because you would be maybe categorized as avoiding sanctions.’ And this is the problem here. Sanction, as the European Union describes on their website, is a tool that is aligned with humanitarian law, which is not deemed to punish, but rather to change your behavior.”

You literally sanctioned me for exercising my freedom of speech. https://t.co/tgP9kMiJIu pic.twitter.com/56Cb7vq0Jz

— Hüseyin Dogru (@hussedogru) December 24, 2025

Notably, this is tool is being used on a journalist in Europe during a time when EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is claiming that Europe is a place where freedom of speech is valued, a point that Doğru is more than willing to point out.

The German-Turkish journalist stated during the interview that he does not understand what “behavior” is supposed to be changed by the sanctions, saying:

“To change behavior, what kind of behavior do they want to change? My behavior to use my rights as a citizen of Europe or of the world to express my opinion on certain events. Also, the right to survive because all my existential grounds are taken away from me. To be a bit more specific, maybe that sounds a bit crude, but just to make the point that I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me, someone in a prison currently technically has more rights than I have, because they can, in custody, buy something which I can’t even.”

The Russian accusations

For those on the right who dismiss this case because of Doğru’s pro-Palestinian coverage or maybe even dislike him because he’s a Muslim, it is clear that this is only a test case. Many of his views or the views of Varoufakis, such as their claims about European colonialism, can be contested, but that is besides the point. Conservatives, libertarians, and the right will all be targeted in the future, not only with this type of method, but other similar methods that are already being deployed.

Doğru indicates that the argument, as far as he can see, is not that he has any direct connection to Russia, but that the EU can interpret his reporting as beneficial to Russia, and therefore, it can legally use these extrajudicial sanctions. Notably, Doğru said he was openly criticizing Russia and its war in Ukraine long before these sanctions hit him.

“And I think this is unique as Yanis said at the beginning with my case, because for the first time ever, Europe sanctioned a journalist in the context of the Russian sanction packages and laws and regulations, who was criticizing Russian policies publicly, which I did, who was criticizing the war in Ukraine,” he said.

He added that he was targeted for “covering protests across Europe, which meant for the European Union that covering that, covering protests, covering violent protests, means for the European Union that only Russia can benefit from that because I’m creating social discord. I’m focusing on that, apparently, and Russia can benefit from that. Therefore, that makes me a Russian news outlet or pro-Russian journalist, which is, I can’t see you’re rolling your eyes. It’s exactly what happened to me as well.”

It is important to note that a report from German newspaper Tagesspiegel indicated that Doğru previously worked for Russian-linked news source Redfish Media. After the war in Ukraine broke out, Redfish closed down, and Doğru began a new outlet called Red, which included a number of former Redfish employees. Doğru indicated that the Red outlet, founded in Istanbul, was independent and received support from private individuals and organizations, without providing further details.

Even if this outlet, however, is connected to Russia in some manner, and so far no evidence has been presented in that direction, the EU’s ability to implement such powerful sanctions against an individual without due process should raise concerns for journalists everywhere.

Concerns expressed from many corners

It is not just the far left complaining about these sanctions against Doğru, but a broad political spectrum is taking issue with how they have been implemented. Here is what Berliner Zeitung wrote:

The Doğru case has been causing a stir for months. Critics see the sanctioning of a German journalist as a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the European Union. The criticism is particularly harsh in a legal opinion prepared by former European Court of Justice judge Ninon Colneric and international law professor Alina Miron. The opinion was presented to the European Parliament in the fall and addresses the new EU sanctions regime against so-called disinformation.

The authors conclude that the sanctions constitute a profound infringement of fundamental rights. The measures act like a “civil death” (“mort civile”): assets are frozen, access to banking services is effectively blocked, and the economic capacity of those affected is almost completely eliminated. This not only affects the sanctioned individuals themselves but also has a direct impact on their professional and private lives.

The report states that it is particularly problematic that sanctions are imposed without prior judicial review. Denying the right to a hearing before being placed on a sanctions list is disproportionate and violates European fundamental rights. The damage to freedom of expression and of the press is completely out of proportion to the stated goal of combating disinformation.

In short, the EU took a sledgehammer to this case, and with the other issues such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and efforts to fight so-called “disinformation,” it is clear that these tools and terms can be weaponied within the EU establishment against any reporting they do not agree with or find to be a threat.

The history of these sanctions

While the main points of this text has been addressed, some readers may be interested in how these sanctions were implemented and their background.

Doğru addresses the history of these sanctions in his interview with Varoufakis.

“How did we come to this point? It’s going to be a little bit technical, like using technical words, but I think for the audience it is very, very important because that did not just happen from nowhere. It technically started with the annexation of Crimea by Russia. So that’s when the European Union created the European External Action Service (EEAS), which was tasked to combat disinformation and Russian influence in Europe.

After around 2018, that body was extended with more rights, which created a kind of like an action plan against this information. And then we first heard like these words, and I think everyone knows that now. It’s like undermining European democracy, the European values, the European project and about strategic threats, and at some point about disinformation.”

He goes on to address terms like “disinformation” and “hybrid threat,” saying these terms were first coined around 2020. He said that disinformation, in particular, does not have to be a lie, but simply information that is categorized as a threat by the EU.

“That means technically information is now categorized by the EU as a threat, as long as it does not serve their benefit. In that case, as long as a journalist does not report on behalf of or for the benefit of the European Union. This might be a protest, that might be, if I criticize in the context of the Ukraine war, Russia and Europe, for example. So it’s kind of militarizing and criminalizing information, and by fighting disinformation and shutting down information, the EU started to use this (term),” he said.

He then delves further into the history of these sanctions and how the Digital Service Act (DSA) raised the stakes because it allows the EU to punish and sanction individuals, including journalists.

So what happened after that is also like the EAS created or introduced the FIMA, I think it is called, the foreign information manipulation and interference. This was very, very unique and very, very important because that gives the EEAS the right to punish, sanction everyone who is also, how should I work that now, involved in, this is very important: non-illegal suspicious behavior. So they say you have maybe a suspicious behavior and it is no illegal but we judge that as a threat to us, and we can’t punish you. That’s what the FIMA says. So this is very important. The only evidence is look at EEAS, look at FIMA. That’s the template for that…And that brings us to the last point, the Digital Service Act.

The Digital Service act says that in a state of emergency, whatever that is, they don’t announce that or explain that, that they technically can sanction, punish or whatever punishment they have in their mind, journalists and information.

Varoufakis closes by addressing how dangerous this threat now is for European citizens and journalists.

“And we need to emphasize this. I’m glad we have Hüseyin (Doğru) here because this innovation by the German government on the one hand and of course the European Commission on the other is a vile and dangerous precedent, as Hüseyin said. Today, they choose to use anti-Russian or Russian related decrees in order to stop a journalist, a German citizen, from writing about Palestine.

Tomorrow, they can do exactly the same thing regarding any issue, any topic that they do not want people to talk about. It could be anything from the investigation of an accident, a railway accident, an airplane crash. Once we have allowed them to use extrajudicial cancellation methods of European citizens, then that is the thin edge of the wedge. And we go back to really before Magna Carta, before Magna Carta. We’re not talking about democracy now in big domains. We’re going, no, we are digging ourselves into a hole, a wormhole that brings us out like a time machine before the time of Magna Carta.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/28/2026 - 02:00

The End Of "The Great Reset": Six Final Takeaways From Davos As Globalism, Net Zero Lose Edge

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times,

For years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has promoted discussions around global economic coordination and governance, an approach often associated with initiatives such as the “Great Reset,” a concept introduced by WEF founder Klaus Schwab.

At this year’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland, however, the tone of the forum appeared more cautious, with a greater focus on debate and scrutiny of existing assumptions than on presenting a unified vision.

The forum, which has traditionally provided a platform for political and business leaders to discuss ideas such as “stakeholder capitalism,” also featured more challenges to these concepts.

Critics of the model say that it places increased emphasis on environmental, social, and governance priorities, including diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, while supporters maintain they reflect evolving expectations of corporate responsibility.

Here are six takeaways from the 2026 Davos meetings.

1. Net Zero Meets Industrial Reality

Despite many sessions continuing to adhere to the forum’s long-standing emphasis on so-called climate change risks and warnings of environmental catastrophe, some talks were shaped by concerns over sovereignty and strategic dependence, including energy security and supply chains.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said at a WEF stage event that Europe’s decarbonization goals risk increasing dependency on adversarial nations such as China for key components of its energy transition.

“You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation,” Lutnick said. “And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies.”

Europe has imposed some of the world’s strictest climate regulations while offshoring much of the industrial base required for the energy transition. The bloc is heavily dependent on China for batteries, rare earths, and critical minerals.

“Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don’t make a battery?” Lutnick said. “So if they go ‘2030’ they are deciding to be subservient to China, who makes the batteries. Why would you do that?”

Vimal Kapur, CEO of Honeywell, a major U.S. industrial and technology conglomerate that supplies critical systems for aerospace, energy, manufacturing, and heavy industry worldwide, said that renewable energy alone cannot currently sustain the high energy demands to produce cement or steel.

“They are very energy-intensive ... It’s physics,” Kapur said.

“Renewables remain in the mix, but it cannot bring the amount of joules we need to produce this infrastructure which is required in the world.”

2. Rules-Based Order Declared ‘Finished’

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney used his Davos speech to pronounce the “rules-based international order” over.

“The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just,” he said.

Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a speech during the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Jan. 20, 2026. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

“The middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

Carney visited China last week and praised the regime’s leadership as his government seeks to deepen cooperation with Beijing.

French President Emmanuel Macron also spoke of trade tensions with the United States.

He said that competition from the United States through trade agreements “undermines our export interests, demands maximum concessions, and openly aims to weaken and subordinate Europe, combined with an endless accumulation of new tariffs that are fundamentally unacceptable, even more so when they are used as leverage against territorial sovereignty.”

3. Quiet on The Great Reset

Some of the clearest signals came from absences rather than speeches.

Schwab didn’t attend Davos this year, marking the first time the WEF founder wasn’t present at the event in its 55-year history. He stepped down from his leadership role last year.

Schwab wrote the book “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” which controversially urged elites to “press the reset button on capitalism.”

The Great Reset became shorthand during the pandemic-era lockdowns for calls to use the crisis to reshape economies and social systems under slogans such as “build back better,” a notion whose advocates saw as positive reform and welcome advancement of “social justice” but whose critics viewed as elite-driven social engineering and heavy-handed government overreach.

“Stakeholder capitalism,” coined by Schwab in 1971, is capitalism in which companies “do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”

“Stakeholders,” according to the WEF, includes “everyone who [has] a ’stake' in the success of a firm,” massively broadening the pool of voices that can influence the decisions of a company.

This led to corporations prioritizing “environmental, social, and governance” goals alongside shareholder profit.

Critics have labeled it a form of “disaster corporatism,” saying it blurs the line between business and state.

4. Anti-Globalist Challenge

Davos has hosted critics before, but this year stood out.

Last year, at a WEF special address Argentinian President Javier Milei, a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, told the audience: “Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state.”

This year, he went even further, in an intense speech blasting socialism and what he described as the West’s abandonment of liberty, framing 2026 as a year of global “awakening” toward free-market principles.

“The world has begun to awaken,” Milei said, adding that “we have a better future ahead, but that better future exists only if we return to the roots of the West, which means returning to the ideas of liberty.”

Argentina's President Javier Milei speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos on Jan. 21, 2026. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

5. World ‘Not a Cozy Place’

Davos, long known for its convivial fireside chats, alpine scenery, and reflective discussions on global cooperation, sustainability, and economic reform, gave way to a more sober mood as geopolitical tensions dominated proceedings.

“This new world of great powers is being built on power, on strength, and when it comes to it, on force,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. “It’s not a cozy place.”

He also highlighted his country and the EU’s long-standing structural economic weaknesses.

“Both Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential for growth in recent years by dragging feet on reforms in unnecessarily and excessively curtailing entrepreneurial freedoms and personal responsibility,” he said.

“The single market was once created to form the most competitive economic area in the world, but instead, we have become the world champion of overregulation,” Merz added. “That has to end.”

6. Trump Dominates

U.S. President Donald Trump’s presence and agenda eclipsed many of the forum’s traditional economic discussions.

This included Trump’s speech and high-profile interventions, from demanding “immediate negotiations” regarding the U.S. bid for Greenland to establishing members on his new Gaza Board of Peace initiative.

“The USA is the economic engine on the planet. And when America booms, the entire world booms,” Trump said.

He said he wants European civilization “do great.”

“That’s why issues like energy, trade, immigration, and economic growth must be central concerns to anyone who wants to see a strong and united West. Because Europe and those countries have to do their thing. They have to get out of the culture that they’ve created over the last 10 years. It’s horrible what they’re doing to themselves. They’re destroying themselves.”

“We want strong allies, not seriously weakened ones,” he added. “We want Europe to be strong.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 23:25

The Seven Deadly Sins Of Weight Loss Drugs

Authored by Alan Cassels via The Brownstone Institute,

O is for Obesity….

Back in the days, we saw a fat lady sing, 
Her song rich and lovely, our hearts would soon ring. 
And with her size so big, we silently mocked her,
But we never thought once she should just see a doctor.

But that has all changed. It’s obesity not fat, 
A medical label wearing a medical hat.
Dieting and exercise, everyone agrees,
Ain’t the modern way to tackle “chronic” disease. 

She’s caught a new tune, she’s no easy cynic,
And she gets the right needle from the right clinic. 
The fat melts away, that drug is quite clever.
As long as she takes it forever and ever.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Sick Hustle Dispatch. I’m Alan Cassels, drug policy researcher, author of four books, student, and scholar of the world of medical hype. I have spent 30 years as an independent drug policy researcher, critiquing aggressive pharma marketing and disease-mongering. I believe we are all subject to the sharp end of the pharmaceutical industry’s profitable con of transforming everyday aches, normal aging, social ills, and common fears into lifelong pill-swallowing customers. And in much of my writing this is what I hope to expose. 

Back in 2005, with Australian journalist Ray Moynihan our book Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients laid bare the playbook: drug companies, with their legions of PR flacks, paid experts, funded patient groups, and compliant media, systematically widen the boundaries of illness to expand their markets. High cholesterol? Shyness? Mild bone thinning? Restlessness? All rebranded as chronic, widespread conditions, burnished with a patina of respectable medical terminology and paving the way for a lifelong diet of pills. That’s the way the model works. 

You see, cures are passée. Cures kill markets. Getting the population properly hooked on a pharmaceutical treatment for a ‘chronic’ condition is where the serious money is.

Our core insight was simple and grim: it’s far easier—and infinitely more profitable—to convince healthy people that they’re sick than to develop genuine cures for the truly ill.

Twenty years later, the hustle is bigger, slicker, and more dangerous than ever. 

Watching that hustle unfold with weight loss drugs feels weirdly ominous, like watching a slow-moving train wreck you can’t peel your eyes off of. You know there’ll be carnage and bodies, vast fortunes won and lost, and humanity left just a little bit poorer. We have often documented the pharmaceutical industry’s proven ability to create enormously lucrative markets overnight, by inventing and selling diseases.

Now watch as all that ingenuity and energy gets pointed at one of the biggest problems bewitching humanity: human fatness. 

Redefining the Disease

The most central issue stems from the very definition of disease. 

By way of poignant parable, in the mid-1990s the drug industry and their surrogates had managed to bamboozle the medical world that pain was the “Fifth vital sign,” a card trick that opened the door to the widespread use of opioids (like Oxycontin). This redefinition of pain treatment—through industry-funded textbooks, and lectures—meant our doctors were soon writing routine prescriptions for some of the most addictive substances on earth for everything from simple arthritis or back pain to tooth extractions. 

This was similar to how the companies inserted themselves into medical societies and treatment panels, redefining levels at which doctors should treat high blood pressure, blood sugars, or high cholesterol, (lowering them and widely expanding the numbers of citizens treated). Now, makers of one of the most lucrative drug classes in history are using their weapons-grade propaganda to go after the big kahuna, obesity. 

Just switch the goal posts, redefine the label, and then supply the treatment. It’s easy when you have more money than God. This sleight-of-hand, which firmly places blame on your “genes” instead of your lifestyle or your socio-economic status will someday be considered as scandalous a catastrophe as a man-made virus escaping from a Chinese lab. Scandalous, and human-caused, because there is no mystical “obesity gene” taking over our lives, but redefining it this way (similar to how Big Pharma redefined “pain”) will allow makers of weight loss treatments to colonize millions of new customers.

As evidence of the shifting goalposts, one only needs to examine a definition-changing study from 2025, vastly increasing our estimates of obese Americans by adding “anthropometric” measures such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and waist-to-height ratios, leading to estimates that up to 75.2% of US adults have obesity. 

Gaining too much weight so that it impairs your health is overwhelmingly linked to diet, exercise, environment, poverty, and ultra-processed food, yet these behavioural, social, and environmental factors get eclipsed by the theory of the “chronic relapsing brain disease” requiring ‘medical, science-based’ cures.

Oprah, in her new book Enough asks that we “step back and look at obesity for what it really is.” Speaking with the certitude of a top-tier celebrity that obesity is not about willpower and burning more calories than you consume, it’s “a chronic medical condition rooted in the body’s own regulatory systems, which are responding to our current environment.” 

There’s no irony when she calls this the “crucial shift—from blame and shame to science and treatment.”

As the sellers of sickness are so good at doing, they’ve taken a social/environmental and behavioural condition and turned it into a medical one, feeding an insatiable appetite for an expensive, ineffective, and ultimately deadly drug which stops working the moment you stop taking it.

This is disease-mongering at its peak, redirecting important energy that could make us all healthier, and pouring it into chemical treatments and creating a lifelong, expensive dependency.

The Ongoing Story of GLP-1 Inhibitors

The GLP-1 juggernaut—drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, Zepbound, Trulicity, Victoza, and Saxenda– have undoubtedly become a massive phenomenon. 

Admittedly some portion of people consuming these drugs might find that the quality and length of their life has improved. Well-meaning clinicians—who are genuinely trying to help morbidly obese patients and diabetics who feel stuck—might use these drugs as a way to kickstart important lifestyle and behaviour changes. However, we know the drugs are part of an experiment whose ultimate outcome is unknown. Even Oprah can’t tell us how long or how healthy a person will become if they take GLP-1 Inhibitors for the “rest of their lives.” Only time will tell how well humans adapt to a widespread chemical alteration of their appetites.

History has not been kind to weight loss drugs: even a brief peek back into the last 30 years of drug treatment for weight-loss reveals an unmitigated story of disaster and failure. 

As with any massive uptake of a new drug, already lawsuits are beginning to pile up, mostly centred on gastrointestinal effects such as gastroparesis. Drug labels warn of “fatal malnutrition” as well as vision loss and assorted psychiatric impacts. Fresh studies confirm rapid weight regain—and returning health risks—after stopping the drugs. Most people can’t tolerate the side effects of these drugs and stop them. 

As of early 2026, the GLP-1 frenzy shows no signs of slowing—despite price negotiations, new oral formulations, and even WHO guidelines endorsing long-term use for obesity as a “disease.” Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly continue to dominate a market projected to hit $157 billion by 2035, with 2025 sales already topping tens of billions for Ozempic/Wegovy and Mounjaro/Zepbound. 

Seven Deadly Sins

The world’s current fixation on GLP-1s is possibly the most egregious disease-mongering exercise humankind has yet seen, representing moral sin on a massive scale.

That made me think that the Seven Deadly Sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, are a useful lens to examine the phenomenon. They are “deadly” because they are believed to be the root causes of other sins and moral corruption. They include: 

Pride (Vanity/Hubris): Probably the mother of all sins, pride is an excessive belief in one’s own abilities, qualities, or self-importance, without regard for others. Pharma and the experts in their employ are arrogantly rewriting medical reality—pushing obesity as an inevitable “chronic relapsing disease” driven by faulty hormones and genetics. The self-deception in downplaying the centrality of behavioural solutions to weight loss and positioning the GLP-1s as revolutionary miracles, is hubris at its height. Pride goes before the fall and in this case this “superior” biomedical fix eclipses and denounces humbler societal solutions.

Greed (Avarice/Covetousness): The amount of money in this class of drugs is truly mind-boggling because the size of the patient population is so large. One media commentator in Canada said that 50% of the population should be on a GLP-1. Given the grossly inflated prices of these products, the enormous revenue stream pouring in is being used to buy whatever is needed: the doctors, the media, the scientists, the pundits, the consumer advocates, and the governments and insurers who are being pushed relentlessly to pay for all this madness. The greed feeds an ecosystem for supporting and expanding markets beyond reason and common sense, silencing critics and monopolizing the narrative. 

Wrath (Anger): Having followed drug safety controversies for decades and speaking to lawyers involved in GLP-1 lawsuits, I can feel the growing rumble of rage, and desire for revenge by those harmed. The class action lawsuits over the more obvious adverse effects such as stomach paralysis, vision loss, and psychiatric effects are gaining steam, but that is the tip of the iceberg. As more of the unknown unknowns come to light, manufacturers will trot out the usual plausible deniability arguments. Billions are being set aside to fight the inevitable lawsuits coming as mainstream and medical media are suppressing any criticism of the medicalization of obesity with that tired trope of “Science Denier” plastered on anyone questioning the wisdom of these drugs. Indeed: plenty of anger to go around. 

Envy: The human proclivity to covet or desire what others have (traits, success, possessions) makes envy a key marketing tool, stoked by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Elon Musk, and other so-called influencers. Those celebrities who flaunt their dramatic drug-induced transformations make the rest of the world envy their “Ozempic body,” and build resentment towards those who are blocking access to the drugs. All of this, of course, drives off-label use, black markets, and inequity where it seems that only the rich can access the “perfect” thinness. With the drugs soon to be available generically, and prices dropping dramatically, soon price alone will not be a barrier to anyone who’s envious enough.

Lust: An intense or unbridled desire for pleasure can extend to sex, power, or indulgence. Here, the lust is for instant gratification, the dominant quick-fix allure of most drug marketing, where effortless thinness can be found, apparently, without “deprivation.” What most people need is a body size that, for them, is healthy and sustainable. The Ozempic body is the opposite of that, rewarding lust for instant gratification over sustainable health. Still tempted? Google “Ozempic face” and read about a future of gaunt, aged facial appearance—featuring sunken cheeks, hollow eyes, sagging skin, and wrinkles. But don’t worry, the drug industry is good at producing drugs to treat the harms produced by the ones they’re also selling. 

Gluttony: If you think gluttony has gotten us into this mess, and reversing it is the only way out, I don’t think that’s fully true. If we have a nation full of overweight people, then why do we persist with accepting a society engineered for inactivity? Most of us drive, sit, or lounge through our waking hours, consume cheap, nutrition-less, calorie-heavy food, and are otherwise unable to eat or exercise our way to a more appealing body shape. There isn’t a drug that’ll fix the underlying disease of living poorly. 

Sloth (Acedia): This might be the ultimate lazy shortcut: why address root causes (food systems, activity, poverty, or cities not built for exercise) when a weekly shot bypasses that effort? The marketing preys on what we all seem to want and feeds off our aversion to hard work. Promoting drugs as the easy path while discouraging lifestyle changes as “insufficient,” is a type of societal sloth. We could do a lot better.

These sins aren’t accidental—they’re baked into a system that profits from myth-making and the hustle endures. Time to reject the seduction and demand real solutions. Retake your agency. 

Let me leave you with a quote from psychologist Roger McFillin whose Radically Genuine podcast is packed with wisdom and whose understanding of the selling of disease is top notch. He writes mostly about mental health but these words below could apply to any disease.

Tell a man his fate is genetic, and you have accomplished something powerful. You have located the problem somewhere he cannot reach. You have removed his agency. You have made him dependent on a system that will manage his inevitable decline rather than addressing the factors actually killing him. You have created a customer.

Amen to that.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 22:35

Canadian Woman Euthanized 'Against Her Will' After Husband Reported 'Caregiver Burnout'

A Canadian woman in her 80s was euthanized 'against her will' through Canada's medical assistance in dying program (MAiD), after her elderly husband told doctors she had changed her mind despite telling an assessor she wanted to live, according to a report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner. 

MAiD allows patients to request a painless death if an assessor agrees that they have a terminal condition which meets certain requirements. While most patients wait weeks for a decision, euthanasia can be performed as soon as the same-day if deemed medically urgent by a MAiD provider. 

According to the report by the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee, concerns have been raised over questionable deaths. 

In this case, the woman - referred to as "Mrs. B," had complications after a coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a rapid decline, she opted for palliative care - and was sent home from the hospital for her husband to take care of her. As her condition worsened, the husband struggled to care for her despite visits by nurses. 

After she allegedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family, her husband called a referral service, the report reads. Yet, Mrs. B told the assessor she 'wanted to withdraw her requests, citing personal and religious values and beliefs," and instead wanted inpatient hospice care. 

When her husband took her to the hospital the next morning, doctors deemed Mrs. B to be stable, but that her husband was "experiencing caregiver burnout." A request by a doctor for in-patient hospice care due to her husband's burnout was denied, after which her husband asked for a second assessor to weigh in, the Daily Mail reports.

After the second assessor judged her to be eligible for MAiD, the original assessor objected - expressing concerns over the alleged "urgency" of the request, and expressing the need for further evaluation. A request to meet with Mrs. B the next day was declined by the MAiD provider, as "the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision." 

Then, a third MAiD assessor agreed with the second one, and Mrs. B was euthanized that evening. 

According to the Coroner's report, several members of a Review Committee "believed the short timeline did not allow all aspects of Mrs B's social and end-of-life circumstances and care needs to be explored," which included "the impact of being denied hospice care, additional care options, caregiver burden, consistency of the MAiD request, and divergent MAiD practitioner perspectives."

"Many members brought forward concerns of possible external coercion arising from the caregiver's experience of burnout and lack of access to palliative care in an in-patient or hospice setting," the report notes. 

Others raised concerns over the fact that Mrs. B's spouse was the primary person advocating and advocating access to MAiD, and there was scant documentation that she actually asked for it herself. 

Dr. Ramona Coelho, a family physician who's on the committee, wrote a scathing review that was deeply critical of Mrs. B's case, arguing that the focus should have been "on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs B and her spouse."

Dr Ramona Coelho

"Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation. 

"Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor's and Mrs B's concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse's burnout," her letter continues. 

According to some, Canada has an assisted dying crisis. As the Epoch Times notes; 

Canada’s current approach to assisted suicide, especially in cases involving mental illness, represents such a threshold. Recent federal data indicate that more than 16,000 assisted suicide cases are approved annually in Canada, with an increasing proportion involving individuals with mental health challenges. This trend highlights the urgent need for policy reassessment and underscores the critical importance of addressing this issue.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 22:10

Chinese Dissident Sues X, Alleging Wrongful Account Suspension And Possible Foreign Pressure

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

A New York-based Chinese dissident and political commentator has filed a lawsuit against X Corp., alleging the social media platform wrongfully suspended his account without explanation and may have acted under foreign political pressure.

Wilson Lei Chen, a U.S. citizen who is also known as Chen Pokong on his podcast, filed the suit in the New York State Supreme Court in December. On Jan. 5, the case was moved to federal court and is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Chen’s Jan. 12 press statement, which The Epoch Times viewed on Jan. 26.

According to Chen’s complaint, X permanently suspended the political commentator’s account on Feb. 15, 2023, without prior notice or a detailed explanation. Chen alleges that despite filing multiple appeals, he received only automated responses citing unspecified violations of platform rules.

Before the suspension, Chen’s account, active since 2010, had approximately 150,000 followers.

He used the platform to comment on Chinese politics, promote democratic values, and direct followers to his YouTube channel, which has more than 450,000 subscribers, the complaint states.

Chen claimed that X did not adhere to its own terms of service, which, according to him, mandate notice, an explanation, and a fair review process prior to any permanent enforcement action. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, deceptive business practices under New York law, and tortious interference with business relations.

The complaint also raises broader concerns about possible foreign political influence. Chen, a longtime critic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said that his suspension may have resulted from coordinated reporting campaigns or political pressure aimed at silencing overseas dissidents.

The filing cites U.S. officials and media reports documenting CCP-linked online influence and harassment campaigns targeting the regime’s critics outside of China.

Chen said the suspension from X caused significant professional and financial harm, including lost audience engagement, reduced income, and damage to his reputation, according to his press statement. He is seeking reinstatement of his account, transparency of X’s moderation decision, and compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $2 million.

X Corp. has not publicly responded to the lawsuit.

The company did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.

Chen said the case raises broader public-interest concerns about potential external or foreign pressures that may affect how online platforms handle content moderation involving political speech, criticism of foreign governments, and transnational repression. Accordingly, he intends to pursue the matter through the courts.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 21:45

Even The Biden Admin Investigated Ilhan Omar's Shady Personal Finances

According to financial disclosures filed last year, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s net worth has surged in recent years. Omar reported that her husband held stakes valued between $6 million and $30 million in a venture capital firm and a winery. That sudden and dramatic increase in wealth has now drawn scrutiny. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) plans to open an investigation into how such a meteoric rise occurred so quickly, and she is also under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.

The existence of the federal probe became public after President Donald Trump mentioned it in a Truth Social post on Monday. Trump wrote, “the DOJ and Congress are looking at ‘Congresswoman’ Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars. Time will tell all.”

Omar dismissed Trump’s announcement in a post on X. 

“Sorry, Trump, your support is collapsing and you’re panicking,” she wrote. “Right on cue, you’re deflecting from your failures with lies and conspiracy theories about me. Years of ‘investigations’ have found nothing. Get your goons out of Minnesota.”

Others are accusing Trump of weaponizing the Justice Department against his political enemies.

“The Justice Department’s ‘investigation’ of Representative Omar, a longtime critic of President Trump, looks suspiciously like a continuation of Trump’s revenge campaign against Minnesota’s elected officials and anyone else who disagrees with him,” claimed Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America.

However, Omar’s shady personal finances even caught the attention of the Biden Justice Department back in 2024.

According to a New York Times report, federal prosecutors launched an investigation into Omar that scrutinized her personal finances, campaign spending, and contacts with a foreign national. 

The investigation began in June 2024, with federal prosecutors working alongside the Justice Department’s public integrity unit. Investigators examined Omar’s financial disclosures, campaign records, and other relevant documents. The inquiry reportedly slowed after agents said they found no evidence that required further action. There are fresh doubts about that explanation, as Omar’s disclosures show a sudden rise in high-value assets connected to her husband’s business ventures, raising new questions about their legitimacy. Most of the reported wealth comes from two sources: a winery in Santa Rosa, California, and a venture capital firm in Washington, D.C.

The winery, listed as eStCru LLC, jumped in reported value from $15,000–$50,000 in 2023 to $1 million-$5 million the following year. Rose Lake Capital showed an even more dramatic spike. The firm went from having just $42.44 in its account in late 2022 to a reported value of up to $25 million by 2024, according to Omar’s financial disclosure. 

Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, co-founded Rose Lake Capital in 2022 with Will Hailer as part of a network of companies he controls. The sharp increase in money and lack of a public track record raised suspicions among associates, who alerted federal investigators. 

This is not the first time Omar’s shady finances have come under scrutiny.

Omar has previously faced multiple allegations related to her finances and campaign funds. A 2019 investigation by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board examined complaints that she used nearly $6,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses, including payments to her divorce attorney and travel, and was ordered to reimburse her campaign. That same year, Minnesota campaign finance officials found that Omar filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Hirsi while she was still legally married to another man.

House Oversight Chair James Comer told the New York Post he plans to launch an investigation into what caused the dramatic spike in Omar's net worth. 

“We’re going to get answers, whether it’s through the Ethics Committee or the Oversight Committee, one of the two,” Comer said. 

“There are a lot of questions as to how her husband accumulated so much wealth over the past two years,” Comer added. “It’s not possible. It’s not. I’m a money guy. It’s not possible.”

A law enforcement source also confirmed the criminal investigation.

“We are investigating all politicians potentially connected to any of this [fraud] in Minnesota. You can read between the lines,” the source said. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 21:20

UPS Won't Resurrect MD-11 Fleet After Deadly Crash, Takes $137M Charge

Authored by Eric Kulisch via FreightWaves.com,

UPS has decided to permanently retire its fleet of 27 MD-11 aircraft and take a $137 million after-tax write off instead of returning the widebody freighters to service even if they are cleared to fly again by aviation authorities following the crash of one of its planes in early November.

The express delivery and logistics giant began a phased drawdown of the aging tri-engine aircraft, but said on Tuesday that it has accelerated the retirement plan and will replace the aircraft with more efficient twin-engine Boeing 767-300 cargo jets.

The MD-11s have been parked since Nov. 8, when the Federal Aviation Administration ordered UPS, FedEx and Western Global Airlines to ground their MD-11 fleets until inspections and any potential corrective steps can be completed in the wake of the fiery crash of UPS MD-11 in Louisville, Kentucky, that killed 15 people. Investigators are focusing on why the engine and engine pylon, which was discovered to have structural fatigue cracks, separated from the left wing as the plane moved down the runway. 

UPS compensated for the loss of MD-11 capacity during the fourth-quarter peak season by repositioning some aircraft from other parts of the world to the United States, moving more packages by truck and leasing aircraft from partner airlines. The ability to meet demand with alternative capacity convinced management to discard the MD-11s, said Chief Financial Officer Brian Dykes during an earnings call with analysts.

“Over the next fifteen months, we expect to take delivery of 18 new Boeing 767 aircraft, with 15 expected to deliver this year. As new aircraft join our fleet, we will step down the leased aircraft and associated expenses. We believe these actions are consistent with building a more efficient global network positioned for growth, flexibility and profitability,” he said.

UPS incurred $50 million in extra costs for other airlines to supply and operate aircraft in the company’s network during the second-half of the fourth quarter and expects to spend $100 million on outsourced capacity this year, Dykes said. Most of the spending for outside airlift will occur in the first half of 2025, when five 767s are expected to be delivered by Boeing. 

The MD-11 has a maximum payload of more than 207,000 pounds, with space for 26 containers on the main deck and 13 in the lower hold. The B767 is smaller, with a 132,000-pound payload capability and room for 24 large containers and seven lower-deck shipping units. It also has a shorter range.

FedEx has said it anticipates its fleet of MD-11 freighters to return to service sometime after March, but there has been little indication from regulators so far about the progress of inspections.

Aviation analysts say it may not be worth bringing back the MD-11s if regulators determine that extensive repairs are required to make them safe. 

Boeing issued a service bulletin 14 years ago in which it disclosed four previous separations of an attachment that helps hold engines to the MD-11’s wing, according to a National Transportation Safety Board report earlier this month. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 20:55

China's Largest Oil Producer Suspends Purchases Of Venezuela Oil

Chinese state-owned giant PetroChina, Asia's largest oil and gas producer, which hasn’t bought Venezuelan crude since the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela in 2019, is not too keen to start buying again after the U.S. authorized global traders to market the crude from the world’s biggest reserves holder, OilPrice reports.  

PetroChina has told traders not to buy or trade Venezuela’s oil - a trade that is now under U.S. control after the capture of Nicolas Maduro, trading sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.  

The Chinese oil and gas giant stopped imports of Venezuelan crude in 2019, when the first Trump Administration slapped sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector, for fear of running afoul of the restrictions. Before the 2019 sanctions, PetroChina was the single biggest buyer of crude from Venezuela.

Now PetroChina is refraining from buying crude marketed by the world’s top oil trading houses – with U.S. blessing – as it assesses the situation, according to Reuters’ sources.  

One reason is the concern that the U.S. controls the oil from Venezuela, another is that the offers aren’t competitive compared to other supplies of heavy crude, including from Canada, the sources told the publication.

The discount of Venezuela’s flagship crude grade Merey relative to Brent has narrowed by about $10 per barrel since the ousting of Maduro.

Vitol, the world’s biggest independent oil trader, is offering Venezuelan crude to Chinese refiners at a discount that’s three times narrower compared to the illicit sales from Venezuela before Maduro’s ousting, anonymous traders with knowledge of the development told Bloomberg last week.

Vitol has recently offered cargoes of Venezuela’s flagship Merey heavy sour crude grade to China at a discount of $5 per barrel to ICE Brent, according to Bloomberg’s sources.

This compares with a discount as wide as $15 a barrel to ICE Brent on a delivered basis before the U.S. blitz in Venezuela and the capture of Maduro.

Meanwhile, Chinese independent refiners, which gorged on cheap sanctioned Venezuelan crude in the past few years, are likely welcoming what could be their last imports of sanctioned Venezuelan oil, which loaded before the U.S. blockade.  

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 20:30

Tucker Carlson Presses Peter Schiff On Bitcoin As A New Global Reserve Currency

Authored by Christina Comben via CoinTelegraph.com,

In a new interview with US media personality Tucker Carlson, gold advocate Peter Schiff renewed his attack on Bitcoin and the broader crypto industry.

Speaking on Carlson’s show, he argued that Bitcoin is a speculative instrument with “no actual use” and warned that proposals for a US strategic reserve amount to a taxpayer‑funded bailout for early adopters. 

Schiff also spent much of the conversation attacking official inflation data and fiscal policy, telling Carlson that Americans are “being lied to” about inflation, and arguing that the government changed the Consumer Price Index so that it could blame the private sector for the higher cost of living, when it was “simply raising prices in response to inflation.”

He singled out President Donald Trump’s signature Big Beautiful Bill as “the worst thing that we’ve done under Trump,” and argued that the legislation not only preserved all the deficit spending under President Joe Biden, but “made it worse” by “increasing government spending” and cutting taxes.

“Complete waste of capital”

Schiff turned to the crypto industry and complained about the US government “promoting” it, which is a “complete waste of capital” and has caused many Americans to “throw their money away” on crypto.

Peter Schiff discusses inflation, gold and Bitcoin. Source: Tucker Carlson

​When Carlson cuts in to ask, “Why is it throwing it away?” and why betting on Bitcoin is any different from buying gold or stocks, Schiff answers that BTC has “no actual use” beyond speculation and “the only reason anybody wants to buy it” is that “they think the price is going to go up.” “That is the sole source of demand,” he said. 

He added that people who “made money in crypto” only did so because “the crypto that they bought a long time ago went way up,” not because they produced anything of value, or made people’s lives better. 

“How’s that different from buying gold? You’re not making anything. You’re not making anyone’s life better,” Carlson interjects, to which Schiff replies:

“There’s a big difference… [Bitcoin] is never going to earn money in the future. It is a non-income-producing digital asset. It’s got nothing in common with gold.”

Bitcoin: The new global reserve currency?

​Summarizing Schiff’s arguments about the state of the global economy and the decline in purchasing power of the US dollar, Carlson asks why Bitcoin could not become the next global reserve asset as confidence in the dollar erodes.

Schiff dismisses that idea outright, claiming that a Bitcoin strategic reserve is really just a “Bitcoin bailout fund,” trying to use taxpayer money, and alleging that some early holders “were able to pay off a bunch of politicians and get them to support Bitcoin.”

​He argues that both BTC and fiat currencies are ultimately faith‑based, but that central banks cannot rely on Bitcoin because it has no non‑monetary demand and would collapse if they ever tried to liquidate it at scale. 

By contrast, he calls gold “real money” and “a valuable commodity” used in jewelry, aerospace, consumer electronics and medicine, and says that tokenized, fully backed gold on blockchains can deliver internet‑native payments without creating inflation or relying on ever‑rising token prices.

The price of gold has been on a tear lately, reaching a new all-time high over $5,000 an ounce on Monday, amid rising global trade tensions, while the Bitcoin price fell briefly below $86,000, signaling a sharp divergence as the precious metal surged 17% in January.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 20:05

Government Steams Towards Partial Shutdown Amid Democrat Demands Over ICE

As a Friday deadline approaches for a partial government shutdown, Republicans are backed into a corner following national uproar over two deadly ICE shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis amid growing concern over the agency's tactics. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) plans to move forward with a six-bill spending package, which includes funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which runs ICE. Democrats are insisting that R's drop the DHS language from the package, however Republicans are refusing to do so. 

The House-passed bill would allocate another $10 billion for ICE on top of the $76 billion the agency is already slated to receive over four years from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law last year. 

Right now Trump is focusing on "de-escalatory measures," as one administration official tells Punchbowl News. To that end, the admin has already demoted Gregory Bovino, the CBP official in charge of Minneapolis operations - who's been replaced by border czar Tom Homan. Trump also spoke by phone with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Monday. Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee after months of refusing to do so. According to Punchbowl, Noem "has a real problem on both sides of the aisle on the Hill," and her top aide, Corey Lewandowski, met with Trump for two hours on Monday night. 

Polymarket odds of a shutdown by Jan. 31 (Saturday) are now hovering around 79%. 

Democrats Are Still A No

Senate Democrats - who are vowing to block the funding if it includes the DHS language, say the proposals being floated the the White House and Senate Republicans are unrealistic, and they're a 'no' until they see significant reforms to the conduct of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis and other cities - including prohibiting them from wearing masks during federal operations and requiring judicial search warrants before entering a suspect's home. 

On Monday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that Democrats will gladly speed through procedural obstacles to pass the funding package as long as it doesn't include DHS funding.

"If [Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)] puts those five bills on the floor this week, we can pass them right away. If not, Republicans will again be responsible for another government shutdown," said Schumer. 

Of note, stripping the DHS / ICE funding from the FY2026 package would require a new vote in the House, which is on recess this week - so there would be a short-term shutdown at minimum. 

GOP congressional leaders and the White House are desperate to avoid a scenario in which the funding package has to go back to the House, which explains their opposition to splitting off the DHS bill.

Here’s the concern gripping the top levels of the Trump administration — the House simply can’t pass another DHS funding bill under any circumstances.

Even if Trump were to cut a deal with Democrats that can get through the Senate, House Republicans believe they can’t round up 218 votes to pass a rule to get it on the House floor. Or alternatively, find 290 lawmakers willing to pass it under suspension of the rules. Republicans just don’t believe there’s a coalition in the House that can pass another DHS bill.

That’s why Trump has been focused on “de-escalatory measures,” as one administration official told us, a first step toward placating Democrats. -Punchbowl News

The Senate is expected to hold an initial vote to advance the package on Thursday, the day before Friday's deadline. 

Republican Lawmakers Scramble

Following the incidents in Minnesota, Republican lawmakers in both chambers began calling for a thorough investigation into Saturday's shooting, and have asked the Trump administration to immediately ease tensions in Minneapolis. 

"If I were President Trump, I would almost think about, ‘OK, if the mayor and the governor are going to put our ICE officials in harm’s way and there’s a chance of losing more innocent lives, then maybe go to another city," said Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a Sunday comment to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for "everyone" to "ratchet the anger down," while noting that the two US citizens "who have been killed in confrontations with law enforcement" were "from all appearances ... not violent criminals," The Hill notes. 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent letters to the heads of CBP, ICE, and US Citizenship and Immigration Services on Monday calling on them to testify on Feb. 12 before his committee. 

How Far Will Dems Push?

While Democrats currently appear to have the upper hand in this fight, Punchbowl asks how far should they push it? While specific targeted policy changes and reforms are likely to gain traction with the White House - which is desperate to get past the moment, calls to "abolish ICE" will be ignored.

There’s also the obvious risk for Democrats: The political fallout from triggering a partial government shutdown just a couple of months after instigating a record 43-day funding lapse. And for DHS, this would hit FEMA at a time when much of the country is dealing with the aftermath of a severe winter storm. The Coast Guard and TSA are under DHS too. Plus, ICE would be funded anyway because of the cash infusion it got from the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill last year. -Punchbowl

Then there's the Pentagon, Labor, Transportation, and HUD departments which would be directly affected by the shutdown. The risk for Democrats is that Trump makes concessions on ICE but Democrats continue to 'resist.'

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 19:10

Patel Says FBI Has Discovered Groups Funding Minnesota Protests

On Monday, FBI Director Kash Patel on Tuesday confirmed that the bureau is investigating groups that are believed to be organizing protests against ICE officials in Minneapolis, as daily demonstrations throughout the city continue.

People march and gather near the post office during a protest, Sunday, Jan. 18, 2026, in Minneapolis. AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

Patel also said the bureau has made progress investigating groups that are allegedly funding the demonstrations. 

"We’ve got also investigations ongoing into the funding of this. We’ve made substantial progress," he said. "We’ve actually found groups and individuals responsible for funding it ‘cause it’s not happening organically."

FBI Director Kash Patel Announces They've IDENTIFIED Funders Of The Left-Wing Terrorist Groups Attacking ICE In Minnesota, ‘This Isn’t Organic’

“We've got also investigations ongoing into the funding of this. We've made substantial progress. We've actually found groups and… pic.twitter.com/pDV7EIInE5

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 26, 2026

Patel also said four people were arrested earlier this month after a federal vehicle was broken into in Minneapolis, and another person was arrested on Sunday.

"In a vehicle, we discovered not just [FBI] firearms, which thankfully we recovered, but also personal information about law enforcement," Patel told Johnson. "That personal information was being used on the ground to issue threats of life to FBI agents, along with their wives and their children. There are going to be more arrests on that same matter, today and tomorrow. We’re not done."

As the Epoch Times notes further, the FBI last week announced it would be offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and capture of individuals who allegedly stole government property out of an FBI vehicle.

This comes after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a protester, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed after he approached Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Officials did not specify whether Pretti brandished the gun (he did not).

Videos from the scene circulating on social media appear to show Pretti holding an object in his hand as he struggles with agents. The man’s family said in a statement shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that Pretti was “clearly not holding a gun” but instead had “his phone in his right hand, and his empty left hand is raised above his head.

Earlier this month, Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Videos show she was driving her Honda Pilot toward the officer when he fired at her. Federal authorities said the officer was struck by the vehicle and hospitalized with internal bleeding.

The Trump administration has defended the ICE agent involved in the shooting, saying his life was at risk. Local and national Democratic officials say both shootings were unjustified and have now warned they could move to shut down the federal government before a Jan. 30 funding deadline if funding for DHS, the agency that oversees ICE, is included in the package.

“Democrats sought common sense reforms in the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, but because of Republicans’ refusal to stand up to President Trump, the DHS bill is woefully inadequate to rein in the abuses of ICE,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Saturday. “I will vote no.”

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton also decried the shooting of Pretti, with Obama claiming it’s a sign that “many of our core values” are “increasingly under assault.” In a statement Sunday, Clinton also offered critical comments about the Minneapolis operation and condemned the events leading to Pretti’s death.

President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Jan. 26 that he had spoken with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, and told Walz that “I would have (Border Czar) Tom Homan call him, and that what we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession.” Walz on Monday confirmed he spoke with Trump.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 18:50

Tether Launches USAT, A Federally Regulated, Dollar-Backed Stablecoin For The US Market

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Tether, the world’s largest digital asset company by stablecoin circulation, announced Tuesday the official launch of USA₮, a federally regulated, dollar-backed stablecoin designed specifically for use in the United States under the recently enacted GENIUS Act.

USA₮ is issued by Anchorage Digital Bank, N.A., a federally chartered U.S. bank and one of the first institutions approved to issue payment stablecoins under the new law, Tether said.

The launch marks Tether’s first stablecoin built to operate fully within the U.S. regulated financial system, following years of regulatory scrutiny around offshore-issued dollar tokens.

The debut follows the company’s announcement late last year detailing the token’s design and naming former White House Crypto Council Executive Director Bo Hines as CEO of Tether USA₮. With Tuesday’s rollout, USA₮ is now available to U.S. users seeking a dollar-backed token that complies with federal banking and stablecoin rules.

The GENIUS Act established the first nationwide framework governing stablecoins marketed to U.S. users, requiring full reserve backing, bank or qualified issuer status, and ongoing regulatory supervision. Under the law, offshore-issued stablecoins that do not meet these standards face restrictions across U.S.-regulated exchanges, banks, and payment platforms.

USA₮ is structured to meet those requirements. According to the company, Cantor Fitzgerald will serve as the stablecoin’s designated reserve custodian and preferred primary dealer, providing transparency and oversight of reserves from launch. 

Anchorage Digital Bank will handle issuance, compliance, and on-chain settlement infrastructure.

Tether’s dominant role in the crypto space

While Tether’s flagship USD₮ remains the most widely used stablecoin globally, its offshore structure limited its role in the U.S. market under the new law. 

USA₮ allows Tether to maintain USD₮’s international dominance while offering U.S. institutions a regulated alternative tailored to domestic payment and settlement systems.

“This launch represents a new chapter for digital dollars in the United States,” said Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether.

“USD₮ has proven at global scale that digital dollars can deliver trust and utility. USA₮ extends that mission with a federally regulated product made in America.”

Bo Hines said the new stablecoin is aimed squarely at institutional users. “USA₮ is designed to meet federal regulatory expectations while delivering stability, transparency, and responsible governance,” he said. “It ensures the United States remains competitive in the evolution of digital money.”

During its initial rollout, USA₮ will be available on platforms including Kraken, Crypto.com, OKX, Bybit, and MoonPay, with additional U.S.-regulated exchanges and banking partners expected to follow.

According to bitcointreasuries.net, Tether holds 96,370 bitcoin, worth roughly $8.6 billion

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 18:25

Yale Goes Tuition-Free For Middle-Class As Dartmouth Prez Pushes 'Protections For Unpopular Views'

Starting this fall, Yale University will offer free tuition for new students from households earning less than $200,000 - excluding room, board, fees and books, while admitted students whose families make less than $100,000 will pay nothing.

Tuition alone at Yale is $72,500, while the full cost of attendance - including room, board, fees and books, is around $98,000. 

The move adds Yale to a growing list of Ivy League institutions with similar financial-aid programs aimed at middle-class families, including Harvard and MIT. 

The past few years have brought a string of announcements from schools making their financial aid more generous, including Harvard, MIT and University of Pennsylvania, which each offer tuition-free entry to families making up to about $200,000. Schools including Stanford, Princeton and the University of Texas system cover tuition for students whose families earn close to or above six figures. -WSJ

"We have made a lot of progress with low-income families and students over the past decade, and now we want to continue to make those inroads with some of our middle-class and upper-middle-class families," said Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid, Jeremiah Quinlan. 

That said, Quinlan told the Wall Street Journal that the deal applies to families with "typical assets," though he did not elaborate on what defines typical. "If you have an outsized asset portfolio, even if you have an income level that’s in one of these areas, you might get a different financial-aid offer," he added. 

Roughly 1,000 Yale undergrads out of 6,800 attend the school at no cost, while 56% receive some aid. This, as the university's endowment grew 11% last year to $44 billion, the WSJ reports. 

According to a Harvard-based team of researchers at Opportunity Insights, enrollment at Yale has been strong among low-income (subsidized) students and high-income students vs. the "missing middle," the group said. 

Fixing College

While Yale says the free tuition push is about equality, it also comes as many are questioning the value of a degree in the first place. Recent graduates are struggling to find jobs in a rapidly changing market, while progressive ideology has turned college campuses into training camps for radical protest, anti-white racism, and social dysfunction. 

As Dartmouth president Sian Leah Beilock writes in the Journal this week, "American higher education has a trust problem," adding "Colleges can also be too ideological: On many campuses, students are exposed to a limited range of perspectives, signaling to them what rather than how to think."

Also, 'return on investment matters,' Beilock continues. 

Affordability isn’t enough. A college education is one of the largest investments a family will ever make, and there must be an undeniable return. Institutions should be held accountable for student outcomes: Are our graduates getting jobs, pursuing meaningful work, and contributing to their communities?

And the most important point...

Third, re-center higher education on learning rather than political posturing. Too often, colleges and universities have participated in the culture wars. The result is an environment in which students and faculty feel they must toe an ideological line rather than explore ideas that fall outside prevailing norms.

Beilock is calling for colleges to 'embrace institutional neutrality,' which Dartmouth refers to as 'restraint' - because when colleges rush to issue statements over every major political event, "we signal there’s a “right” position and that opposing views are unwelcome."

The problem, according to Beilock is campus culture - which needs to be realigned so that "controversial speakers are heard rather than canceled, where disagreement is expected rather than feared, and where people can explore ideas without being defined by them."

And How? 

Universities must 'double down on supporting faculty who provide structured opportunities for disagreement on complex issues and provide clear protections for faculty, staff and students who voice unpopular views.'

Beyond that, Beilock is calling for:

- Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. "When an A is the default, it stops meaning “excellent.” It means “I showed up.”"

- Defense of a genuine meritocracy of ideas. "Research funding, faculty hiring and academic recognition should be grounded in scholarly excellence, not ideological litmus tests."

Based?

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 18:00

Censorship & The Ratchet Effect: Threats To Free Speech Outlast Supposed Crises

Authored by Julian Adorney via TheDailyEconomy.org,

Late last year, YouTube announced plans to reinstate accounts that had been banned at the behest of the Biden Administration for posting alleged COVID-19 misinformation. The announcement likely came as a relief to groups like the Children’s Health Defense Fund, a group associated with Robert Kennedy Jr.; and to Senator Ron Johnson; both of whom were punished by the social media giant for posting videos that ran contrary to the Biden administration’s official policy on the COVID-19 vaccine and on COVID-19 treatments.

This is a good move. But we should remember, it wasn’t just YouTube that decided to punish speech disapproved by the prior administration. 

A report by the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government contains damning evidence that the Biden Administration leaned on social media companies to censor anti-vaccine content during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report details how Facebook, Amazon, and YouTube all shadowbanned or removed content that was critical of the administration’s official stance on the vaccines, the origin of the virus, and more.

The administration’s actions were reckless, and endangered more than just our societal freedom of speech.

For one thing, while it might be tempting to think that the Biden Administration only censored crackpots and conspiracy theorists, the truth is far worse. The report details how the Biden administration leaned on Facebook to censor the “lab leak” theory of COVID-19’s origins, a theory that’s now seen as highly plausible. It similarly asked Facebook to censor “negative information on or opinions about the vaccine,” and internal emails from Facebook report that ““The Surgeon General wants us to remove true information about side effects.”

Prominent scientists who opposed the administration’s position on lockdowns, including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (current head of the National Institutes of Health) were blacklisted by social media platforms. At the administration’s behest, videos featuring Bhattacharya were removed from YouTube.

All of this did immense damage to our truth-seeking apparatus, during a time when finding the truth could not have been more important. When Facebook dragged its feet on censoring certain content, President Biden publicly accused them of “killing people.” But the same accusation could be made against the Biden Administration itself: by censoring scientific debate during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, the administration virtually guaranteed that its response would be worse than if prominent critics were allowed to voice their concerns.

Some proponents of censorship argue that the more important an issue is, the more justification there is for censorship. This makes a superficial kind of sense: after all, nobody wants hucksters selling snake oil to take advantage of sick people by claiming that they’re curing cancer. But more often, the inverse is true: the higher the stakes of a given issue, the more essential it is that experts on all sides be allowed to voice their concerns freely. By preventing this robust scientific debate, the Biden administration ensured that the policies it implemented (including lockdowns and vaccine mandates) were worse than if prominent critics had been given a seat at the table.

The Biden Administration’s actions also took a sledgehammer to institutional trust in America, which has fallen to concerning levels. The decline of institutional trust worries critics across the political spectrum, from progressives concerned that our society is becoming anti-science to conservatives like Yuval Levin, for a simple reason: our society works better when we trust our institutions and when, in turn, they show themselves to be trustworthy.

By politicizing the scientific debate about the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden Administration did profound damage to institutional trust. A study by Pew finds that in April 2020, 87 percent of Americans “had confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.” By late 2023, that number had fallen to 73 percent. By summer of 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had only a 33 percent approval rating among Republicans. Many on the left chalk this trend up to Republicans being anti-science, but the House Judiciary report tells a different story: many on the right lost trust in an institution that they justifiably saw as having been shamelessly politicized.

Trust in news has plummeted as well. In 2019, 18 percent of Americans had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of faith in television news. By 2024, that number had fallen to 12 percent. In 2019, 23 percent of respondents had a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of faith in newspapers; by 2024, that number was just 18 percent. There are multiple reasons for this decline in trust, but it’s hard to see evidence of the administration jawboning companies into censoring so-called “misinformation” on COVID-19 and not conclude that many Americans are simply tired of feeling lied to by the news.

The other problem created by the administration has to do with what economist Robert Higgs calls the “ratchet effect.” Here’s how Michael Matulef describes the phenomenon:

The ratchet effect theory, as popularized by Robert Higgs in his book Crisis and Leviathan, refers to the tendency of governments to respond to crises by implementing new policies, regulations, and laws that significantly enhance their powers. These measures are typically presented as temporary solutions to address specific problems. However, in history, these measures often outlast their intended purpose and become a permanent part of the legal landscape.

One danger of the Biden Administration’s actions is that they can become precedents for future administrations to further erode free speech protections in future crises. The Biden administration inured people to having their freedom of speech censored in the name of public health, which makes it that much more likely that we’ll be equally willing to shrug off future abuses. When it comes to free speech, we the people can feel like the proverbial frog sitting in a pot of increasingly hot water, and it should concern all of us whenever an administration decides to increase the temperature by a few degrees.

When we’re discussing freedom of speech, First Amendment defenders can be strident about the principles involved; as more than one First Amendment absolutist has argued, even if there were no practical benefit to free speech beyond letting people speak freely, it would still be worth defending. 

That’s true, but we shouldn’t let ourselves forget that the First Amendment is also a profoundly practical tool for building a good society.

When governments censor their people, they do profound damage to the truth-seeking apparatus and risk people’s lives and livelihoods with poorly-thought-out policies.

They damage the institutional trust that keeps society functioning.

No matter what we think of the arguments made by lockdown resistors and COVID-19 vaccine skeptics, we should be appalled that our government tried to censor them.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 16:20

 

 

Two weeks ago, I wrote “It’s Tariff Week! *.”

The asterisk added the word “Hopefully…”

“This is likely the week the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the IEEPA tariffs in place since April 2025.” I wrote, getting it totally wrong. It turned out to be (mostly) wishful thinking on my part.

As we continue to await the decision that should overturn the tariffs, let’s update the latest data on the IEEPA tariffs.1 Specifically, I want to focus on tariffs and the impact they have had on the economy.2

~~~

Before diving into the economic details, let’s talk TACO.3

A Bloomberg analysis (dated January 27) found that about 75% of Trump’s tariff threats amount to little or nothing. When people ask if the market is irrational as it ignores tariffs, the proper answer is to point them to the pie chart at top. Markets turn out to be mostly rational, most of the time.4

Whether you see them as bluffs or negotiation tactics, this explains why the market has become so sanguine about tariffs. They understand that most of the time, it‘s just noise; the rest of the time, it’s a 10% market sell-off away from a reversal. This is well documented in WSJ, Barron’s, FT, Bloomberg, etc.

 

What this means — at least so far — is that much of this policy has not been implemented. Despite that, the data below strongly suggests that the Tariffs have had a substantial impact economically.5  U.S. Consumers today face an average effective tariff rate of 18% — the highest since 1934, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

~~~

The Labor market is a key indicator of the overall health of the economy. When jobs are plentiful and wages are rising, consumers feel better about spending and debt. We see evidence of this in labor data, consumer spending, and sentiment.

 

The chart above is from my Q1 2026 client call. It shows a huge post-pandemic surge that began slowing in 2022 to more normal (aka) sustainable levels.

Then came April 2nd, 2025. We expect a substantial tax increase to cause some issues with hiring, but the haphazard, almost random way these were implemented was especially disruptive. We have not added any jobs since Liberation Day. Worse, the NY Times analysis found “Health care and social assistance accounted for virtually all private-sector job growth in 2025.”

Overall, the unemployment rate has risen 0.3 percentage points by the end of 2025. BLS reported that “Over the year, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 8 states, decreased in the District of Columbia, and was essentially unchanged in 42 states.” Estimates suggest unemployment will increase an additional 0.7 – 1.0 percentage points by the end of 2026, lowering total payroll employment by 490,000 by the end of the year.

But for the tariffs, total payroll employment would have been 490,000 higher at the end of 2025.

~~~

Since Tariffs act as a Tax on consumers, let’s consider the impact of these costs on inflation and consumer spending.

Inflation has remained sticky, despite widespread expectations it would continue to drop. Some estimates put the average burden of 2025 tariffs at about 1.3% or an average per household of $1,800 annually.6 The Tax Policy Center estimates were even higher, at $2,100 per household in 2026, with larger percentage impacts on lower-income households.

CBO’s outlook explicitly attributes upward pressure on the cost of goods and production inputs to higher tariffs, which pushed inflation higher in 2025 relative to a no-tariff baseline.

Contrary to what the administration has claimed, American importers and consumers bear nearly all of the costs. According to the Keil Institute, “Foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden—the remaining 96% is passed through to US buyers.”

~~~

Beyond New Hires plummeting, consider what else happened after the Liberation Tariffs were announced:

-Except for AI, similar decreases occurred in Corporate Capital Expenditures (imagine what that would look like but for the hyper-scalers).

–Consumer Sentiment at its lowest level in 12 years.

-An Economist/YouGov poll found “71% of Americans feel like the country is out of control.”

One thing Trump did get right about tariffs: They bring actual dollars into the federal government coffers. About $200 billion in 2025 alone, estimated to raise about $2.5 trillion between 2026-35. Once tariff revenues reach billions or trillions of dollars, the legal claim that this is not a tax becomes utterly nonsensical.

~~~

SCOTUS Blog recently discussed the modern history of opinion releases. Specifically, how hotly-awaited decisions can be issued on non-argument days. So not only have we NOT gotten the SCOTUS decision on Tariffs, but the regular schedule now shows the next non-argument day on the court’s calendar is Friday, Feb. 20.

There is nothing that prevents the court from releasing a decision whenever, especially considering this was fast-tracked back in September.

racked back in September. I remain hopeful we get a decision before Feb. 20. Perhaps this is only wishful thinking on my part (again).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previously:
It’s Tariff Week! * (January 12, 2026)

Tariffs Likely To Be Overturned (November 5, 2025)

Might Tariffs Get “Overturned”? (July 31, 2025)

The Muted Impact of Tariffs on Inflation So Far (July 17, 2025)

Are Tariffs a New US VAT Tax? (March 31, 2025)

MiB: Special Edition: Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump’s Global Tariffs (September 3, 2025)

Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump’s Global Tariffs (September 8, 2025)

Which States Could Suffer the Most From Trade War Tariffs? (September 16, 2019)

 

 

 

Sources:
Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, POTUS (full docket)

America’s own goal: Americans pay almost entirely for Trump’s tariffs (Kiel, 19.01.2026)

Stung by Trump, America’s Top Trading Partners Shift Gaze to China (WSJ, Jan 26, 2026)

Consumer Price Index: 2025 in review (January 21, 2026)

CBO’s Current View of the Economy From 2025 to 2028 (September 2025)

 

 

 

__________

1. I fully expect the tariffs to be overturned (7-2?), but if they are not, I will consider that the end of whatever shreds of credibility the court has left. I do expect new Ethics rules eventually; a major court revamp is also a (less likely) possibility.

2, No, this is not a full review of the economic impact of Trump’s first year. If there is an appetite for that among clients and readers, I may yet put that together in the coming weeks. TBH, I am kind of surprised Wall Street has not done this yet…

3. TACO = Trump Always Chickens Out

4. See “Maybe Mr. Market Is Rational After All” (August 7, 2020) and “Rational Exuberance?” (November 24, 2025)

5. There have also been substantial geopolitical, strategic, and military impacts of the tariffs. I will leave it to others to address those sorts of things, as they are outside my areas of expertise…

6. BLS’ Consumer Price Index 2025 in review found that “prices for all items rose 2.7%.” The hardest hit are manufactured goods from abroad and commodities (including food and energy).

 

The post IEEPA Tariffs Update appeared first on The Big Picture.

White House Expects Largest Tax Refund Season As IRS Opens 2026 Filing

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The IRS announced on Jan. 26 the opening of the 2026 tax filing season.

“The IRS expects about 164 million individual tax returns for tax year 2025 to be filed ahead of the Wednesday, April 15, federal deadline. Taxpayers can find a range of tools and filing options on IRS.gov to help them prepare and file their returns,” the agency said in a news release.

The IRS has various online tools and resources that taxpayers can use before, during, and after filing their federal tax returns, the agency said in a Jan. 8 statement. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, carries provisions that can help taxpayers lower their tax bills and raise their refund amounts.

“The Internal Revenue Service is ready to help taxpayers meet their tax filing and payment obligations during the 2026 filing season,” IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano said.

“As always, the IRS workforce remains vigilant and dedicated to their mission to serve the American taxpaying public. At the same time, IRS information systems have been updated to incorporate the new tax laws and are ready to efficiently and effectively process taxpayer returns during the filing season.”

The White House said in a Jan. 26 statement that millions of Americans are poised to receive “significantly larger tax refunds” this filing season due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The legislation is set to deliver the “largest tax refund season in U.S. history,” the White House said, projecting average refunds to jump by $1,000 or more, citing various analyses.

Some of the key provisions of the bill contributing to higher refunds are no taxes on tips or overtime up to certain income thresholds, an additional deduction for seniors, and a deduction in auto loan interest payments.

An analysis made by the Tax Foundation cited by the White House expects tax refunds in 2026 to average $3,800 per taxpayer due to the legislation.

Comparatively, the refund amount was $3,052 in tax year 2024 and $3,004 in 2023.

In its latest statement, the IRS said that most refunds are issued within 21 days. However, refunds that require additional review from the agency may take longer.

Direct deposit is the fastest way for taxpayers to receive a refund, according to the agency. The IRS began phasing out paper refund checks beginning Sept. 30, in line with a March 25 executive order signed by Trump.

The order, “Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account,” stated that the use of paper-based payment systems by the federal government was imposing “unnecessary costs; delays; and risks of fraud, lost payments, theft, and inefficiencies.”

It asked all departments and agencies to comply with the directive by transitioning to an electronic funds transfer system. Paper checks were allowed for certain exceptions, such as individuals who do not have access to banking services, and emergency situations where electronic payments would cause “undue hardship” for the recipient.

Taxpayers are urged to provide their bank account and routing numbers for their refunds to be electronically deposited.

The IRS estimates most refund payments for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to be reflected in the bank accounts or debit cards of taxpayers by March 2. This is only applicable for taxpayers who have chosen the direct deposit option, and whose returns do not face any issues with processing.

Taxpayers can track their refund status by using the IRS Individual Online Account, IRS2Go app, or the Where’s My Refund? tool, the agency said. Where’s My Refund? is expected to offer projected deposit dates for most of the early EITC and ACTC refund filers by Feb. 21.

“As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, the IRS and its employees are excited to once again serve American taxpayers in meeting their tax filing obligations during the 2026 filing season,” Bisignano said. “The IRS encourages taxpayers to speed the processing of their returns by using e-file, instead of paper.”

IRS Readiness

Meanwhile, a Sept. 29 audit report issued by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration had raised concerns about the IRS’s ability to handle the 2026 filing season.

“Several initiatives reduced the IRS workforce since January 2025,” the report said. “Key IRS functions responsible for managing the filing season have lost 17 to 19 percent of their workforce.” In addition, the IRS’s Information Technology function has faced staffing losses as well, it said.

“We expect workforce reductions to impact key processing programs and customer service going forward. We are concerned about how this will impact the 2026 Filing Season.”

However, in the Jan. 8 IRS statement, Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent said that the agency had prepared for the 2026 filing season.

Even before the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “Treasury and IRS were diligently preparing to update forms and processes for the benefit of hardworking Americans,” Bessent said.

“President Trump is committed to the taxpayers of this country and improving upon the successful tax filing season in 2025.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 14:00

Person In Critical Condition After Border Patrol-Involved Shooting In Arizona

A person is in critical condition following a shooting incident early Tuesday morning in Pima County, Arizona. 

Photo via KVOA

Emergency responders from the Santa Rita Fire District (SRFD) and American Medical Response arrived on the scene around 7:30 a.m., where they found one individual in custody who was in critical condition, KVOA reports.

First responders provided immediate medical care before the patient was transferred to a local medical helicopter, which took the person to a regional trauma center. 

The Pima County Sheriff's Department and the FBI are assisting in the investigation.

Stay tuned for updates...

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/27/2026 - 13:48