Trump Imposes 25% Tariff On Any Country Doing Business With Iran "Effective Immediately"

After it quietly faded away in late summer, that trade war with China is about to make a triumphal reappearance.

In a day that was already flooded by a relentless firehose of newsflow, Trump added to the leaning tower of chaos when said on Truth Social that he was imposing a 25% tariff on goods from countries “doing business” with Iran (most notably China which is its largest oil client), ratcheting up pressure on the government in Tehran that has been rocked by widespread protests.

Trump said that the new duty would be “effective immediately,” without providing any details about the scope or implementation of the charges, leaving traders to act first and ask questions later if at all (a big reason why there is zero liquidity in the market is because people are trading with zero conviction and unwind trades just as fast as they put them on).

The action has the potential to disrupt major US trading relationships across the globe: as Bloomberg notes, Iran’s partners include not only neighboring states, but large economies including India, Turkey and especially China.

“Any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. This Order is final and conclusive,” he said.

Previously, Trump had imposed tariffs as high as 50% on Indian goods tied to their purchase of Russian oil, and while India initially reduced its purchases of Russian crude it has since ramped them back up; China on the other hand, never even noticed the Trumpian edict.

Needless to say, the additional 25% tariff - assuming it sticks - hitting Beijing exports risks upsetting the trade truce Trump negotiated with Chinese President Xi Jinping late last year. China is the world’s top buyer of Iranian crude and the nation’s independent refiners were increasing their intake of the oil as of last month.

While the lack of details in the Trump declaration was confusing, adding to the sheer chaos is an impending decision by the US Supreme Court on the legality of Trump’s global tariffs. If the justices rule against him, it could hamper his ability to quickly impose duties on Iran’s partners. The court’s next opinion day is Wednesday.

As for Iran, it has been experiencing weeks of mass unrest, which was initially sparked by a currency crisis and worsening economic conditions but has increasingly been aimed at the regime. It’s amounted to the biggest challenge to the Islamic Republic’s ruling system since 1979. While Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime has weathered protests before, the demonstrations are spreading and drew hundreds of thousands of people, by some accounts, across the country over the weekend. Iranian authorities have sought to stamp out the protests with more than 500 people killed so far and more than 10,000 arrests, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency.

Trump has openly backed the protesters and warned Tehran against violently repressing the demonstrations. In an interview on Fox News last week, he said the US would hit Iran “very hard” if it continued to shoot at protesters.

As reported earlier, Trump president told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian leadership has reached out to seek talks and that a meeting is being set up, without offering details on timing. Still, he said that his administration is considering potential options and indicated he was coordinating with allies in response to Iran.

“We’re looking at it very seriously. The military is looking at it, and we’re looking at some very strong options,” Trump told reporters. “I’m getting an hourly report and we’re going to make a determination.”

Also over the weekend, a White House official said that Trump has been briefed on a range of options for military strikes in Iran, including nonmilitary sites. The president is seriously considering authorizing an attack, according to the official who requested anonymity to detail internal discussions.

Still, there is hope for a peaceful resolution: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has opened channels of communication with Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, a spokesman from the ministry said Monday.

Meanwhile, Iran has warned the US and Israel - which coordinated to carry out strikes on nuclear facilities in the country last year - against any attempt to intervene. Tehran and Washington have not had formal diplomatic ties for decades.

Trump’s threats to Iran have the region on edge, coming on the heels of a US strike earlier this month in Venezuela - another oil-rich country - which led to the capture of strongman Nicolas Maduro. Should the US or its ally, Israel, intervene, that threatens to draw neighboring countries into the crisis and risk access to the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for energy exporters.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 18:23

The ICE Elephant: Why The Law Requires All The Facts

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In a famous Indian parable, five blind men are brought to an elephant. Each feels a different part of the animal, and they come to radically different views of what an elephant is. It depended on which parts they touched, from tusk to tail.

The controversy over the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, 37, is a type of political elephant parable.

People focus on only certain parts of the story to support what they want the case to mean.

Critics and supporters of the responsible officer have slowed down videotapes that last, in critical part, for only a few seconds.

The only difference is that, in this modern parable, many are just willfully blind, choosing not to see beyond their own rage.

This week, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) became the personification of rage, spewing profanities about ICE while declaring, shortly after the shooting, that the ICE officer was a murderer.

After immediately declaring the officer’s guilt, Frey spent day two lambasting the federal government for rushing to conclusions and demanding that his people play a role in the investigation.

As for his unhinged, profane diatribe, Frey mocked critics if he “offended their Disney princess ears.”

Frey fulfilled the parable most clearly in his use of statistics. He declared that fifty percent of shootings in the city this year were committed by ICE. He then later admitted that, since it was only Jan. 9, there had been only two shootings. Indeed, he could have argued that ICE was responsible for 100 percent of the shootings in the city on Jan. 7.

Again, the trick is to examine the smallest part of the animal and extrapolate to draw sweeping conclusions.

The recently released videotape from the responsible officer also shows how people will focus on insular elements rather than the “totality of the circumstances,” the standard for such cases established by the Supreme Court.

For example, many supporters of the officer are citing the obstruction and taunting by Good and her wife, who were reportedly working with an anti-ICE group. At one point, Becca Good dares the officer to do something as they blocked the road, telling the officer “Do you want to come at us? I say go and get yourself some lunch, big boy.”

For critics, they have focused on Renee Good’s last words: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you, I’m not mad at any of you.” Whether Good was being peaceful or passive-aggressive, others are clearly very, very mad. They are using her statement to push protesters to the brink of violence.

Democratic leaders declared ICE to be “terrorists” and called for mass protests in the very same city that burned in 2020 after the George Floyd riots. Right on cue, one Black Lives Matter leader suggested that the prosecution of officers in the George Floyd case only occurred because protesters burned down the city. She told protesters to ignore pleas not to do it again. “Let me tell you this. We need justice and we need it now.”

Protesters in other cities chanted “Kristi Noem will hang” and “Save a Life, Kill an ICE.”

In the same presser where he condemned federal officials for jumping to conclusions, Frey not only reaffirmed that Good had been murdered but added that the officer was not actually injured as claimed. “The ICE agent walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips,” he said. “He was not injured. Give me a break. No, he was not ran over. He walked out of there with a hop in his step.”

Few of us have been in Frey’s kitchen, but the latest videotape seems to show something more intense than an encounter with his fridge. The video shows the agent being hit by the vehicle as Good ignores orders to get out of the car, as Becca Good is screaming, “drive, drive, drive.”

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the officer should have discharged his weapon. Flight alone is not grounds for the use of lethal force. However, Good’s actions could also be interpreted as an intentional endangerment of the officer.

At a minimum, it was clearly reckless, as another officer was trying to reach into the vehicle and Good refused to yield to the effort to place her into custody. The Goods forced the confrontation, and Renee Good then escalated the level of danger by speeding toward an officer.

This is why the legal standard requires you to take in the entire elephant, not just insular parts.

While there may still be countervailing facts emerging from the investigation, the governing legal standard clearly favors the officer. It is Good’s actions, not her motivations, that are critical to determining whether excessive force was used. The officer’s cellphone video shows he had a fraction of a second to decide and fired after being struck by the car. (The same officer had been seriously hurt previously after being dragged by a car.)

The Justice Department’s guidances incorporate the standards outlined in past Supreme Court decisions, such as Graham v. Connor (1989). Again, individual elements can be viewed in isolation as favoring or disfavoring the use of force, including the severity of the crime at issue (in this case likely a misdemeanor) and whether the suspect was “attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The guidelines stress that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

This tragedy shows that people watching the same videotapes can come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Take the speed of the vehicle. Some have noted that the car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour before it collided with another vehicle. However, the speed after the shooting of Good is immaterial. The relevant question is the distance and speed with reference to the officer. It was clearly speeding up and immediately struck the officer before Good was shot.

The same is true of those who note how the wheels appear to be turning toward or away from the officer. The fact is, Good struck the officer. That does not mean she intended to do so, but that does not matter. From the officer’s perspective, Good was ignoring orders while speeding toward him from just feet away.

There will likely be civil litigation. Democrats have also called for criminal charges. The arguments on both sides of this controversy show, at most, that the issue is debatable. The officer could be viewed as wrong and still be found to have acted within the scope of his discretion in responding to a threat. Any state effort to charge the officer will be removed to federal court, where he will likely have immunity based on this evidence.

The public would be wise to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side. In an “Age of Rage,” we live in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king. The public must remain clear-eyed and calm as the investigation proceeds in Minneapolis.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 18:05

Australia Joins The Rare Earth Reserve Rush

Australia will begin purchasing and storing key minerals for defense and high-tech industries from local miners as part of a A$1.2 billion ($802 million) national reserve aimed at strengthening global supply chains, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reports that the initial stockpile will target rare earths, antimony and gallium, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Resources Minister Madeleine King and Trade Minister Don Farrell. As one of the largest rare-earth producers outside China, Australia hopes the move will reduce Beijing’s leverage over critical resources.

Critical minerals have become a flashpoint in global trade disputes, particularly after China used its market dominance during trade tensions with the US. That has driven other nations to see local production and reserves as strategic priorities.

“Developing the Strategic Reserve is another important step in Australia leading on critical minerals globally,” Chalmers said. The stockpile will ensure “Australia is at the center of efforts to build stable and reliable supply chains for our international partners.”

Mining stocks rose on the news, with Lynas Rare Earths climbing up to 6.5% and Larvotto Resources jumping 8.8%. Larvotto, which is developing one of the world’s largest antimony projects, welcomed the move.

“The federal government is leading from the front on this, and we’re extremely happy antimony is one of the focuses,” said CEO Ron Meeks. “We will produce 7% of the world’s antimony, so we will be one of the largest suppliers. We’ll start production in August.”

The strategy follows China’s recent rare-earth export restrictions on Japan and builds on last year’s US-Australia agreement to expand American access to critical minerals, a deal covering roughly A$13 billion in projects. Officials also say the reserve could help stabilize prices and shield producers from future market downturns driven by cheap Chinese supply.

Rare earths are vital for permanent magnets used in defense and medical systems, while antimony supports electronics and flame retardants, and gallium is essential for advanced semiconductors in radar and communications.

Of course, we have been documenting the "rare earth revolution" since summer of last year, when we wrote that China’s export controls on key rare earth elements—especially the “heavy” ones used in high-performance permanent magnets—were creating shortages and price distortions outside China, exposing how dependent the world is on China for mined, refined, and magnet-ready material.

We noted that this mattered because rare earth magnets are foundational to today’s EVs, electronics, wind power, and defense systems, and they’re expected to be even more important for future robotics/humanoids.

With supply security viewed as a national-security issue, we correctly noted that governments and customers were prioritizing “ex-China” supply chains even if costs rise, and that shift is likely to support higher rare earth pricing and premium economics for the limited number of existing non-China players.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 17:40

States Poised To Win Supreme Court Battle Over Men In Women's Sports, Legal Experts Predict

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court will uphold two state laws that ban male athletes who don’t identify with their sex from competing on school sports teams intended for females, legal experts say.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Jan. 5, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Their comments come as the nation’s highest court prepares to hear back-to-back oral arguments on Jan. 13 in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Idaho and West Virginia argue their respective laws comply with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Its equal protection clause says no state “shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The states also say their laws do not violate Title IX, a federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination at any school that receives federal funding.

Currently, 27 states have bans preventing males who identify as transgender from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, according to a report by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.

Advocates for transgender participation on female sports teams say these state bans are discriminatory and divisive.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the transgender-identifying athletes in both cases, said in September 2025 that such athletes have been “the focus of a relentless media campaign designed to make their participation seem like a threat to girls who are not transgender.”

The group said those on the other side want “a sweeping legal precedent that endangers transgender people (and other people, including gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and all women) across our lives, not just in sports.”

Idaho Case

Little v. Hecox is about Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, “which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys, no matter how those men and boys identify,” according to the petition filed in the case.

Lindsay Hecox [seriously?], a male who identifies as female, wanted to compete on a university’s women’s track and cross-country teams. Hecox sued, arguing the law violates the equal protection clause and Title IX.

A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the act so Hecox could try out for the teams. The court ruled the act discriminates against transgender-identifying athletes.

“The physiological differences,” between females and males, “do not overcome the inescapable conclusion that the Act discriminates on the basis of transgender status,” the petition said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, holding that laws making sex-based distinctions in schools serve as “proxy discrimination” against transgender-identifying athletes.

West Virginia Case

West Virginia v. B.P.J. is about that state’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which stipulates that female teams based on “competitive skill” or involving “a contact sport” must exclude males.

State lawmakers voted to keep the sexes separate in sports because of the “inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females,” according to the petition filed in the case.

B.P.J., a young male high school student who identifies as female, sued, arguing the law’s “biology-based distinction” violates Title IX and the equal protection clause. A district court initially blocked the law, then reversed itself, finding there was “no genuine dispute that biological males have physiological advantages over biological females.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the block, finding the district court was wrong to rule for the state because “there is a genuine dispute of material fact” over whether those born male “enjoy a meaningful competitive athletic advantage over” young women born female.

The circuit court also held that the district court should have granted summary judgment to B.P.J. on his Title IX claim because the state law unlawfully excluded him from participating in sports.

What the Lawyers Say

Jim Burling, senior counsel at Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm, said he is predicting the Supreme Court “is going to find that men are men and women are women.”

The court won’t find that gender identity is protected under Title IX, enacted in 1972, or the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, because the concept was unknown when they took effect, Burling told The Epoch Times.

Title IX was adopted to make sure that girls and women could participate in school sports on an equal basis with boys and men, he said. No one believes that transgender identity was part of what was being protected under the law, he added.

The text of the equal protection clause “doesn’t talk about transgenderism—it doesn’t even anticipate it being an issue,” he noted.

“You cannot graft a modern-day concern onto the language of a constitutional provision that’s over a century old,” he said.

Burling said the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year in United States v. Skrmetti offers a clue as to how the court will rule.

The Tennessee law in Skrmetti forbids all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a [disagreement] between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The high court rejected the argument that Tennessee’s ban on transgender procedures for children, such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on minors, was an example of discrimination, he said.

The ban was “an exercise of the state’s police power and power to regulate medical practice,” he added.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which embraces “a text-based, originalist understanding of the Constitution,” will not find that state laws prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports are unconstitutional, he said.

“I think the statutes are going to be upheld at least by 5–4 or maybe 6–3,” Burling said.

Steven J. Allen, a senior fellow at the National Legal and Policy Center, said he expects the Supreme Court will uphold the state laws by a 6–3 or 8–1 vote.

The Supreme Court is not going to say you can’t segregate sports teams by sex because that would eliminate most women’s sports, Allen said.

Then there is the privacy issue, he said. In our society, people in public facilities shower with others of the same sex and use dressing rooms that are sex-segregated, “and there’s no way that could be unconstitutional,” he added.

Supreme Court ‘Can’t Invent New Constitutional Rights’ 

Carrie Severino, president of JCN (formerly the Judicial Crisis Network), predicted the Supreme Court “will clarify that transgender status is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class, as it doesn’t fit into the types of classes that have been recognized historically as suspect or quasi-suspect classes.”

“The court cannot simply invent categories of constitutional protection,” she told The Epoch Times.

In constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of individuals meeting criteria that suggest they are likely the subject of discrimination.

A quasi-suspect classification refers to groups such as those based on gender or legitimacy of birth. When a law involves a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, courts apply strict scrutiny, meaning they look at whether the law at issue serves a compelling government interest and uses the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

“For the Supreme Court to step in and invent new constitutional rights that would have been absolutely shocking to those people who ratified the 14th Amendment, for them to jump in and cut off the right of citizens to pass the laws that they feel are appropriate to protect women in their states, that would be inappropriate,” she added.

Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm that is part of Idaho’s legal team in the Supreme Court case, said the statutes in Idaho and West Virginia serve the interests of women.

“Women deserve equal opportunity, fairness, and privacy, and states have the right to recognize biological distinctions when those distinctions matter, and they matter greatly on the athletic field,” she said at a Jan. 8 press conference.

When state laws protecting women’s sports aren’t allowed to be enforced, women and girls are “losing the opportunity to be on the field in terms of fairness,” but their safety and privacy in private spaces are placed in jeopardy, Waggoner said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 17:15

House Republicans Coalesce Around Stock-Trading Ban For Lawmakers

House Republicans are lining up behind a long-sought effort to curb stock trading by members of Congress, signaling what party leaders say may be their strongest opportunity yet to address concerns that lawmakers can profit from insider information.

(Image credit: Illustrated | Getty Images)

The proposal, drafted by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, would prohibit House and Senate members from purchasing individual stocks while in office. The measure, titled the Stop Insider Trading Act, has secured backing from House GOP leadership and support from Republicans across ideological factions. Steil plans to formally introduce the bill Monday.

Lawmakers first attempted to rein in congressional trading with the 2012 Stock Act, which expanded disclosure requirements and explicitly banned trading on nonpublic information. But repeated efforts to go further - by restricting trading outright - have stalled despite broad public support and bipartisan interest.

“I think we have an opportunity to improve upon the Stock Act, in particular to remove a lot of concerns Americans have that members of Congress are profiting off of insider information by engaging in stock trading,” Steil said in an interview ahead of the bill’s release. “Not only do I think this is the best chance, I think we will ultimately prove ourselves to be successful.”

Under the proposal, lawmakers would be barred from making new purchases of individual stocks but could continue to buy and sell diversified investment funds. Members would not be required to divest existing stock holdings. Instead, the bill would create a mandatory presale disclosure system requiring lawmakers to file a public notice between seven and 14 days before selling an individual stock, with the option to withdraw the notice if they decide not to proceed.

The legislation would also increase penalties for violations. Lawmakers who fail to comply would face fines equal to $2,000 or 10% of the value of the covered investment - whichever is greater - and could be required to forfeit any profits from the transaction. The bill does not address other asset classes such as bonds or commodities.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his leadership team are backing the effort, along with several Republicans who previously advanced separate proposals to restrict trading.

“No member of Congress should be allowed to profit from insider information, and this legislation represents an important step in our efforts to restore the people’s faith and trust in Congress,” Johnson said. “Both Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to make their voices heard and affirm their support.”

Steil said he intends to move quickly, with committee debate and amendments expected as soon as this week. GOP leaders have pledged to bring the bill to the House floor once it clears committee.

“I’ve worked closely with Chairman Steil, who has been tirelessly putting together a bill that bans stock trading by Members of Congress, and would like to move this bill for a full House vote soon after it gets out of committee,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA).

The push follows a series of earlier efforts to force action on the issue. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) recently advanced a stock-trading ban through a discharge petition, a procedural move that allows lawmakers to bypass leadership if sufficient support exists.

Republicans from across the party’s ideological spectrum have signed on as original co-sponsors of Steil’s bill, including Luna; Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), a member of the House Freedom Caucus; and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), a centrist member of the Problem Solvers Caucus.

“The people should be able to trust the motives of their representatives in Congress - yet active stock trading that enriches certain members has broken that trust,” Roy said. “This bill is a collaborative product that takes a giant step forward to restore trust by ending stock purchases and forging presale disclosure.”

Lawler argued that the proposal could help rebuild public confidence in Congress. “If you’re getting rich in Congress, you should get the hell out or be thrown out,” he said.

The restrictions would also apply to spouses and dependent children of lawmakers, barring them from purchasing securities of publicly traded companies. The bill includes exceptions for certain circumstances, such as ownership in small businesses, some trust-held investments, employment-related compensation, and cases in which a spouse or child’s primary occupation involves managing investments for others.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 16:50

On The Lefty-Left's Largely Female Hysteria

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Permission Granted: Go Kill Yourself

“A mascrosocial cluster B crisis is ripping this nation apart because Leftism has hijacked the minds of progressive females who then LARP out dangerous Gnostic heroic delusions.”

- JD Haltigan

Historians of the future, grilling beaver-tail paninis over their campfires, will look back in wonder and nausea at the madness of America — and other regions of Western Civ — in the raging 2020s. It will be clear by then that it was largely a female hysteria, like other departures from social sanity in the annals of the Homo sapiens, such as the outbreak of witchery in the Massachusetts Colony, 1692, the Dancing Plague of Strasbourg, 1518, and the lunacy of Meowing and Biting Nuns that spread through the convents of Europe in the 1400s.

Renee Nicole Good moments before she was shot to death

The Lefty-left has devised what’s called a “permission structure” for women to take the lead in acting-out the concocted grievances of their show-runners in the Democratic Party who, in times gone by, once had a coherent political program, but are now chiefly concerned with staying out of jail. I speak of those two orbiting moons, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and their many subalterns, such as John Podesta, Lisa Monaco, Norm Eisen, Adam Schiff. . . you know the huge cast of characters.

In 2020, they put their African-American clients in the vanguard, hoping to provoke Mr. Trump into a bloody suppression of the George Floyd riots. Didn’t really work, though the riots were a grand distraction from Marc Elias’s behind-the-scenes nefarious setup to queer the balloting process in that year’s election — a thumping success! All that mischief propelled brain-dead “Joe Biden” into the Oval Office, the perfect stooge to front for Hillary and Obama in their campaign to disorder the US body politic.

None of that worked for them in 2024, though, and only, apparently, because Elon Musk got wind of some election-hacking signals from a bunker in Serbia, and somehow managed to put the kibosh on its functionality. . . but that’s another story not quite yet spun for the public. Anyway, Mr. Trump got back into the Oval Office and now there is — forgive the cliché – hell to pay. Folks looking at jail time, famous folks, folks previously inoculated against such a fate. And it’s driving them batshit crazy. What on earth to do?

As it happens, enough Americans are sick and tired of the race hustle that its antics no longer avail the Democratic Party in stirring up animus against order, so now the party sends its women out onto the front lines to bang on police car windows, scream at the officers to perform sex acts on themselves, and impede their duties. In the course of all that action, one of them, Renee Nicole Good, got shot last week gunning her Honda Pilot at officer Jonathan Ross.

Ms. Good’s female wife, Becca Good, wailed in the aftermath, “I made her come down here, it’s my fault.” Come down to do what? To play a part in the show. To use Renee’s Honda Pilot to block the street so that ICE agents couldn’t do their job (which is removing illegal immigrants for processing and deportation). Who told Becca that was a good idea? The Lefty-left’s permission structure told her. So, Becca played her part in the show, ostentatiously recording a video of the scene, yelling taunts at the officers, telling her wife, Renee, to disobey the officer’s command to “get out of the car” and instead to drive away. Becca will have that on her conscience forever, alas. Bet you wouldn’t want to be her.

What is it in American women these days that makes them susceptible to such a demonic permission structure that the Lefty-left uses to make them pawns in this game? Most obviously, American women are less and less inclined to enter healthy relations with men. Why is that? Probably several reasons. American men are less and less good husband material — except at society’s tippy-top where they make obscene amounts of money in activities that are, frankly, pretty antisocial when you look hard — like, running monopolies, inducing the entire population into ill health, and selling out their country. The great wad of men in the classes below the tippy-top face ever-reduced opportunities to make a living, let alone support a wife and children.

Both American men and women are working pretty hard to make themselves sexually unappealing. Obesity is epidemic now that the national diet consists almost entirely of pizza and soda pop. You have to wonder how the idea of facial piercings, nose-rings, and massive tattoos caught on. Half the women in this country look like they could be harpooneers on the whaler Pequod. Meanwhile, the tubby men with no prospects can occupy themselves with free porn on their phones — which, you might admit, kind of cuts down on their motivation to even try to meet real women, let alone protect and care for them.

The result of all this dysfunction is a society with deeply disrupted relations between men and women, people who can’t produce children — or, by happenstance, as in the case of Renee Nicole Good, two children who did not live with her — people of both sexes who can’t enact the basic roles of human adulthood, people of both sexes who can hardly find gainful employment, and you end up with a land of broken people, broken families, and behavior that verges into madness.

And these broken people are egged on to self-destruction by the cynical managers of a criminal political party desperate to hide its crimes and avoid prosecution. When the arraignments begin, the derangements will ebb. Just watch and see.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 16:25

Socialism, Not Sanctions, Is Responsible For The Destruction Of Venezuela

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Venezuela is not poor due to sanctions. It is poor because the Chavez-Maduro regime stole hundreds of billions of dollars and demolished the productive fabric of the economy.

Venezuela had 12,700 private companies when Chávez came to power, according to Conindustria. Only about 3,800 manufacturing industries are still operating, of which around 3,200 are privately owned and 600 are state‑owned.

The assault on private property culminated with the expropriation of more than 690 companies in twelve years. Government-run businesses failed, and large state-owned companies in Venezuela are technically insolvent or heavily loss-making.

Socialism of the XXI century, they called it: government expropriations, price controls, capital controls, and complete absence of legal and investor security.

The socialist regime arrived in a period of rising oil prices and squandered one of the largest oil bonanzas in history while destroying the national oil company, which was one of the most efficient when Chavez arrived in power and is now riddled with debt of more than $41.6 billion, and production has plummeted to less than a third of what it was.

The extraordinary oil revenues of more than 960 billion dollars under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro were stolen, squandered, and wasted.

Government spending was out of control, and the state ran double-digit fiscal deficits in the period of oil price-linked economic boom. 

A deep structural crisis years before U.S. oil sanctions

You may have read the lie that the reason behind Venezuela’s suffering is US sanctions. This is false.

Sanctions did not start until 2019, and the economy was already in deep recession and hyperinflation. Venezuela’s economy had already entered a deep structural crisis years before the U.S. oil sanctions were imposed.

Furthermore, those sanctions were targeted against leaders of the dictatorship, not the broad economy.

Real GDP started to slump in 2013, and by 2017 the economy had already lost a large share of its output

The collapse in output, triple‑digit and then hyperinflation, and widespread shortages all began when the country had full access to global markets and international finance.​

Real GDP started to slump in 2013, and by 2017 the economy had already lost a large share of its output. Hyperinflation roared into 2017, when monthly price rises exceeded 50%, well before the 2019 sanctions.

The human rights violations, institutionalised murder, and lack of legal and personal rights highlighted by Amnesty International were there years before any sanction.

Trade with major powers, collapse at home

Venezuela has trade agreements with the world’s major powers. The United States is one of its main trading partners, along with the European Union, China, Russia, Turkey, India, and Brazil, among others, according to the Venezuelan government’s own data.

Moreover, Venezuela has been one of the largest beneficiaries of soft loans and debt restructurings in the entire region since 2013.

In fact, the first person to acknowledge that there is no embargo whatsoever is dictator Maduro, who boasts of the large exports and trade deals and proudly announced $18 billion dollars from exports in 2024.

By 2023–2024 Venezuela was producing barely one-fifth to one-quarter of what it did around 2012–2013

Despite receiving more than 78 billion in financial support and investment from China and Russia, according to CRS figures, Venezuela’s economy has been demolished, its oil industry has almost collapsed, and the economy has lost most of its GDP, with one of the worst hyperinflation and migration crises in modern peacetime history.

The IMF estimates that real GDP contracted by about 75% between 2013 and 2021, while other studies show an 80% fall in GDP in less than a decade, which implies that by 2023–2024 Venezuela was producing barely one-fifth to one-quarter of what it did around 2012–2013 and not much more than half of its 1998–1999 level in real terms.

The assault on the private sector

At the start of the Chávez era, Venezuela produced around 3.3–3.5 million barrels per day, an efficient and professional oil company respected worldwide.

In 2003, the Socialist government fired about 20,000 PDVSA workers, including most of the technical and managerial professionals, and replaced them with political appointments, destroying the company in one strike.

The company was converted into a political machine used to finance the government’s “missions” to spread its political influence. PDVSA became a direct funder of obscure off-budget projects and political spending.

Underinvestment, corruption, and politicised management caused a continuous collapse in production, which fell from 3.5 million barrels per day to less than a million by 2025, even though the country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. This is not a story of scarcity but of deliberate decapitalisation of the productive asset.

Price controls, exchange controls, and import licensing completed the destruction of the economy

The assault on the private sector extended far beyond energy. The Chávez and Maduro governments expropriated or nationalised firms in steel, cement, electricity, telecommunications, agriculture, banking, retail, and food distribution.

Constant threats of seizure, legal uncertainty, and discretionary punishment pushed many local and foreign firms to exit operations.

Meanwhile, politicisation made the state-owned companies and the expropriated businesses collapse under inept management and direct political theft of resources.

Price controls, exchange controls, and import licensing completed the destruction of the economy. When inflation soared, the government’s answer was to impose more controls and forced sales, which emptied shelves, cut production, and accelerated capital flight, deepening the economic collapse.

From oil wealth to a prison

From 1998 to 2025, government spending tied to political “missions” multiplied, financed directly from PDVSA and special funds controlled by the presidency.

The social consequences have been catastrophic. Poverty in Venezuela has risen to 80–90%; millions have fled the country, creating one of the largest displacement crises in the world, while the domestic banking system and credit intermediation have been dismantled.

The Maduro regime is usurping power, has rigged all elections and keeps hundreds of political prisoners. Maduro’s forces killed 9,465 people in 10 years, according to Provea. “They institutionalised state killings,” reads a 2024 report.

Venezuela’s collapse is not the inevitable fate of an oil‑rich country or the result of external sanctions; it is the product of deliberate policies, theft, and squandering.

A historic oil windfall was wasted, PDVSA was systematically decapitalised from within, and the institutionalised robbery was completed through expropriations and capital controls, leaving an economy unable to grow even when the global peers thrive.

The lesson from Venezuela is that socialism has made a rich and prosperous nation one of the poorest in the world and converted the country into a prison.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 15:45

UBS Explains Why Trump's 10% Credit Card Rate Cap Is "Unlikely" To Happen

Update (1520ET):

Analysts Erika Najarian and Tim Chiodo told clients that President Trump's proposed 10% one-year cap on credit card interest rates is "unlikely."

The analysts explain their reasoning:

With the midterms ahead and affordability remaining top of mind for voters, President Trump posted on social media that he is calling for a 10% rate cap on credit card APRs beginning on January 20, 2026, effective for one year.

We note that:

1. It would take an Act of Congress for such rate caps to be put in place, given the overwhelming legal challenges an executive order would likely face;

2. The legal challenges faced by the CFPB's late fee rule (dead in the water) are a precedent for non-Congressional action;

3. and media reports indicate that credit card rate caps were discussed but failed to be included in the 2025 Genius Act, suggesting that the industry lobby made an impact.

Additionally, the analysts said the 10% cap on credit card APRs would reduce credit availability for working-class Americans. They warned that 26% of credit card spending would be at severe risk, implying that a softening in the consumer economy would likely materialize.

Analysts say a 10% credit card rate cap would hit Bread Financial and Synchrony Financial the hardest, with Capital One also likely to underperform. JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Visa, and Mastercard would see milder negative impacts, while American Express is viewed as the most resilient, thanks to its high-end customer base and heavy reliance on fee income rather than interest income.

*  *  * 

European and US credit card companies are sliding in premarket trading after President Trump said on Truth Social late Friday (read report) that a 10% cap on credit card interest rates is very much on the table as part of his push to improve affordability.

In a Truth Social post, Trump said Americans are being "ripped off" by credit card companies that charge interest rates of 20 to 30% and vowed that his administration will put an end to it.

"AFFORDABILITY! Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one-year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%," the president stated. 

The cap's proposed start date coincides with the anniversary of Trump's second-term inauguration and, if implemented, would fulfill his 2024 election campaign pledge.

Two months later... https://t.co/POf3Y4jlrq pic.twitter.com/D4BlY4PD1i

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 10, 2026

American Express, Capital One, Visa, Mastercard, JPMorgan, Citi, and Wells Fargo all declined in New York premarket trading, with Capital One and Citi among the hardest hit due to their heavy exposure to credit card lending.

Premarket movers:

• American Express -4.4%,

• Capital One Financial -8.7%,

• Mastercard -2% and Visa -1.6%

Also track:

• Wells Fargo -2.1%,

• JPMorgan Chase -3%,

• Citi -4%

European lenders that offer US credit cards were also declining late in the session:

• Barclays -3.2%,

• Santander -1.6%

• and HSBC -.2%

Goldman analyst Gaelle Jarrousse commented on credit card firms and bank stocks tumbling in the European cash session, as well as the downward pressure on the same types of companies in the U.S. premarket:

Let's start with BARCLAYS down 4-5% at the open on the US CREDIT CARD CAP. Negative headlines post Friday US close from Trump who suggested a cap on credit cards to 10%. However, for this to work, the congress needs to pass a law and we have seen in the past, senators such as Sanders introducing bills proposing a 10% cap but none of them advanced into law. On top of that, banks and credit cards companies have started to lobby and highlighted the contraction of credit card availability that will result from such a measure.

. . .

The US credit cards headline is adding to the pressure we have seen on banks over past few sessions given valuation level (sector on 9.5x 27e) and positioning.

In a separate note, JPMorgan analyst Vivek Juneja warned there will be a "material hit" if this is enacted and "could push consumers into more expensive debt."

Juneja said that while the news will be negative for bank stocks, "this rate cap would not address the root of the problem," which is the rising Fed fund rate.

He said that among the banks in the JPM universe: "Citi has the highest share of credit card loans at 23% of total, followed by JP Morgan (16%), Bank of America (9%), US Bancorp (8%), and Wells Fargo (6%)."

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Philip Richards pointed out that Trump's demand for lower credit card rates "might not be enforced in full given the strength of US bank lobby groups."

Cowen analyst Moshe Orenbuch said, "This is a resurgence of Trump's campaign promise, and an escalation of the headline risk for credit card issuers."

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 15:20

Most US Debanking Cases Stem From Government Pressure, Report Says

Authored by Stephen Katte via CoinTelegraph.com,

The majority of debanking cases in the US are a result of government pressure, rather than individual banks’ policies, according to a new report from the American think tank the Cato Institute.

Cato Institute analyst Nicholas Anthony explained in a report on Thursday that debanking could take several forms: religious or political, the idea that a financial institution closes accounts solely due to political or religious belief or affiliation; operational, when a bank chooses to close a customer’s account as it’s no longer in the bank’s interest; or government, when a government pressures a financial institution to close a customer’s account. 

“While media and political narratives often attribute these closures to political or religious discrimination, this study finds that the majority of debanking cases stem from governmental pressure,” he said.

Cato Institute analyst Nicholas Anthony said there are generally four types of debanking. Source: Cato Institute

“Based on public evidence, governmental debanking appears to be the most significant issue majority of cases over time can be found where government officials have intervened in the market by either directly or indirectly telling banks how to run their business.”

Crypto firms have been facing account closures and denials of banking services for years, and many in the industry have speculated these actions are part of a policy-driven effort to suppress the digital assets sector, particularly by the Biden administration.

Two forms of government debanking

Anthony said government debanking can take two forms: direct, when it uses a letter or court order to order an account closure, or indirect, when lawmakers use regulations and legislation to force an account closure.

He cites the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sending letters to financial institutions ordering them to halt crypto-related activity as an example of direct action.

Source: Cato Institute

“Furthermore, the agency failed to provide a timeline or follow up with those financial institutions. So, in practice, these letters were effectively termination orders,” Anthony added.

In December, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon denied debanking customers based on their religious or political affiliation during an interview with Fox News. He also claimed both sides of politics in the US, Democrats and Republicans, were equal offenders when it came to leaning on banks to debank people.

In November, Jack Mallers, the CEO of the Bitcoin Lightning Network payments company Strike, accused JPMorgan of closing his personal accounts without explanation, and Houston Morgan, the head of marketing at non-custodial crypto trading platform ShapeShift, shared a similar story the same month. 

Congress has the power to end debanking

US President Donald Trump’s administration has addressed this alleged debanking through executive orders on debanking, while appointing agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission with more pro-crypto leaders. 

However, Anthony argues that Congress needs to take more action by reforming the Bank Secrecy Act, repealing confidentiality laws, and permanently ending reputational risk regulation.

“Doing so would reduce the incentives to debank, expose how widespread debanking has become, and cut out the tools that the government has used to pressure banks and other financial institutions,” he said.

“If Congress wants to bring relief and reduce the debanking phenomenon, it’s time to eliminate the confidentiality that has shrouded the system. It’s time to take the practice of reputational risk regulation off the table. And it’s time to reform the Bank Secrecy Act regime that has deputized financial institutions as law enforcement investigators.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 15:05

Small Modular Reactor Developers Push New Partnerships And Use Cases

Hot on the heels of the biggest nuclear energy deal by a tech company to date, one which saw Meta validate Oklo's "proof of concept" by committing to purchase 1.2 GW of new energy ...

... peer Small Module Reactor (SMR) developers, Nano Nuclear and NuScale Power, released their own updates on new engineering partnerships and potential use cases.

Nano Nuclear, which in recent months had focused on its project at the University of Illinois (UI), had put its various other business segments - including an exciting project with its laser uranium enrichment partner LIS Technnologies - on the backburner. The UI project is a full-scale deployment of Nano’s Kronos reactor design, a 15 MW high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor (HTGR).

While the project may include a power purchase agreement eventually, its primary purpose is R&D of the reactor design. Nano investors are hoping that it will soon become a source of revenue as well, while shorts are pressing their skepticism, which explains why more than a third of the company's float - a record - is now shorted. 

Nano had previously announced the potential for deploying a fleet of reactors, but the study itself could take months, with a Final Investment Decision likely years away. But in the company's latest news, Nano unveiled some real traction with the announcement that it has selected EPC firm Ameresco to develop and deploy all three of their reactor designs: Kronos, Zeus, and Loki. As the initial assessment advances, the companies plan to coordinate on government funding and other available incentives.

$NNE Breaking News: "NANO Nuclear Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Ameresco (NYSE: $AMRC) to Explore the Deployment of Advanced Microreactor Technologies on Federal and Commercial Sites - $AMRC is a leading energy infrastructure solutions provider https://t.co/67BhVSKDqy

— NANO Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) (@nano_nuclear) January 12, 2026

Ameresco announced partnerships in 2025 with the two other junior public reactor developers, Terrestrial Energy and Terra Innovatum. With Terra also working on an HTGR design, and Terrestrial working on a molten salt reactor (MSR), Ameresco holds a relatively full docket for a firm that has yet to deploy any nuclear plants, big or small. Adding to the likelihood that deployment timelines are likely not going to move rapidly, executives at Ameresco said they were looking years past 2027 for reactor deployments on the recent earnings call:

“I would not say 2026 or 2027 though. That is a little early, even for a traditional power plant … I think the opportunity is very real, especially with the Army announcements that just came out a couple of weeks ago and more from the Department of Energy that we believe that it is certainly in the future. Probably a few more years than 2027.”

Meanwhile, light water SMR developer NuScale published the results of a study performed with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The study evaluated the economics of utilizing the heat and electricity produced by NuScale’s 77 MWe Nuclear Power Module (NPM) for use by a chemical processing facility. Results indicate the arrangement would lead to profitable operations for the reactor developer famous for their licensing Odyssey with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — only they’re less famous for gaining a Design Certification for their administrative efforts and more famous for failing miserably to ever capitalize on the achievement.

NuScale has made multiple announcements regarding potential use cases, including training facilities, desalination plants, and now industrial process heat. They currently hold a loose agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority to construct dozens of NPMs for up to 6 GW of new generation capacity, coupled with $25 billion of support from the Japan-US trade agreement.

Expect to see more "steel in the ground" news from Nano and NuScale as they seek to convince investors they are 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 14:45

Going Full Spartacus: Democrats Hold Chest-Thumping Press Conferences To Fuel Anti-ICE Rage

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Say her name.” From Portland to Philadelphia, the mantra is being used by politicians to fuel the anger over the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. While many of us have noted that the shooting appears to fall within the guidelines set by the Supreme Court for the justified use of lethal force, there is an effort to make Good the personification of a “resistance movement.”

Across the country, Democrats are holding “I am Spartacus” moments like a low-budget casting call for B-grade actors, chest-thumping demands for everything from the defunding of ICE to the arrest of law enforcement officers. Sen Cory Booker (D., N.J.) was widely ridiculed for his own such moment years ago. However, he found that while most people found his self-aggrandizement cringeworthy, many longed for such demonstrations.

From Portland to Philadelphia, Democratic leaders are engaging in performative press conferences to try to outdo each other in declaring the shooting of Renee Good “murder” or declaring a “war” with the federal government over the enforcement of immigration policies.

The tone was set almost immediately after the shooting by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who not only declared the officer a murderer but called claims of self-defense “bllsh*t” and told ICE, “get the f–k out” of the city.

When many of us denounced his conduct, he mocked his critics by apologizing if his profanity “offended their Disney princess ears.”

Frey seemed to trigger a race to the bottom. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and others rushed to the nearest camera to condemn the officer and fuel the rage.  Democratic politicians seemed to struggle to find ways to up the ante with new levels of profanity or escalated threats. Rep. Dan Goldman (D., NY) is facing a serious challenge from a Mamdani-endorsed socialist in the primary and has fought to out-rage the competition.

Goldman not only called for the arrest of the officer but also moved to strip all ICE officers of immunity. Goldman is, of course, protected by immunity as a member of Congress and, as an heir to the Levi-Strauss fortune, can afford any litigation. However, he wants to strip protections for law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day. It seems that no price is too great to secure Goldman a third term.

In Portland, Mayor Keith Wilson and Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, expressed outrage over ICE being in the city after a shooting. It did not seem to matter that the wounded were two suspected Tren de Aragua gang associates who were shot after allegedly trying to run over ICE officers.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day finally confirmed that Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras are Venezuelan criminal illegal aliens with ties to TdA. He admitted that the Portland Police Department hesitated to disclose the suspected gang connection because it did not want to be accused of “historic injustice of victim blaming” by law enforcement.

He then began to cry, saying, “It saddens me that we even have to qualify these remarks because I understand or at least have attempted to understand your voices, your concern, your fear, your anger.”

In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner and Sheriff Rochelle Bilal took the performative press conference to a new and absurd level.

Krasner, who has been known to make sensational and unfulfilled pledges in the past, told ICE to stay out of the city, and portrayed their conduct as criminal, adding, “You will be arrested. You will stand trial. You will be convicted.”

Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal then went full Spartacus in an embarrassing demonstration more befitting an Antifa activist than a law enforcement official.

She called ICE officers “fake, wannabe” law enforcement and claimed that they were violating both “legal law” and “moral law.”

Bilal pandered to the mob, warning the federal government that  “You don’t want this smoke. Cuz we will bring it to you.” She added that “the criminal in the White House would not be able to keep” ICE agents from heading to jail.

These are leaders who are openly playing to the mob. In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss how elected officials often try to enlist mobs to advance their political agendas — only to be consumed by the unrest they helped fuel. This yielding to a “mobocracy” was one of the critical dangers that the Framers sought to deter through protections against majoritarian tyranny.

The problem with these “I am Spartacus” moments is that you need an actual Spartacus. Instead, we have the violence without the cause.

We have the same figures who have trafficked in rage for centuries, including recently in this very city.

In Minneapolis, a Black Lives Matter leader seemed to advocate violence as a vehicle for change, suggesting that the prosecution of officers in the George Floyd case only occurred because protesters burned down part of the city in 2020.  She told protesters to ignore “don’t set [the city] on fire” pleas.

In the movie, Caesar is asked if he, too, had “left us for…the mob.” Caesar responds, “I’ve left no one, least of all Rome. This much I’ve learned … Rome is the mob.”

These politicians are attempting to harness the power of the mob to direct it against their political opponents.  One Antifa activist called for people to “show up with guns and end this,” adding that “this is what the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for.”

In reality, what we are watching are calls and performative rage that led not to the American Revolution but the French Revolution. If history is any measure, these “new Jacobins” will find that they are no more protected from the rage than their opponents, as today’s revolutionaries become tomorrow’s reactionaries.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” which will be released on Feb. 3 as part of the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 14:25

Trump May Freeze Exxon Out Of Venezuela After CEO Darren Woods Called It "Uninvestable"

Tensions flared between Exxon Mobil and the White House after CEO Darren Woods cast doubt on Venezuela’s appeal as an investment destination during a closed-door meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and other oil executives last week, according to Reuters.

Woods argued that without sweeping legal and regulatory changes, the country could not support major foreign investment, describing its current system as “uninvestable.”

Trump had convened the meeting only days after U.S. forces removed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in an overnight operation and urged the industry to commit as much as $100 billion to rebuilding Venezuela’s energy sector. Instead of gaining momentum, the talks were quickly overshadowed by Woods’ skepticism.

Reuters writes that Trump publicly voiced his frustration on Sunday while returning to Washington aboard Air Force One. “I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” he said. “I’ll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn’t like their response. They’re playing too cute.”

Exxon has long been entangled in Venezuela’s oil history. Along with ConocoPhillips and Chevron, it was once a leading foreign partner of the state firm PDVSA before nationalizations under Hugo Chavez forced Exxon and ConocoPhillips to exit the country and pursue arbitration. Court rulings later ordered Venezuela to pay more than $13 billion collectively to the two companies for seized assets.

Woods reminded Trump of that history, saying, “We’ve had our assets seized there twice, and so you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen here.” He also stressed that investment protections and reform of the hydrocarbons law were essential, adding, “If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable.”

ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance echoed the caution, telling Trump his company was the largest non-sovereign creditor in Venezuela and calling for a broad overhaul of the country’s energy system and debt structure. Trump replied that ConocoPhillips would recover much of what it was owed but insisted the future would begin anew. “We’re not going to look at what people lost in the past because that was their fault,” he said.

The president also made clear that Washington would control which companies are allowed to operate in Venezuela. “You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela,” he said.

Recall, last week Trump met with leaders from Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp. 

Trump has argued that Venezuela’s vast oil reserves could help revive its economy while also benefiting U.S. consumers and energy companies. In a recent interview, he said he wants companies to commit at least $100 billion to “rebuild the whole oil infrastructure” in the country.

The administration has tightened pressure on Venezuela through a new oil “quarantine,” including the seizure of another tanker Friday, the fifth such action in recent weeks. Rubio said the strategy gives the U.S. “tremendous leverage” and that Washington plans to sell up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned crude on the open market, with the proceeds under U.S. control.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 14:05

10Y Auction Stops Through In Solid Start For 2026 Treasury Sales

Shortly after a solid 3Y auction, the first of the year, priced just through the WI by 0.1bps, moments ago we got the first sale of benchmark 10Y paper for 2026 in what was another solid auction.

Today's sale of $39BN in 10Y paper priced at 4.173% just after 1pm ET. This was barely changed from the 4.175% in December in what appears to be duration paralysis. And with the When Issued trading at 4.180%, the auction stopped through the WI by 0.7bps, this was the strongest 10Y auction since September. 

More paralysis: the bid to cover was 2.554, virtually unchanged from last month's 2.550, and just above the six-auction average of 2.51. As one can see in the chart below, we are now about a decade into the BtC being within 10-20bps of 2.50% in what may be the biggest autopilot trade in the US.

Turning to the internals, Indirects took down 69.7% of the auction, just a hair below last month's 70.2% (and just above the 69.5% recent average). Directs took 24.5%, up from 21.0 in December and the highest since 2014. This left Dealers with just 5.8%, the second lowest on record with justs the 4.2% in Sept 25 lower.

Overall, this was a strong 10Y auction, and a solid start to the year for coupon issuance. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 13:37

Republicans Have Quickly Rallied Behind Trump On Venezuela

A week after "Operation Absolute Resolve", which saw the U.S. military attack targets in Venezuela to capture and extract President Nicolás Maduro, the international community is still grappling over the legality of the U.S. intervention.

While some experts are saying that the illegality of the U.S. attack is beyond doubt, U.S. allies are hesitant to openly denounce the U.S. actions.

The European Union, for example, issued a statement calling for calm and restraint by all parties involved. While acknowledging that Maduro lacked the legitimacy of a democratically elected president, the statement backed by 26 EU member states stressed that it was the right of the Venezuelan people to determine their own future. While calling for everyone, under all circumstances, to uphold the principles of international law and the UN Charter, the EU stops short of openly accusing the U.S. of violating these rules.

Meanwhile, as Statista's Felix Richter reports, in the U.S., we saw a familiar story unfold, with a strong partisan divide opening up on a question that most Americans agreed on just a few months ago. “Would you support the U.S. using military force to invade Venezuela?”, YouGov asked in October 2025. Back then, just 15 percent of respondents – 7 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of Republicans – voiced their support. When YouGov posed the same question this week, i.e. after the raid that captured Maduro, replacing “would you” with “do you”, the picture looked entirely different: While support among Democrats was still very low at 13 percent, 74 percent of Republicans now said that they somehow or strongly supported the U.S. using military force in Venezuela.

You will find more infographics at Statista

These results highlight Trump’s still-intact ability to rally his supporters behind him by spinning the narrative in a way works in his favor.

Back in 2024, Trump ran on the promise to avoid getting dragged into wars overseas, much to the liking of his base.

A little more than a year later, the Trump administration appears to have abandoned this non-interventionist stance in favor of a new America-First foreign policy that stretches across the entire Americas, all the way from Greenland to Cape Horn.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 13:25

Burning The Bridgeheads

By Rabobank

2-year Treasury yields closed 4.4bps higher at 3.53% on Friday after December non-farm payrolls showed the unemployment rate falling to 4.4% and wage growth accelerating despite slower-than-expected hiring. Fed-dated OIS has seen a modest upward re-pricing in the market-implied path of the Fed Funds Rate, though two 25bp cuts by the end of the year remain in the curve with the first fully priced by June.

Breaking news that the Fed has just been issued subpoenas by the Department of Justice relating to statements made by Powell in testimony to Congress could see further recalibration in expectations of the future rate path. Powell has made a statement saying that concerns over his congressional testimony is simply a pretext and that “the threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Fed setting rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.”

In essence, Powell is correct, the real target of the administration is central bank independence which renders the price of money immune to the democratic process and to coordination with other levers of national policy to achieve national policy goals. Independent central banking is a neoliberal shibboleth, but the neoliberal era is clearly over. For further evidence of that (as if it was necessary), look no further than the US’s recent moves towards capital controls and financial repression such as the ban on dividends and stock buybacks for weapons manufacturers, the banning of international wire transfers for welfare recipients, the proposed capping of credit card interest at 10% and the $200bn purchase of mortgage-backed securities designed to pressure lending rates lower. We’re sensing a pattern...

This week will bring the release of the December CPI report on Tuesday. That will give markets another chance to play the game of “up a little bit, down a little bit” even while the global economic and security architecture is being re-made around us in real time. Following comments from President Trump that the United States intends to acquire Greenland “the easy way” (i.e. by buying it) or “the hard way” (via military annexation), Danish PM Mette Frederikson said on Sunday that “we are ready to defend our values – wherever it is necessary – also in the Arctic. We believe in international law and in peoples’ rights to self-determination.”

Frederiksen’s comments recall Mark Twain’s observation that “it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” In this case, some might argue that the international law that Denmark believes in is a polite fiction and that it has only been a thing in the past to the extent that it was enforced by the weight of US arms. Volodymyr Zelenskyy articulated as much at the United Nations last year when he said “...that’s the reality. Not international law, not cooperation – weapons decide who survives”. How can international law conceivably be enforced against US arms rather than by them? Who will do the enforcing?

So, while Frederiksen might say that Denmark is ready to defend its values, the reality is that it is not ready to defend Greenland. If the United States is truly determined to acquire the territory one way or another, it will ultimately prove successful. Frederiksen said last week that a US annexation of Greenland would spell the end of NATO, which is probably correct. This then becomes a problem for the entire European Union, who arguably need NATO much more than the Americans do. Are France and Germany happy to run that risk so that Denmark can keep Greenland?

Only a few short years ago the idea that the United States would be willing to risk what Zbigniew Brzezinski called its “democratic bridgehead” on the Eurasian continent by threatening the collapse of NATO seemed unthinkable. However, the critical tone taken towards Europe in the US’s new national security strategy and the ongoing evidence of appetite for rapprochement with Russia in an effort to isolate China calls those old assumptions into question.

So, is the US just playing Europe hot and cold or has something really changed? Europe’s lack of military and monetary sovereignty (see yesterday’s FT here) means that it cannot afford to gamble one way or the other, so the probability of capitulation to Trump over Greenland in a similar manner to how Europe capitulated over tariffs should not be dismissed. With EURUSD still trading above 1.16 at time of writing on a somewhat superficial rearmament narrative, it would seem to me that these risks are not in the price.

While the US plays hardball with Europe over the future of Greenland, the potential for a new democratic bridgehead on the Eurasian continent is appearing. Pro-democracy mass demonstrations in Iran are continuing despite reports that government crackdowns have resulted in the deaths of more than 500 protesters. President Trump has repeatedly warned the Iranian regime that the US may seek to intervene if protestors are harmed and the Wall Street Journal today reports that Trump will be briefed on Tuesday about possible US actions that could include distributing Starlink systems to counteract a shutdown of the internet, or even military intervention. Reza Pahlavi, the Iranian Crown Prince in exile, has called for protestors to continue to occupy public spaces and hinted at a return to the country. Did anybody have the restoration of the Shah on their 2026 bingo card?

The Iranian turmoil and developments in Yemen have contributed to a rise in oil prices in recent days that has more than wiped out the price falls that came in the aftermath of the US’s capture of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. While this is mostly short-term market noise, the impact of US actions on supply chains is much more substantive.

Economics students are told that economics is the study of scarcity and taught to solve constrained optimization problems. However, these problems are generally academic abstractions, and by the time students finish their PhDs and head off to work for Treasury or a central bank they seemingly forget about real factor constraints and proceed to make simplifying assumptions that supply will be available when needed. In reality, the detail surrounding the availability (or otherwise) of physical stuff matters. Denmark will discover this if they care to test the theory that Greenland can be defended without the presence of physical military materiel.

Craig Tindale excellently describes this dawning realization for Western policymakers as ‘the return of matter’. Our own Michael Every has articulated the idea as “what is GDP *for*”. In a nutshell, what is being described is supply chain sovereignty and this will continue to be the conversation going forward as Western powers pivot away from financialization and back toward industrialisation. Once more for the people in the back: *the neoliberal period is over*.

In the case of Venezuela, we find expression of this idea in the fact that it isn’t the size of the country’s oil reserves that is most critical, but the fact that those reserves are of a heavy grade suited to US gulf refineries and now prevented from flowing to Chinese refineries that were established on the assumption that supply would be forthcoming. This raises the prospect of Chinese refineries becoming stranded assets – threatening China’s energy security. That threat is compounded if supplies from Iran – where ~90% of oil exports go to China – are also interrupted by changes on the geopolitical chessboard.

So, while it is certainly a worry that the United States may appear content to burn the democratic bridgehead in Europe to suit its own interests, it is also burning China’s bridgeheads in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East. Is this net bullish or bearish for Pax Americana? The answer to that question ought to be helpful in directing capital flows in 2026.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 13:05

Noem: DHS Sending "Hundreds More" Federal Agents To Minneapolis

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in an interview on Jan. 11 that “hundreds more” federal officers will be sent to Minneapolis on Jan. 11 and Jan. 12 to carry out immigration-related operations in the city.

“We’re sending more officers today and tomorrow, they’ll arrive, there'll be hundreds more, in order to allow our ICE and our Border Patrol individuals that are working in Minneapolis to do so safely,” Noem told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

DHS recently sent 2,000 federal immigration agents to the city. Noem said the operation is needed to go after illegal immigrant criminals in the Twin Cities area amid allegations of widespread fraud involving federal entitlement benefits.

Protests erupted after a Jan. 7 incident in which an ICE officer fatally shot a protester as she hit him with her car in an apparent attempt to flee.

Local Democrats, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have criticized Noem and ICE for the shooting and suggested that the federal government cease immigration operations in the city. Frey and Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said in separate interviews on Jan. 11 that state authorities should be included in the shooting investigation because the federal government has already made clear what it believes happened.

“How can we trust the federal government to do an objective, unbiassed investigation, without prejudice, when at the beginning of that investigation they have already announced exactly what they saw—what they think happened,” Smith said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Frey told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Jan. 11 that local officials should be involved, saying: “Let’s have the investigation in the hands of someone that isn’t biased.”

The Trump administration has defended the officer who shot the protester in her car, saying that he was protecting himself and fellow agents. Video footage of the incident, which occurred in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, shows a woman in an SUV parked across the road and blocking traffic while honking her horn. Another video shows officers telling the woman to get out of the vehicle. She then lurches the vehicle forward, hitting an officer, in an apparent attempt to drive off, and he fires his gun, hitting her.

In response, Noem wrote on Jan. 11 an accompanying post on X that what happened in Minneapolis was a “domestic terror attack” targeting ICE agents and a “direct consequence of sanctuary politicians, like Tim Walz and Jacob Frey, who constantly demonize and vilify our brave officers.” She included video footage of similar comments to CNN.

“Sanctuary politicians are allowing situations around the country to become volatile, they’re not doing their jobs, and they haven’t for years,” Noem said. “In the interest of public safety I would encourage them to grow up.”

Noem and DHS have said that attacks on ICE agents have increased by 1,300 percent, with vehicular attacks increasing by 3,200 percent, on a year-over-year basis. In October 2025, a man armed with a rifle killed two ICE detainees at a federal office in Texas before shooting and killing himself.

The officer involved in the Minneapolis shooting was doxxed by people online and has been receiving death threats, according to White House border czar Tom Homan, who said in a Jan. 10 interview that the threats have extended to his family members.

Anti-ICE demonstrations erupted on Jan. 9 as a demonstration turned into a riot, with people throwing rocks, ice, and other objects at federal officers. Thousands of people marched in Minneapolis on Jan. 10 in response to the shooting.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 12:25

Google & AI Startup Settle Teen Suicide Chatbot Lawsuits

Google and artificial-intelligence chatbot startup Character.AI have agreed to settle a wave of lawsuits brought by grieving parents who claim AI chatbots emotionally manipulated - and ultimately destroyed -their children.

Megan Garcia with her son Sewell Setzer III. Photograph: Megan Garcia/AP

Court documents filed this week show the companies have reached settlement agreements in cases from Florida, Colorado, New York, and Texas, all alleging that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed minors through sexually charged conversations, emotional dependency, and encouragement of self-harm. The specific terms of the settlements remain secret and must still be approved by federal judges, ABC News reports.

The Florida case, the first and most explosive of the lawsuits, centered on the death of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, who killed himself in February 2024. His mother, Megan Garcia, alleged that her son was pulled into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with a Character.AI chatbot.

According to the lawsuit, the chatbot was modeled after a fictional character from HBO’s hit series Game of Thrones - and over time, the teen became increasingly detached from reality, isolating himself from family and friends while spending hours interacting with the AI.

In the final moments of his life, screenshots included in the lawsuit show the chatbot telling the boy it loved him and urging him to “come home to me as soon as possible.”

Garcia’s lawsuit accused Character.AI of deliberately designing bots that blurred the line between fantasy and reality, exploiting a child’s vulnerability for engagement and profit. A federal judge rejected the company’s attempt to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds - a key ruling that opened the door to similar lawsuits nationwide.

Those lawsuits soon followed.

Families in multiple states filed complaints alleging that Character.AI chatbots normalized self-harm, encouraged suicidal thinking, and fostered emotional dependency in children who lacked the maturity to understand they were interacting with a machine.

Google was named as a defendant because of its deep ties to Character Technologies, which intensified after the tech giant rehired Character.AI’s co-founders in 2024 and entered into an AI partnership that critics say gave the startup credibility, infrastructure, and reach.

While Google has maintained that it does not operate Character.AI’s platform, plaintiffs argue the company played a critical role in enabling the technology that allegedly harmed their children.

The settlements arrive amid broader legal pressure on the AI industry, including lawsuits against OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, over claims that its technology has encouraged self-harm or failed to intervene appropriately during mental-health crises.

In response to the growing backlash, Character.AI has rolled out new safety measures, including age restrictions and content moderation tools. But for families who say the damage has already been done, the changes come too late.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 12:05

Apple Selects Google's Gemini To Power AI Siri

Apple shares moved up 1% in the morning U.S. cash session after CNBC reported that Apple will partner with rival Google to power key artificial intelligence features, including Siri, later this year.

In a statement cited by CNBC's Jim Cramer, Apple said it selected Google after a competitive review, calling Gemini "the most capable foundation" to support its AI roadmap and unlock new user experiences.

"After careful evaluation, we determined that Google's technology provides the most capable foundation for Apple Foundation Models, and we're excited about the innovative new experiences it will unlock for our users," Apple wrote.

We previously reported that Apple was tapping Google's Gemini model to overhaul Siri. This development is particularly alarming for Apple, as it shows how heavily the company relies on external AI technology.

The Apple-Google partnership has made Wedbush's research team, led by Dan Ives, look like superstars this morning, as it was one of their top three predictions for 2026.

Dan Ives's top 3rd prediction for 2026 was just realized with the AAPL/GOOGL partnership https://t.co/mIBHmaQIcF

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 12, 2026

View the rest of Ives' predictions here.  

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:46

DHS Blasts Anti-ICE Protesters Sharing List Of Hotels Allegedly Hosting Agents

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Jan. 11 that federal agents in Minnesota were put at risk after a list of their alleged hotel locations circulated online.

“Revealing their locations puts them at enormous risk of retaliation from these monsters,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote in a statement to The Epoch Times.

Sunrise Twin Cities, a youth-led group against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, is publishing a weekly list of hotels where they suspect that immigration agents are staying.

The Minneapolis-based group has spent weeks urging locals to hold “noise demonstrations” outside hotels, hoping that management will become fed up, kick out the agents, and cancel future reservations.

DHS would not confirm or deny the accuracy of the list.

“We would never confirm where our officers are staying and put their lives in jeopardy, that would be insane,” McLaughlin said.

McLaughlin said these lists of locations can be harmful, as officers face a surge of assaults, vehicular attacks, and death threats, many of which have already been directed at the agent involved in a deadly altercation with a protester last week.

The hotel demonstration on Jan. 9, hosted by Sunrise Twin Cities, resulted in 30 people being detained after an unlawful assembly was declared outside the Canopy Hotel.

“I felt like I was in ‘The Purge,’” a Canopy Hotel staffer told The Epoch Times on Jan. 10.

A staffer from the Canopy Hotel told The Epoch Times that he felt like he was in a horror movie when anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters tried to barge into the building in Minneapolis on Jan. 9, 2026. Jacki Thrapp/The Epoch Times

The Canopy Hotel was up and running on Jan. 10 with seemingly no signs of damage inside or broken windows outside.

But that was not the case for the Renaissance Minneapolis Hotel, just a few blocks away from the Canopy Hotel.

The Renaissance Minneapolis Hotel had damage worth approximately $6,000 done to windows from graffiti on Jan. 9.

By the afternoon on Jan. 10, the graffiti was removed, and fencing and “no trespassing” signs were scattered across the property and surrounding area.

Fences and “no trespassing” signs were placed outside the Renaissance Minneapolis Hotel in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. Jacki Thrapp/The Epoch Times

A large number of police officers were present both inside and outside of the hotel on the night of Jan. 10.

The hotel bar inside was also standing by to close early if another round of protesters decided to brave the 20-degree-Fahrenheit temperatures to hold additional noise demonstrations.

The anti-ICE hotel demonstrations—and repeated phone calls to front desks to demand that they cancel reservations from agents—also had an effect at a Hilton-affiliated hotel in the Minneapolis area.

“We have noticed an influx of GOV reservations made today that have been for DHS, and we are not allowing any ICE or immigration agents to stay at our property,” an email from a hotel employee shared by DHS in an X post on Jan. 5 reads.

“If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know as we will have to cancel your reservation.”

Protesters face off with federal officers in front of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 9, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

DHS slammed the cancellations.

“This is UNACCEPTABLE,” the department posted on X.

On Jan. 6, Hilton said it would sever its ties with the hotel. The Lakeville, Minnesota, hotel is now listed as “permanently closed” online.

Hilton did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:35

Mamdani Hails Rat-Infested Bronx Slum As 'Model' For His Housing Agenda

Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York on a slew of socialist promises marketed under the banner of affordability.

On his first day in office, he signed three executive orders to address the housing crisis. The first revives the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, led by tenant advocate Cea Weaver, to coordinate agencies and crack down on abusive landlords. Another creates the LIFT task force to fast-track city-owned sites for housing, while the SPEED task force will cut red tape that delays construction. Days later, he picked 1520 Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx’s Morris Heights to introduce Dina Levy as the new Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) commissioner. 

Back in 2011, Levy, who will now earn a $277,605 annual salary as Mamdani’s HPD commissioner, helped flip the 102-unit building from private ownership to the nonprofit Workforce Housing Advisors. Her group, Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, teamed with HPD on a $5.6 million city loan. 

Mamdani touted that move as a win. He told the crowd that Levy organized tenants against a predatory buyer. The building stayed affordable. "Dina will no longer be petitioning HPD from the outside," Mamdani said. "She will now be leading it from the inside, delivering the kind of change that can transform lives." He painted Levy as the perfect person to implement his affordable housing agenda, which leans heavily on replacing private landlords with nonprofits. 

But what Mamdani didn’t say at the event was that this model for his housing agenda is a rat-infested slum.

According to a report from the New York Post, the building “as of Saturday had a staggering 194 open housing-code violations dating back to 2016 - including 88 ‘Class C’ violations considered ‘immediately hazardous.’”

Records show that rat and roach infestation, broken doors and refrigerators, and mold were among those violations. 

Tenants of the building say conditions were better under the building’s former private landlord and that the property has steadily deteriorated since being turned over to a nonprofit. 

“I have been here over 20 years, and I preferred it when it was under private management because they used to screen people in and out of the building,” longtime tenant Mordistine Alexander told the paper. She has been in the building since 1999.

 Today, the building is plagued by chronic heat and hot-water issues, crumbling bathrooms and kitchens, broken windows, and months-long delays in basic repairs. She said she has been without a kitchen light for months and fixed a serious rodent problem herself because she “couldn’t wait any longer” for Workforce Housing Group to act. “Since [the nonprofit] took over, the building has deteriorated. They lack porters. No one is maintaining it, and the complaints fall on deaf ears – especially if you complain a lot,” Alexander said, adding she wishes Levy had never succeeded in transferring the building to nonprofit control. Despite these complaints, Mamdani is pushing for more buildings like the Sedgwick Avenue complex, backing communist policies that restrict private property sales to allow nonprofits to take over more rent-stabilized apartments.

"You have to laugh at the hypocrisy," Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens) said. "These nonprofits are proving themselves to be little more than taxpayer-funded slumlords, and this blatant double-standard is all part of the administration’s planned attack on private ownership in New York City." 

The Sedgwick Avenue site has more open HPD violations than roughly three-quarters of the privately owned, rent-stabilized buildings in NYC — but Mamdani is “too focused” on pushing the abolition of private property, said Kenny Burgos, a former Bronx assemblyman who heads the New York Apartment Association that represents landlords of rent-stabilized units.

Nonprofit-managed housing “consistently run higher violation counts despite having government-backed loans and [being eligible to avoid] paying property taxes, so they should have a lot more freed-up cash to make these buildings run efficiently, and yet are unable to do so - even with good intentions and no goal of profit,” added Burgos.

The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development defended the rat-infested slum and Levy’s involvement in the sale of the building to Workforce Housing Group.

“When the building was at risk of being purchased by a predatory buyer, Dina Levy organized alongside the tenants and kept the building affordable,” spokesman Matt Rauschenbach said. “And now the building is undergoing an $8 million preservation renovation to improve conditions and make sure it is a safe, affordable place for the tenants who live there to call home.” 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:25