CBP One App Shutdown As Mass Deportations Of Illegal Aliens Begins

For four years the Biden Administration and Democrats flooded the US with tens-of-millions of illegal aliens from third-world nations.  And, for the majority of that time they gaslit the American people, lying consistently about the border crisis they created.  Not only did they enable and encourage illegal immigration through government subsidies and incentives, they streamlined the process with an online app. 

The administration also acted to sabotage any border state that tried to take matters into their own hands.  Texas, for example, faced lawsuits and interference from the National Guard because their border barriers were proving too effective.  Governor Greg Abbott managed to reduce border encounters in Texas by 70% despite Biden's attempts at sabotage.  Biden would later try to claim credit for that reduction in illegal crossings.

Democrat controlled sanctuary cities worked in tandem with Biden to ensure that ICE agents would be unable to detain and deport migrants arrested or convicted of violent crimes.  This led to dangerous drug dealers, rapists and murderers wandering the streets despite having arrest records a mile long.  The leftists care more about "sticking it to conservatives" than keeping their communities safe from psychopaths.   

In a just world Joe Biden and his associates would all be thrown in prison today, but at least we have the pleasure of seeing the Democrats squirm as their agenda to saturate the US with illegals falls apart.

Donald Trump has wasted no time and the mass deportations of migrants have begun.  First and foremost, Trump has shut down the notorious CBP One app - This is the same app that Biden denied as being a factor in the surge of illegals applying for asylum.  In reality, the app was perhaps the single most important tool used by migrants to game the system and gain entry into the US.  Biden's revamped app streamlined the process like people were ordering amnesty on Amazon. 

After the app was shut down, border agents reported encounters with illegals dropped by nearly 50%.  The establishment media has tried to paint the event as a travesty with tens of thousands of migrants stuck at the border.  What they don't seem to understand is, this is exactly what the American public wanted to see.  No more easy access to the US. 

Trump is reportedly sending at least 10,000 US military personnel to secure the border.  All agencies involved have been given a free hand to arrest and deport illegals quickly and the "catch and release" policies of the Biden era are over. 

While the border situation is being rectified, ICE agents under the direction of "Iceman" Border Czar Tom Homan are now actively rounding up illegals already in the US, starting first with migrants that have criminal records and then working their way down to migrants that simply entered the US illegally.  Skeptics that claimed Trump wouldn't follow through on his promise of mass deportations were wrong yet again, and the results so far have been glorious.

Tom Homan's response to the criminal migrant who said he's "not going back to Haiti"?

LMAO YOU’RE GOING BACK

pic.twitter.com/AkBYubzXne

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) January 24, 2025

ICE agents report at least 500 arrests in their first day of operations.  What is shocking is how many of these illegal aliens were set loose by Democrats despite the nature of their criminal records.  Most are gang members, or they have committed sexual assaults and murders.  Any illegals in the vicinity during these arrests are also being detained and deported.  No criminal record is necessary; eventually they are all going away.

The positive effects the deportations will have on the US are too many to count.  Reduced crime is a given, but there is also the collateral benefit of less people taking up American homes and driving up housing prices.  Not to mention, less migrant workers driving down wages and taking jobs from US citizens.  To be sure, the Trump Administration has a long way to go to reverse the damage already done by Democrats, but with border laws finally being implemented there is a good chance that many illegals will self deport rather than wait around to be arrested.   

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2025 - 11:05

Trump 2.0 & The "Sanctions Industrial Complex"

Authored by Hekmat Aboukhater via The Mises Institute,

As the Washington drawbridge lowers for a second Trump administration, the world attempts to glean any insights that might indicate the direction of his second term. At the top of the list of concerns is the topic of sanctions.

As of 2024, the US is actively sanctioning a third of all nations on earth. As the American populace grew more wary of military entanglements and forever wars, consecutive administrations have exponentially escalated the use of the economic weapon. The Obama administration averaged a total of 500 new sanctions a year, while the first Trump administration doubled it to 1,000 a year, and the Biden administration sextupled the figure—imposing more than 12,000 sanctions in 4 years. Now, many wonder whether a second Trump admin will continue or curb this trend.

US Sanctions: Past and Present

Leading a nascent nation, Thomas Jefferson pushed the US congress to pass the Embargo Act of 1807 to punish the United Kingdom for harassing US ships, and impressing American sailors. A century later, shortly after the conclusion of the first world war—in his failed attempt to whip up support for the League of Nations—Woodrow Wilson advocated for its ability to sanction intransigent global actors by stating, “A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender.” However, the unilateral coercive measures—or financial sanctions, as we know them in the modern era—trace to a much more recent origin.

The story of modern-day sanctions starts—as with many of our modern American experiences—with the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Title III of the act—concerned with money laundering used for the financing of terrorist organizations—gave the Treasury Department a swath of options to dig into the links between domestic and international financial institutions. Borne out of this new mandate, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), got its first win by severing BDA Bank—a Macau-based bank that was suspected of facilitating North Korean money laundering operations—from the global financial market. The office was able to destroy the bank’s operations with a simple notice of incoming sanctions.

Today, the list of sanctioned nations includes Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Afghanistan, Balkans, Belarus, Myanmar, Central African Republic, the DRC, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen among others.

While some are targeted against specific entities or persons, many sanctions indiscriminately target broad sectors of a nation’s economy. Such is the case in Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Similarly, while some sanctions target heads of states and specific government individuals, others like the ones imposed on Syria target any and all government ministers regardless of complicity in any given crime.

As for their merit, sanctions have rarely, if ever, achieved their stated aims. Cuba and Venezuela remain socialist and Bolivarian socialist regimes; Iran and North Korea have yet to denuclearize; and the Syrian and Yemeni regimes have not yet been ejected from or willingly abdicated power. The sanctions have, however, succeeded in three alternative ways.

Sanctions have become a convenient tool to destroy the middle classes of targeted countries. Venezuela, Syria, and Iran were hit by inflation rates so high that they decimated savings and brought an end to the possibility of upward mobility within the respective civil societies. Sanctions have also successfully entrenched authoritarian leaders by giving them a convenient enemy, in the form of American imperialism, to hide from their populace behind. Finally, sanctions have succeeded in draining American good will, cultural prowess, and diplomatic soft power for billions across the globe.

Other than being felt in the empty stomachs of children across the developing world, the sanctions boom has also brought about policy and financial reverberations closer to home. A new Washington behemoth has sprung up over the last two decades. The Sanctions Industrial Complex—a collective of law firms specialized in sanctions, lobbyist firms rife with revolving door appointees from the treasury department, and consultancies offering solutions in compliance has metastasized in the Washington Beltway.

Mixed Signals from Trump 2.0

Trump is partially responsible for the sprawl of the complex. He famously levied unprecedented sanctions against Russia, targeted the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, enacted the CAESAR Act of 2019 against Syria, and imposed a whole swath of additional sanctions against the Venezuelan Maduro government in 2017.

Trump has also tapped Mike Walz as his National Security Advisor nominee. Early November, Walz stated that Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war should consist of “intensifying sanctions against Russia” and “taking the handcuffs off,” implying that the Biden administration’s support of Ukraine has been in some way restrained.

Trump also picked Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State nominee. Rubio is an avowed neocon who has yet to see a sanctions bill he didn’t approve of. He is deeply committed to imposing continued sanctions regimes on Cuba and Venezuela. Rubio also famously lamented Brazil and China’s deal to settle trade deals in Reals and Yuans stating that “they are creating a secondary economy totally independent of the United States…there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won’t have the ability to sanction them.”

Yet, Trump has also tapped Tulsi Gabbard as his Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi has been derided by the Clinton establishment, and its mouthpieces like Nikki Haley, for prioritizing diplomacy and advocating against the use of economic sanctions. One of her last acts as a Democratic congresswoman was a bill that would prohibit taxpayer funds or government resources from being used to enact sanctions that inflict suffering on civilian populations anywhere in the world.

As for Trump himself, he is showing an inclination away from the use of the coercive tool in his second term. While fielding questions at the Economic Club of New York in September, he stated that, “the problem…with sanctions is that it ultimately kills your dollar. It has to continue being the world currency.” He added that he “used sanctions but took them off quickly… China is trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency.” He concluded by stating that he wants to use sanctions “as little as possible.”

Cautious Optimism

Trump’s remarks provide solid grounds for optimism among those who consider sanctions as illegitimate and illegal tools of warfare. His statement indicates his understanding that economic engagement with adversaries is ultimately more beneficial for long term US interests than economic coercion.

Yet, the system of sanctions is not one that can be reformed overnight. A mere cessation of the imposition of new sanctions won’t go far. Sanctions, secondary sanctions, and asset seizures are pervasively in use by Washington’s empire. Adam Szubin, the former director of OFAC, in a Christmas office karaoke party, sang “every little thing we do is sanctions” to the tune of the Police’s “Every Little Thing She Does is Magic.” The consensus in Washington is deeply in favor of sanctions. And, with sanctions seen by Washington as the happy medium between tax-funded drone strikes and tomahawks and empty diplomatic condemnations, that consensus has ossified over time.

A second Trump administration could remedy this by taking a proactive approach and providing further transparency regarding the sunsets of previously established sanctions regimes. Similarly, he could lower the compliance threshold for sanctioned entities and third parties potentially in danger of falling foul to secondary sanctions.

Ultimately, whether Trump pulls the reins on this novel complex, as of now, remains a decision purely for Washington. However, with a nascent China trying its hand in the practice by sanctioning the US, the Japanese, and even NBA officials, and other economic players like Saudi Arabia dabbling with the tool, our exclusivity in precedent-setting won’t last for long.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2025 - 10:30

Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Thanks Trump For Full Pardon

Authored by Mehab Qureshi via CoinTelegraph.com,

Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who had been serving a double life sentence without parole, publicly thanked US President Donald Trump after receiving a full pardon. 

This marked the first time Ulbricht had spoken publicly since being released from a maximum-security prison in Arizona, where he was held for more than 11 years.

“Last night, Donald Trump granted me a full pardon. I was doing life without parole, and I was locked up for more than 11 years. But he let me out. I’m a free man now. So let it be known that Donald Trump is a man of his word,” Ulbricht said in a video shared on X on Jan. 23.

Ulbricht expressed gratitude, calling the pardon “an amazing blessing.” He added: 

“Thank you so much, President Trump, for giving me this amazing blessing. I am so, so grateful to have my life back, to have my future back, to have this second chance. This is such an important moment for me and for my whole family.”

Since his release, a page dedicated to supporting Ulbricht on X, Free_Ross, shared:

“Thanks to Donald Trump’s pardon, Ross got to hug his wife, mom, dad & sister outside the walls of prison. The past 36 hours have been a complete whirlwind and we keep pinching ourselves to make sure we’re not dreaming.”

Source: Free_Ross

Life after prison

Ulbricht, 40, was convicted in 2015 for his role in creating and operating Silk Road, a darknet marketplace that facilitated the anonymous trade of illicit goods using Bitcoin.

Since the pardon, supporters have rallied to help him transition into life outside prison. A wallet linked to the Free Ross campaign has received over $270,000 in Bitcoin donations. Among the contributors is the crypto exchange Kraken, which donated $111,111. Other donations included $2,400 in Ether, $900 in Solana, $200 in Cardano, and smaller amounts in BNB and Dogecoin.

“It feels amazing to be free, to say the least,” Ulbricht said, adding that he plans to spend time with his family and heal from his years of incarceration. “This is a victory […] for everybody everywhere who loves freedom and who cares about second chances.”

Millions in dormant Bitcoin wallets

While supporters have donated generously, Ulbricht may already have millions of dollars in Bitcoin.

Conor Grogan, a director at Coinbase, revealed that 430 BTC worth about $47 million remain untouched in wallets likely linked to Ulbricht. These wallets, dormant for more than 13 years, were not confiscated by authorities.

“I found ~430 BTC across dozens of wallets associated with Ross Ulbricht that were not confiscated by the [US government] and have been untouched for 13+ years,” Grogan posted on X.

Arkham Intelligence corroborated Grogan’s findings, identifying 14 Bitcoin addresses linked to Silk Road, including one wallet containing over $9 million in BTC.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2025 - 09:20

England's Average Bachelor-Level Tuition Fees Surpass That Of The US

The OECD's latest Education at a Glance report has found that England has the highest university tuition fees in the world on the bachelor level.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz details below, the average tuition cost for nationals for a year at an English university even surpassed that of the United States by as much as 37 percent when adjusting for cost of living. This is despite the fact that England calculated its figure on the basis of two and three-year degrees, while the United State's excludes so-called short-cycle degrees (which cost on average only around $3,500 per year on a PPP basis).

You will find more infographics at Statista

Even on the master level, a U.S. degree was relatively cheaper at just around $12,600 per year on average with PPP taken into account than England's $13,100 for a year of bachelor studies.

OECD countries tend to have different approaches to financing a university education with many nations joining England and the United States in charging relatively high tuition fees, while around a third is not charging any fees at bachelor or equivalent level.

England, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Lithuania and South Korea all have tuition fees in excess of $5,000 PPP.

Chile was not reporting to the 2022/23 edition but also showed annual fees in the thousands in earlier editions.

Countries in continental Europe like Spain, France and Germany all tended to have far lower fees by comparison, while Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland have no fees at all.

England's tuition fees weren't always so high, however.

Since the beginning of the 2000s, annual costs have increased by more than 700 percent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2025 - 08:45

Gazprom In Turmoil, Forced To Hike Prices On Russians In Middle Of Winter

Authored by Liz Heflin via Remix News,

Facing losses, huge debts, and layoffs, Gazprom is now turning to Russian citizens to help it out of its financial woes, writes “Rzeczpospolita.”

Gazprom’s management is reportedly demanding that the Kremlin raise gas prices threefold on the domestic market. 

Alexey Sakharov, head of Gazprom’s strategic department, spoke about the company’s difficult situation:

“The current level of regulated wholesale gas prices in Russia does not ensure the creation of financial resources in sufficient quantities to make the necessary capital investments in the maintenance and development of gas infrastructure in the interests of Russian customers. And this cannot but affect the reliability of gas supplies in the long term,” he warned during a meeting of the Council of Experts in the State Duma.

Sakharov argued that the price of gas for Russians must rise to a level that will allow Gazprom to provide gas to all regions and implement investment projects. The company will also have to triple the tariffs for gas transmission for independent producers. 

In May 2024, Remix reported that Gazprom had reported its first loss in 20 years and was running a $7 billion deficit. Earlier in January, the oil giant announced that it would have to lay off more than 1,500 employees from its headquarters in St. Petersburg.

“Gazprom is currently generating losses. The rate frozen since 2015 is 62.5 rubles per thousand cubic meters per 100 km, and the company’s expenses amount to 109 rubles. The price that Gazprom needs and demands from the Kremlin is 170 rubles,” the portal quotes Sakharov as saying.  

Gas in Russia used to be cheap, but everything changed after the invasion of Ukraine.

“Since the beginning of the war, the Russian government has carried out a record indexation of gas tariffs for citizens in over 10 years. Last year, gas prices increased by 11.2 percent, in 2022 — by 3 percent in the summer and 8.5 percent in December. A new increase of 10.2 percent is planned from July 1, 2025, (the cumulative increase in gas prices will be 37 percent since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine),” they state.

Back in December, Putin admitted that Russia’s economic growth measured in GDP in 2025 will be half of what it was in 2024, growing less than 4 percent this year, and, according to the Kremlin’s official estimates, it will slow down to 2-2.5 percent in 2026.

The Russian president said the task for the authorities next year will be to “stabilize inflation,” which is soaring despite the efforts of the Russian central bank, which raised the interest rate to the highest level in 20 years.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2025 - 08:10

Pentagon's New Mideast Policy Chief Wants To Scale Down US Presence In Region

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Trump administration has appointed a new Middle East policy chief in the Pentagon who believes the US should scale down its military presence in the region.

Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst, was sworn in early this week as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Before taking the job, DiMino was a fellow at Defense Priorities, a think tank that calls itself the "hub of realism and restraint" and advocates for a less interventionist foreign policy.

Jewish Insider reported that DiMino’s appointment has alarmed pro-Israel Republicans due to his views on the region. The report cited comments DiMino made during a webinar last year where he said the Middle East does "not really matter" for US interests.

"Vital or existential US interests in the Middle East are best characterized as minimal to non-existent. And I think if you look at America’s experience as the primary security broker for the region… it has not rendered any lasting political, economic, or security benefits in service of US interests or the American people," he said.

DiMino has opposed attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and war with Iran in general and has repeatedly called for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq and Syria, citing their vulnerability to attacks.

When President Biden launched a bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthis in January 2024, DiMino opposed it and suggested the US should consider putting pressure on Israel to improve conditions in Gaza since the Israeli onslaught was the reason for the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping.

"Any multi-billion-dollar effort to fight a war in Yemen would render no political, economic, or security benefits to the United States. Strategies like ‘buck passing’ and diplomatic engagement are perfectly viable, would do the US no harm, and could resolve the crisis. Continued military action in Yemen, by contrast, presents dubious prospects for success," DiMino wrote in Responsible Statecraft.

Trump's newest pick in the Pentagon, Michael P. DiMino (@mpdimino) as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East), might not be a household name to many (he was, after all, a former CIA analyst, so in the shadows by design, lol), but he is one of the most solid officials… pic.twitter.com/PNscwfnGN2

— Daniel Davis Deep Dive (@DanielLDavis1) January 23, 2025

The US bombing campaign against the Houthis only escalated the situation in the Red Sea and did not deter the Yemeni group at all.

Now that there is a ceasefire in Gaza, the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, have said they will stop their attacks as long as Israel abides by the truce.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 23:25

Visualizing NATO's And Russia's Militarization Of The Arctic

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arctic has been considered a politically neutral zone, marked by the peaceful international cooperation of scientists.

But, as Statista's Anna Fleck reports, as the Arctic ice melts and more land and sea becomes accessible, opportunities for resource extraction and maritime trade routes are opening up, making it increasingly attractive to vying global powers, with some observers questioning confidence in its stability.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is considered a turning point in Arctic relations. At the time the war broke out, Russia had been chairing the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that promotes cooperation and coordination between the Arctic States, Arctic Indigenous Peoples and other Arctic inhabitants, covering a range of issues - crucially, excluding military security.

Seven of the eight Arctic Council members (all but Russia) promptly decided to boycott meetings over the war and only met again in 2023 to oversee the handover of the chairmanship to Norway. Without Russia, which is so large that its northern border makes up 53 percent of the Arctic coastline, the Arctic Council faces criticism over its international legitimacy, as it can no longer claim to be separate from geopolitical conflicts. In 2024, Russia then suspended annual payments to the organization until the council’s full activities involving all members resumed. Some virtual meetings started up again last year with Russian participation.

Russia has a larger military presence in the Arctic than NATO and has been investing in and upgrading its Soviet-era facilities. Chatham House, a UK think tank, says this is defensive in nature and that the Kremlin is opposed to the idea of starting a conflict in the Arctic. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow is rather “pursuing economic ambitions, protecting its second-strike nuclear capabilities and projecting power into the Central Arctic, Bering Sea and North Atlantic”.

The Arctic Institute adds to this, saying that Russia’s control of the North Sea Route (NSR) would give an “economic and diplomatic lever with which to extend their regional influence”, highlighting how the Russian Northern Fleet has increased its surface and underwater monitoring of the route. The U.S. Department of Defense takes a stronger rhetoric, stating in its 2024 Arctic Strategy that Russia’s maritime infrastructure could allow it to enforce “excessive and illegal maritime claims” along the NSR between the Bering Strait and Kara Strait in the future. The document also highlights new logistical challenges in the region due to climate change as well as U.S. concern over the competition of a co-operating Russia and China, the latter of which has also shown interest in being a part of the region's developments, calling itself a “near-Arctic state”.

NATO too has carried out drills and increased its might in the arena, with the addition of Sweden and Finland to the group last year. The U.S. DoD says it is monitoring developments and improving surveillance and early warning systems in the vast region to “ensure the Arctic does not become a strategic blind spot.” Data published by Foreign Policy illustrates how in Europe, Norway has 13 Arctic bases, including a new addition, Camp Viking, a UK training ground for Royal Marines Commandos.

This source shows the U.S. to have nine bases in Alaska in addition to those in Greenland and Iceland. Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s reiteration of wanting to buy Greenland in the past weeks, Washington has said it has no plans to increase the U.S.' current military footprint there. Observers note that continued tensions and military buildup on both sides has the increased risk of miscalculation.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 23:00

White House Office Of Gun Violence Prevention Webpage Goes Dark On Trump's 2nd Day

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

Second Amendment advocates are celebrating, and gun control activists are decrying the apparent closing of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

The Trump administration has not confirmed that the office, opened by an executive order from then-President Joe Biden in 2023, is closed.

The office’s website was down the day after President Donald Trump officially took office and remains inactive as of Jan. 23.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), who helped secure funding for the office, decried the closure in a post on the social media platform X.

In remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jan. 22, Frost said the closure would cost lives.

“While lives are stolen, this admin is busy signing executive orders that have nothing to do with helping families and keeping them safe,” he said.

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

The gun control group Brady criticized the reported closure on its website, saying the office had reduced crime involving guns.

“The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention wasn’t about politics—it was about strengthening the government’s ability to protect Americans [more than 300 of whom are shot every single day] from guns. By shuttering it, Trump is putting the interests of the gun lobby above our kids, our communities, and our country,” Brady president Kris Brown’s statement reads.

The office’s critics noted that it was staffed by longtime gun control activists and headed by Vice President Kamala Harris, who supports banning certain semiautomatic rifles and other gun control measures. They questioned the legitimacy of a government office they said was meant to block a constitutional right.

“That office should have never existed, and President Trump is again proving his commitment to our Second Amendment rights,” Mark Oliva, Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told The Epoch Times.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms echoed the sentiments in a Jan. 22 press release.

Committee Chairman Alan Gottlieb alleged the office was an attempt by Biden to bypass Congress and advance his gun-control agenda.

“Biden was trying to advance his gun control schemes with what amounted to a shadow government office because Congress rejected his extremist agenda of gun bans, gun registration, and other Second Amendment infringements,” Gottlieb stated in the press release.

When the office opened, Kristine Lucius, deputy assistant to the president and domestic policy adviser to the vice president, said its mission was to “prevent gun violence and save lives.”

Stefanie Feldman was the director of the office in addition to being a White House assistant to the president and staff secretary.

Greg Jackson, who led the Community Action Fund, which the White House described as “a national, survivor-led gun violence prevention organization focused exclusively on the impact on black and brown communities,” was one of two deputy directors.

Rob Wilcox, a senior director of federal government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety who also worked for Brady and served on the board of directors of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, was the second deputy director.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 22:35

Distrust In Leaders (And Journalists) Ticks Up Again

Edelman has once more released its annual Trust Barometer, capturing a snapshot of how people around the world feel about today’s leaders.

The findings are hardly positive, with survey data revealing that an increasing proportion of respondents across the 28 polled countries worry that government and business leaders as well as journalists and reporters are purposely misleading people by saying things they know are false or are gross exaggerations.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, around seven in ten people believe this to be the case for each of the groups of leaders, with distrust against journalists and reporters most widespread, albeit marginally.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The share of people who worry about this has increased significantly since the survey was asked in 2021 (up 11-12 percentage points in each case).

Respondents in the lower income quartile reported feeling greater levels of distrust of these leaders than those in the top quartile.

Where 63 percent of high income respondents said they had trust in business, government, media and NGOs, the figure was just 48 percent among low income respondents.

Scientists and teachers were the favored voices when respondents were asked which groups of people they thought could be trusted to do what is right, at 77 and 75 percent, respectively.

More than 32,000 people were polled across 28 countries in each survey wave.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 22:10

Affordable Broadband Law In New York Led AT&T To Drop 5G Home Service Entirely

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Neither New York nor California understands that companies won’t sell products for a loss...

Hoot of the Day

My hoot of the day is AT&T Is Stopping Its 5G Internet Air Service in NY Because of New Broadband Law

A new broadband law is going into effect this week in New York state requiring internet provider to offer low-income residents access to monthly broadband rates of $15 for 25Mbps or $20 for 200Mbps. As a response, AT&T has decided that it no longer plans to offer its 5G home internet in the Empire State and will begin notifying users about the decision on Wednesday. 

“While we are committed to providing reliable and affordable internet service to customers across the country, New York’s broadband law imposes harmful rate regulations that make it uneconomical for AT&T to invest in and expand our broadband infrastructure in the state,” the company said in a statement provided to CNET. 

“As a result, effective Jan. 15, 2025, we will no longer be able to offer AT&T Internet Air, our fixed-wireless internet service, to New York customers.”

New York first passed its broadband law back in 2021, with an appeals court allowing it to move forward last April after legal challenges looked to thwart it. The US Supreme Court decided in December that it wouldn’t hear challenges to the new law.

Lessons from California and New York

In New York, 5G service is now so affordable that you can’t get service at all.

That’s a minor nuisance compared to California, where policy mandates by Governor Newsom led to cancelled policies.

CBS News reports Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire

About 1,600 policies in Pacific Palisades were dropped by State Farm in July, California Department of Insurance spokesman Michael Soller said in an Thursday email to CBS MoneyWatch. An analysis of insurance data by CBS News San Francisco last year found that State Farm also dropped more than 2,000 policies in two other Los Angeles ZIP codes, which include the Brentwood, Calabasas, Hidden Hills and Monte Nido neighborhoods.

State Farm’s decision reflects a trend of private insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance, of dropping California policies or halting underwriting, leaving homeowners with the choice of getting coverage through the insurer of last resort, the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, or FAIR Plan, or forgo insurance altogether. The FAIR Plan provides basic fire insurance coverage for properties in high-risk areas when traditional insurance companies will not.

Seems to me that State Farm, Allstate, and Farmers did their homework.

California would not let State Farm price for risk, so the companies decided not to renew policies.

Not content with already disastrous stupidity, a new regulation mandates Business
Insurance Companies in California Must Offer Coverage in Wildfire-Prone Areas.

Insurance companies will be legally required to write policies in those areas “equivalent to no less than 85% of their statewide market share.” Coverage won’t increase to that threshold immediately. Instead, companies will be given a requirement of a 5% increase every two years.

Every insurer in California should leave the state unless they can price according to risk.

Even if the insurers stay, understand they will have to overprice elsewhere if they underprice fire prone areas.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 20:55

These Are The World's Worst Organized-Crime Hot-Spots

Organized crime groups have surged in recent decades, aided by the rise of synthetic drugs, encrypted technologies, and multinational operations.

For instance, a leading Brazilian mob has 60,000 affiliates spread across 26 countries in addition to its 40,000 members. Moreover, criminal actors are increasingly diversifying their operations, engaging in activities such as human smuggling, drug trafficking, and the exploitation of food supply chains.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows organized crime hot spots around the world, based on data from the Global Organized Crime Index.

Methodology

The Global Organized Crime Index analyzes 193 countries based on their scale of criminal activity. It includes three main components:

• Criminal actor influence and structure: e.g. mafia-style groups, criminal networks, state-embedded actors

• Criminal market scale and impact: e.g. arms trafficking, heroin trade, human trafficking

• Each country’s resilience to organized crime: e.g. judicial system, government transparency

Overall, countries were scored on a scale of 0 to 10 by the extent to which organized crime groups exert control over their direct economic activities.

Where Organized Crime Groups Are the Most Powerful

Below, we show the top 30 hubs for organized crime groups worldwide:

Central and South America have the highest concentration of organized crime globally, with the most widespread criminal activity in Venezuela and Colombia.

In particular, criminal actors are known for serious extortion practices, human smuggling, and illegal arms trafficking. The economic crisis in Venezuela, which has forced millions to flee, has contributed to the rise in human smuggling and trafficking, with victims being targeted even beyond the Colombian-Venezuelan border.

In Mexico, criminal actors are increasingly targeting the food industry, including avocados, tortillas, potatoes, and limes, among others.

Myanmar also stands as a key hub for human trafficking, with an estimated 120,000 victims being used for forced labor in scam centers. These scam centers, which generate billions of dollars, operate largely along border of China and Myanmar, where victims are lured by significant perks.

Meanwhile, the illicit arms trade in pervasive across Somalia. The jihadist group, al-Shabab, has infiltrated political and economic structures, serving as a key player in illegal arms trafficking. Each year, the group is estimated to make $100 million from its extortion activities alone.

To learn more about this topic from a homicide perspective, check out this graphic on the world’s highest homicide rates by region.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 20:30

Can Trump Save The Dollar?

Authored by J.R.Macleod via The Mises Institute,

During his 2024 presidential campaign Donald Trump repeatedly and in grave terms highlighted the possibility of the US dollar losing its world reserve currency status. This occurred at summits with business leaders at the New York and Chicago Economic Clubs.

Trump occupies a rather unique position in this debate since he recognizes the real possibility of the dollar losing its world currency status, he opposes this change and wishes to prevent it, and yet he is not a paradigmatic member of the ruling class. However mainstream he is—today or in the past—he doesn’t possess the establishment credentials of a Ben Bernanke, for instance.

Since Trump doesn’t want the dollar to lose reserve currency status, his acknowledgment that this is a real possibility should at least serve as ammunition against those who are oblivious to this change, or who claim that it isn’t happening. Typically, when dollar defenders argue that the loss of reserve currency status is an impossibility, they are arguing against those who wish for this change to happen. When Trump says that the dollar could lose its reserve status—even though he opposes this change—it at least undercuts the factual basis of those dollar defenders who claim its status is secure.

Admittedly, the possible loss of reserve currency status is not a short-term trend. Anyone claiming the demise of the dollar is imminent—and particularly anyone trying to sell you a financial package on this basis—should be treated with skepticism. But there is a bizarre school of thought which downplays all blows to the dollar’s position, and claims that these events are insignificant. There are, in fact, many significant events occurring, and they are stacking up to present a real threat to the dollar’s position. Events such as Saudi Arabia trading oil in other currencies, BRICs countries developing a new payment system, and China rapidly decreasing its holdings of US treasuries. How can these events not mean anything?

Source

If the dollar is in jeopardy, and Trump wants to save it, the question then becomes: can he save it? One approach to achieving this goal would be to manage the dollar more competently. This would involve less creation of new money (inflation), since many national economies were severely destabilized by the massive inflation of recent years. It would also involve a judicious, non-ideological use of dollar-based power, as opposed to weaponizing the dollar over conflicts where a nation perceives its fundamental interests are at stake, and the US interest is peripheral at best, and unjustified at worst. The other approach would be to get tough; to threaten countries who move away from holding the dollar for forex purposes with either economic or military power.

Trump has made noise about both approaches, though he seems to lean most heavily towards the use of tariffs to prevent nations from breaking away. In my view, the aggressive approach would only accelerate current trends, since this was the path taken from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 up until now, and it created the situation in the first place. A Trump administration managing the dollar the way it used to be managed could placate other nations and slow down current trends, but I think that is all it could do, rather than permanently halt and reverse these developments. A fundamental rupture has occurred and too many important nations perceive it as a fundamental interest to break the power of the dollar as the world reserve currency in the long term. They may be happier if this process is managed slowly and without disruption, but they are committed to it.

In my view, it is impossible for Trump to stop the process of de-dollarization. Regardless of how much success he is able to achieve, we should also ask whether this is the right goal in the first place. Undoubtedly the dollar losing global reserve currency status would cause significant short-term economic pain for the American people. Trump seems to have the noble intention of avoiding this pain, but we also know that markets can respond to these events and get the economy working again rather quickly when left alone. Beyond markets, there is also the calculation, by which the government could adjust the ratio of its gold holdings to the dollar (assuming implementation of a hard gold standard). This is explained by Murray Rothbard in the final chapter of The Case Against the Fed. In the event that the dollar loses its reserve status, this plan could very quickly restore the currency to a sound position.

It may seem noble to attempt to reinforce the reserve status of the dollar, but defending the Fed, the fiat dollar, and global reserve currency status are the economic equivalent of defending death by strangulation just because it’s slow. This currency system supports the bloated welfare-warfare functions of the government. It has hollowed out American industry by financialization and the fact that dollars can be created out of thin air to pay for goods and services domestically and abroad. This tremendously undercuts genuine production and wealth generation.

Because this system creates such an unnatural and unproductive economy, and though this economy has such pernicious effects on society, collapse is inherent in the system sooner or later. The longer the system lasts, the more rot sets in, and the worse the eventual collapse will be.

This discussion brings us to the subject of institutionalism. There is a powerful tendency in politics to regard an institution as one’s own, long after one’s own faction has lost it, or even where the institution never belonged to one’s own faction in the first place. Accompanying this is the tendency to want to reform institutions recognized as not aligned with one’s own faction, rather than destroy them.

Being unable to recognize when an institution is opposed to one’s political goals, and being unable to recognize when an opposing institution is irredeemably opposed to these goals and, therefore, not subject to reform, can prevent a faction from achieving its desired political goals. In these cases, all energy—by the fact of being directed into these institutions—is then redirected against the goals the political faction wishes to achieve.

According to Trump’s stated goals of wishing to revitalize the American economy on behalf of the American people—and not government or corporate special interests—the Federal Reserve and the fiat dollar it supports are irredeemable institutions. Trying to reform and reinforce the status of the dollar as global reserve currency will never achieve these goals. People may be able to point to this or that improvement in economic conditions over the next few years, but I am talking about systemic change and a lasting victory. It is hard to argue that these aren’t necessary over and above small improvements.

Between the Biden administration inadvertently and obliviously endangering the global reserve currency status of the dollar through its own incompetence, and Trump’s intention to undo this damage, there is a better path. Any future American administration should create a plan to manage the transition away from the fiat dollar as global reserve currency towards a national gold dollar, that is, a national policy of a 100 percent gold-backed dollar, where other countries are free to set their own monetary policy. This would vastly improve the American economy as well as international relations.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 20:05

"Nervousness" Ripples Across Coffee Market As Prices Hit Fresh Record Highs

Arabica coffee futures surged to record highs on Friday, fueled by the ongoing global supply crunch. The most-active contract climbed nearly 2% in late morning trading, reaching the highest price levels on record dating back to 1972. The multi-year parabolic move in coffee prices only suggests higher Starbucks and/or supermarket market prices in the months ahead if hedges fail to offset bean inflation. 

The big price jump has traders reducing their exposure to the futures market due to elevated costs, making the market more prone to volatility.

Bloomberg data shows aggregate open interest — or the number of outstanding contracts — has declined in the past five years while prices moved higher. 

Bloomberg's Dayanne Sousa and Mumbi Gitau provided readers with bean supply concerns coming out of top grower Brazil: 

After record shipments in 2024, Brazil should see a slowdown ahead "mainly due to the next arabica crop likely being smaller," analysts at Itau BBA bank wrote in a report.

That's a concern in a period when global stockpiles remain tight. The fact that previously strong exports from Brazil weren't enough to replenish world inventories "shows that demand has not yet allowed there to be an excess of coffee on the market," said broker Thiago Cazarini, president of Cazarini Trading Co.

Another reminder of the tightness in global supplies was this week's decline in bean stockpiles held at exchange- monitored warehouses. That could indicate "robust spot demand in Europe," said Tomas Araujo, a trading associate at StoneX.

In a separate note, Bloomberg's Ilena Peng and Mumbi Gitau said:

Prices have been boosted by concerns about the output in top producer Brazil, where a drought reduced the potential production for the upcoming season. The decline in certified arabica stockpiles held at exchange-monitored warehouses this week is another reminder of continuing supply concerns. The surge is causing nervousness among coffee buyers already faced with tight global inventories and supply chain constraints, said Tomas Araujo, a trading associate at StoneX

The bean surge should not only make commercial coffee buyers nervous but also leave consumers uneasy, as there are no indications that global food inflation will ease in the first quarter of 2025.  

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 19:40

Canadian Premier Says US Retaliatory Tariffs Should Be Targeted

Authored by Carolina Avenando via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says he supports targeted counter-tariffs in response to potential U.S. tariffs, but firmly opposes retaliatory export taxes on Canadian goods. His comments come as more premiers are taking issue with different aspects of the “Team Canada” tariff response.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe speaks during a press conference in Regina, Sask., on Oct. 25, 2023. The Canadian Press/Heywood Yu

Ottawa’s talks on retaliation have recently escalated to include wider measures, such as dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs and export taxes, Moe said at a Jan. 22 press conference, following a meeting between the premiers and the prime minister to discuss Canada’s response to U.S. tariff threats.

Moe said he isn’t in favour of such “broad-based” retaliatory measures, arguing they would be “hurtful to the entirety of North Americans,” and that he instead supports “very small, targeted” counter-tariffs, designed to change the minds of American policy-makers.

“We would be against all export tariffs because they’re counterproductive, they’re escalating the conversation around tariffs,” Moe said. “In no way is it our opinion that the Canadian government should be taxing the very products that are creating wealth for Canadians.”

“But I think we can find a way through some targeted initiatives that don’t have as large an impact on the broader economy, and Canadians and North Americans,” he added.

U.S. President Donald Trump didn’t impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico on the first day of his presidency on Jan. 20, but suggested they may come on Feb. 1. Trump first threatened tariffs following his election in November 2024, saying the two countries needed to address drug smuggling and illegal immigration at their borders into the United States.

Converging With Alberta’s Smith

Moe said he shares Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s concerns on the negative impacts of export taxes on their provinces’ economies.

Smith has been a vocal opponent of retaliation, particularly export tariffs on Canadian oil and gas, saying they would have devastating impacts on her oil-producing province, whose main trading partner is the United States. Instead, she has advocated for a diplomatic approach, arguing the current U.S. administration is unlikely to respond favourably to threats.

Last week, Smith was the only premier who refused to sign a joint statement by the prime minister and other premiers in response to U.S. tariffs, saying she could not fully support the federal government’s plan unless it stopped floating the idea of making energy export bans or tariffs part of Canada’s response. She added that, should Ottawa impose such measures, her province would take “whatever actions are needed to protect the livelihoods of Albertans.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and some premiers, including Ontario’s Doug Ford, accused Smith of not being a team player, saying she was advocating for her province at the expense of the country.

At his Jan. 22 address, Moe said that while he’ll try to “work together where we can” with Ottawa, he will stand up for his province if the federal government implements export tariffs.

“We'll be protecting Saskatchewan residents when it comes to the natural resources, which is under the provincial jurisdiction, [including] how we produce them and where we export them tariff-free,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Quebec Premier François Legault spoke against the idea of Ottawa adopting export bans or tariffs unilaterally, saying such measures should only be implemented if the provinces involved agree.

Meanwhile, other premiers emerged from the Jan. 22 meeting in support of solid retaliatory measures. “We know these tariffs are coming on Feb. 1,” said Ontario’s Ford. “We need to match those tariffs dollar-for-dollar, tariff-for-tariff, and make sure that it hurts the Americans as much as it hurts Canadians.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 19:15

Veteran Democrat Strategist Admits 'Resistance' Has No Response To Trump, Begs Biden To Disappear

Veteran Democrat strategist James Carville admitted on the Politics War Room podcast that the Democrat Party is struggling to keep up with President Donald Trump’s highly productive first week of his second term. Carville, a seasoned political consultant who managed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, also directed sharp criticism at President Joe Biden to host Al Hunt, urging the former president to "just get out of the way" and make room for a new generation of Democrats to take back power from the America First movement.

AL HUNT: I wish I could say something good about this week. Maybe in the course of the show, we'll think of something. But the Trump inaugural and subsequent actions were dark, depressing, demoralizing and not surprising. Trump dominates Washington. I've been in this town for what, 55 years. I got to stop counting. And he dominates today like no other president I've seen. And he dominates with a reckless disregard for truth and more importantly, for the rule of law.

JAMES CARVILLE: Well, I guess, you know, we sit here and you look at the crypto giant grift. It's such a giant grift. Now, the other crypto people are mad because it's such a grift is infringing on their territory. You look at the pardons of the January six violent criminals who assaulted police officers. All right. You look at his executive order suspending every president has anything to do with DEI. OK, you look at all of his stuff that is starting, you know, deportations, God knows what not. It's a total confusion over TikTok, which he knows nothing. And what is the response? The Democrats are depressed, doesn't have a way to deal with this because usually people would put something out and it would be the story of the day. And then you could follow that and they defend the story of people would attack it.

Now he has 10 things out there of all of the things that you mentioned. What should the Democrats focus on? What they will end up doing is what they always do. They will focus on all 10. And they will do no good to me. The biggest one was the secretary of Treasury, a billionaire, telling the Senate committee that we can't we can't have a minimum wage raise. Then wages last raised in 2009. I'd love to know the salaries of the chart, the salaries of high income people since 2009. People over a million dollars, how their wealth is growing, what happened to people who outlawed part of hourly wages growing.

Of course, we would know the answer to that without a doubt. And the hardest thing to do going forward, and I don't have a lot of confidence that we can do that, that we can just pick something to the exclusion of 20 other things, because people will say, well, how could you not say something about that? Well, it's not that I don't think it's a big issue. But if I say something about that and I say something about this and I say about this and that and I say something about that and this, I've lost my ability to communicate. And this is an unprecedented way that they're going about this. And Steve Bannon, I think the guy was right. He said, we're just going to flood the zone with sh*t. And we're now flooded with sh*t and we just don't have a response. We just don't.

AL HUNT: Oh, James, it's going to continue for a long time. I think the Biden pardons of Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, Tony Fauci, the January 16th, it made me uncomfortable. And I actually hope a couple of them reject the pardon, which you can do. But Trump and his band made clear they want revenge. They're going after Mark Milley, Liz Cheney and Tony Fauci, though there is no case whatsoever. So at least I understand the logic of that. You know, right wingers like Jim Banks, a new senator from Indiana, said Liz Cheney ought to be held accountable. For what? For what should Liz Cheney be held accountable for?

It's nonsense. I must say, I think that Trump's pardon of his family is a different matter and totally indefensible. On this show, we both kind of uncomfortably agree the Hunter Biden pardon was understandable because Trump might use it. If Hunter Biden goes to prison, Trump could say, hey, I'm going to send him to X, Y or Z, depending on what Biden says or does. That's what Trump does. But to pardon his brother, his sister, his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and others, who it's a preemptive pardon. They haven't been even charged with anything. I is as bad as Trump's sleazy pardon of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, all of whom have been convicted or something. You know, probably not. But I really think I'm really upset that Biden did that.

JAMES CARVILLE: Well, this is the kind of truth of where we are. All of us know Biden. Actually, we know you and I know him personally. And I think it's fair to say that we're long time at some level admirers of Joe Biden. And what he's done to himself is no one wants to hear from this guy anymore. OK, just go to your condo in Rehoboth and stay there. And that's not because we're bad people or we mean people. It was all his doing, all his doing, this entire thing in this kind of petty back and forth. Oh, I would have beat Trump. No one believes that at all. And then fighting with Joe Biden and Alexander Pelosi. I mean, just look, guy, you drove, you had a noble career. Your last act was terrible. Just get out of the way. The party's moving on. I mean, they're really moving on. And it's very sad that. But that's just where we are. And he created this himself. Does he have nobody to blame but himself? Nobody.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 18:50

Trump Signals He May Withhold Federal Aid To California Over Water Policies

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he is considering withholding federal aid to California following a series of devastating wildfires if the state doesn’t change its water policies.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington on Jan. 21, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, he reasserted that the state’s fish conservation efforts in Northern California are linked to problems with water availability amid the wildfires that erupted earlier this month. He also placed part of the blame on Gov. Gavin Newsom for not being able to quickly tame the fires.

“I don’t think we should give California anything until they let water flow down,” he said.

In the interview, Trump also confirmed that he will visit Los Angeles on Friday after visiting North Carolina, which was devastated by Hurricane Helene last fall. However, the president said he doesn’t know if he will meet with Newsom.

“Look, Gavin’s got one thing he can do: He can release the water that comes from the north. There is massive amounts of water, rainwater, and mountain water that comes due with the snow, comes down ... as it melts. There’s so much water,” Trump said, referring to Newsom, a Democrat.

On Monday, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to “route more water” from Northern California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the Golden State due to the wildfires in what he said was an attempt to end “radical environmentalism” that was essentially putting fish over people.

“The recent deadly and historically destructive wildfires in Southern California underscore why the State of California needs a reliable water supply and sound vegetation management practices in order to provide water desperately needed there, and why this plan must immediately be reimplemented,” the White House said.

At a news conference a day earlier, Trump said that “Los Angeles has massive amounts of water available to it.”

“All they have to do is turn the valve,” he said.

Earlier in January, Newsom wrote a letter to Trump asking him to survey the devastation caused by the Los Angeles fires firsthand and meet with first responders. In an interview with NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” the governor also disputed Trump’s assertion about the fish and water shortages in Los Angeles.

Trump, he said, is “somehow connecting the delta smelt to this fire, which is inexcusable because it’s inaccurate.”

“Also, incomprehensible to anyone that understands water policy in the state,” Newsom said.

On Jan. 10, then-President Joe Biden said at an event that local utility companies intentionally shut off the power in Los Angeles, which led to water shortages during the fires.

“What I know from talking to the governor, that there are concerns out there that there’s also been a water shortage,“ Biden said in a briefing. ”The fact is the utilities, understandably, shut off power because they are worried the lines that carried energy were going to be blown down and spark additional fires.

“When it did that, it cut off the ability to generate pumping the water. That’s what caused the lack of water in these hydrants.”

During the Hannity interview, Trump signaled that significant changes could be coming to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) because he would rather see individual states deal with their respective natural disaster responses.

The president also said he believes FEMA, which is handling some wildfire recovery efforts, has performed poorly over the “last four years.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 18:25

Trump Halts Ukraine Aid As State Dept "Totally Went Nuclear" On Foreign Assistance

The Trump State Department on Friday halted spending on almost all foreign aid grants for 90 days, which also appears to apply to funding for military assistance to Ukraine, Politico reports.

The guidance, issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was sent to all diplomatic and consular posts, and orders all department staffers to issue "stop-work orders" on nearly all "existing foreign assistance awards."

It appears to go further than President Donald Trump’s recent executive order, which instructed the department to pause foreign aid grants for 90 days pending review by the secretary. It had not been clear from the president’s order if it would affect already appropriated funds or Ukraine aid.

The new guidance means no further actions will be taken to disperse aid funding to programs already approved by the U.S. government, according to three current and two former officials familiar with the new guidance. -Politico

Rubio also outlined the Trump administration's stance on spending, saying “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions,” Rubio wrote. The questions: Does the action make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous?

The new order reportedly shocked State Department officials.

"State just totally went nuclear on foreign assistance," a State Department official told Politico.

Rubio was confirmed unanimously by the Senate the day before and is the first of Trump’s Cabinet nominees on the job. Previously, he was a senior senator from Florida, and he served on the Foreign Relations Committee for more than a decade. He developed a reputation as a China Hawk and a fierce critic of the neoliberal foreign policy consensus that emerged after the Cold War.

Shortly after taking the oath of office, he sent a lengthy cable to every US diplomatic and consular post worldwide letting them know that the Biden administration had mistakenly emphasized "ideology over common sense," and "misread the world."

You'll Never Guess Who Still Gets Aid...

The document specifies that Israel and Egypt will continue to receive that sweet, sweet US taxpayer money. It also allows emergency food assistance and "legitimate expenses incurred prior to the date of this" guidance "under existing awards," and also that decisions need to be "consistent with the terms of the relevant award."

One State Department official as well as two former Biden admin officials told Politico that the pause appears to stop aid to Ukraine, Jordan and Taiwan, while the report suggests that the guidance could open the US government to civil liability from lawsuits over unfulfilled contracts if the terms are deemed to have been violated, said the current and former officials. That said, the note from Rubio clearly states that decision need to be "consistent with the terms of the relevant award."

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 18:04

Popeyes Cooking Up Partnership With Don Julio In Possible Mass-Market Tequila Blitz To Save Diageo

Trending on X late Friday afternoon is a short promotional video about a partnership between Diageo's Don Julio tequila brand and American fast-food chain Popeyes. The partnership, set to be officially unveiled on January 31, puzzled the hell out of the internet. However, in the context of the 'great tequila bust' and Diageo's mounting headwinds, the mass-market strategy to push tequila through unconventional sales channels, such as quick-service restaurants, begins to make a whole lot of sense.

Popeyes' official Instagram account released a short promotional video with the subtext: "The kitchen is heating up for the big game. Party starts 1.31.25." Text at the end of the video showed what appears to be a partnership of some sort between Popeyes and Don Julio. Details are scant, and the internet was very confused, while others were excited about tequila and fried chicken. 

Fried chicken and liquor might sound like a party—or potentially a disastrous combination that could leave Popeyes' customer base puking up a storm. Maybe the internet is confused, but we are not. 

British spirits giant Diageo is in dire straits as cash-strapped consumers have dialed back alcohol spending. Goldman analyst Jack McFerran told clients last week that "there is no sign of a bottom, with risks still skewed to the downside" for European shares in the company. 

In July 2024, CEO Debra Crew warned, "You do see persistent inflation that is really weighing on consumers and weighing on their wallets."

Given that cash-strapped consumers have pulled back on liquor, an oversupply tequila crisis has emerged in Mexico, which has caused agave prices to crash the most since the Dot Com crash. 

Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council recently shared data with Financial Times that showed the industry had 525 million liters of tequila in inventory, either aging in barrels or about to be bottled, by the end of 2023. Of the 599 million liters of tequila produced in 2023, about one-sixth remained in inventory. 

"Much more new spirit is being distilled than is being sold, and inventories are starting to accumulate," Bernstein analyst Trevor Stirling wrote in a note earlier this month. He said rising inventory levels were due to sliding demand and new distillery capacity coming online. 

Stirling warned: "The tequila industry is set for a very turbulent 2025."

Given the dire oversupplied conditions in Mexico, coupled with Diageo's sliding demand for its liquor products, it now becomes entirely clear why the spirits company has explored an unconventional sales channel: partnering with a major QSR to potentially launch Don Julio for the mass market and help jump-start demand to draw down elevated tequila inventories. In return, this could add support for Diageo's imploding stock. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 18:00

Trump Terminates Fauci's Security Detail

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has terminated former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci’s security detail.

Trump justified the move on Jan. 24.

“When you work for government, at some point, your security detail comes off and you can’t have them forever,” he told reporters in North Carolina, where he is visiting the damage caused last year by Hurricane Helene.

“So I think it’s very standard."

“You can’t have a security detail for the rest of your life because you worked for government.”

Trump has criticized Fauci, who served in his role between 1984 and 2022, over his response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Based on their interviews, I felt it was time to speak up about Dr. Fauci and Dr. [Deborah] Birx, two self-promoters trying to reinvent history to cover for their bad instincts and faulty recommendations, which I fortunately almost always overturned,” Trump said in March 2021, referring to a 2021 CNN documentary.

“They had bad policy decisions that would have left our country open to China and others, closed to reopening our economy, and years away from an approved vaccine—putting millions of lives at risk.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Fauci via Georgetown University where he works.

Trump has stripped other former Trump administration officials of their security detail.

On Jan. 21, the president ended former national security adviser John Bolton’s Secret Service protection.

“I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has decided to terminate the protection previously provided by the United States Secret Service,” Bolton wrote in a post on X.

“Notwithstanding my criticisms of President Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend that protection to me in 2021.

“The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hit man to target me.

“That threat remains today, as also demonstrated by the recent arrest of someone trying to arrange for President Trump’s own assassination. The American people can judge for themselves which president made the right call.”

Trump said that Fauci and Bolton “made a lot of money” and therefore could hire their own security.

On Jan. 23, Trump terminated former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former special envoy for Iran Brian Hook’s security details.

“When you have protection, you can’t have it for the rest of your life,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “Do you want to have a large detail of people guarding people for the rest of their lives? I mean, there’s risks to everything.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 17:40

Four In Ten See Hostile Activism As Acceptable

Edelman released the 25th edition of its Trust Barometer this week, providing insight on how people around the world feel about today’s leaders and institutions.

This year’s report highlights the grievances of people who feel a disconnect between the haves and have-nots.

The survey found that more than six in ten respondents agree that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes (67 percent) and that the wealthy’s selfishness causes many of our problems (65 percent).

Meanwhile, a majority said that they held a moderate or high sense of grievance against business, government and the rich in 23 out of 26 countries polled.

This opinion was most commonly shared in Spain, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK and Kenya (all between 70-72 percent).

But, perhaps most notably, Statista's Anna Fleck points out that the report also found that as many as four in ten would approve of violence or hostile activism in order to drive societal changes that would give themselves or their family a better future.

You will find more infographics at Statista

This belief was particularly widespread among younger respondents, with just over half (53 percent) of 18-35 year olds supporting the statement.

In terms of the individual actions, around a quarter of respondents said that attacking people online, intentionally spreading disinformation, threatening or committing violence or damaging public or private property would be acceptable as a way to bring about societal change (between 23-27 percent per answer).

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/24/2025 - 17:20