Isaac Newton's Lost Papers - And His Search For God's Divine Plan

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Few have had as profound an effect on modern scientific understanding as Sir Isaac Newton.

A drawing by Isaac Newton of his telescope contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society on November 24, 2009 in London. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.

While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.

Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.

Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.

A Devout Christian

Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.

However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity. 

Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.

Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.

A statue of Isaac Newton stands in Trinity College on March 13, 2012 in Cambridge, England.Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.

A Divine Order

Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.

“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. ... He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present ... by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”

So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.

After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.

In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.

The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.

People attend an auction at Sotheby's auction house in London on July 8, 2004. Graeme Robertson/Getty Images Saving the Lost Papers

One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.

The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.

Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.

By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.

In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.

“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”

In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”

Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.

A signature of Isaac Newton contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society in London on Nov. 24, 2009. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.

Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan

“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry. 

Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.

While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.

There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:35

Here's Morningstar's Safe-Withdrawal Rate For 2026 Retirees

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest "safe" starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By "safe," Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year's rate is up 20 basis points from last year's 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar's 3.9% rate isn't for anyone at any point in their retirement: It's an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year's inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let's say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year's withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

We project your portfolio can support a $12.95 withdrawal for a handsome ZeroHedge mug - find yours at the ZeroHedge Store

Morningstar's 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. "Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it," Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: "sequence of return" risk. It's the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement -- how long you expect to live -- is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it's just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the "base case," the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial "safe" withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

• Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio's average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
• Constant Percentage Method: If you're wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year's withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn't withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar's calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm's expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar's 3.9% base case: 

• US Large Growth: 8.58%
• US Large Value: 8.74%
• US Small Growth: 10.23%
• US Small Value: 12.69%
• Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
• US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
• Foreign Bond: 4.68%
• Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
• Inflation: 2.46%

We'd also note that your spending patterns aren't likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one "Go-Go," as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes "Slow-Go," where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach "No-Go," where they're much more prone to staying close to home -- if not confined there -- and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar's methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:10

Here's Morningstar's Safe-Withdrawal Rate For 2026 Retirees

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest "safe" starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By "safe," Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year's rate is up 20 basis points from last year's 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar's 3.9% rate isn't for anyone at any point in their retirement: It's an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year's inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let's say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year's withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

We project your portfolio can support a $12.95 withdrawal for a handsome ZeroHedge mug - find yours at the ZeroHedge Store

Morningstar's 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. "Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it," Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: "sequence of return" risk. It's the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement -- how long you expect to live -- is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it's just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the "base case," the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial "safe" withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

• Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio's average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
• Constant Percentage Method: If you're wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year's withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn't withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar's calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm's expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar's 3.9% base case: 

• US Large Growth: 8.58%
• US Large Value: 8.74%
• US Small Growth: 10.23%
• US Small Value: 12.69%
• Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
• US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
• Foreign Bond: 4.68%
• Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
• Inflation: 2.46%

We'd also note that your spending patterns aren't likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one "Go-Go," as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes "Slow-Go," where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach "No-Go," where they're much more prone to staying close to home -- if not confined there -- and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar's methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:10

Harvard-Backed Program Drops 'Students Of Color' Requirement After Legal Complaint

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:45

Harvard-Backed Program Drops 'Students Of Color' Requirement After Legal Complaint

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:45

'My Colon Literally Blew Up': Thousands Sue Over GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Side Effects

A growing wave of lawsuits is challenging the safety warnings accompanying blockbuster weight-loss drugs that have rapidly reshaped American medicine and culture, raising questions about whether patients were adequately informed of the risks tied to medications now used by tens of millions of people.

Todd Engel is one of several plaintiffs in a growing number of GLP-1 lawsuits (photo: Jack Gruber via USA Today)

The plaintiffs’ stories vary widely, but share a common claim: that drugs known as GLP-1 receptor agonists - including Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro - caused severe, life-altering injuries that were not sufficiently disclosed at the time they were prescribed.

A Maryland truck driver says he suffered what doctors described as an "eye stroke," losing vision first in one eye and then the other. A Louisiana woman developed a serious neurological condition after weeks of vomiting and malnutrition. An Oklahoma real-estate agent alleges her colon ruptured without warning while she was driving her granddaughter home from a softball game.

"My colon blew up. Literally blew up," said JoHelen McClain, the Oklahoma plaintiff. "I was trying to slim down and feel healthy."

All three are among more than 4,400 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits since 2023 against the drugs’ manufacturers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, according to court filings. The cases are now consolidated into federal and state litigation expected to take years to resolve.

Via USA Today

The suits come amid explosive growth in the use of GLP-1 drugs. An estimated 12% of American adults - more than 31 million people - are currently using a GLP-1 medication, according to the nonpartisan health policy group KFF. Prescriptions rose from roughly one million in 2018 to about nine million in 2022, and usage doubled again between 2024 and 2025, Gallup data show.

Originally developed to treat diabetes, the drugs mimic a hormone that slows digestion, stimulates insulin release and increases feelings of fullness. Their success has helped reduce U.S. obesity rates for the first time in more than a decade and spurred research into additional benefits, including reduced risks of kidney disease, addiction and dementia.

Yet plaintiffs allege that the same mechanism slowing digestion can, in some patients, lead to serious gastrointestinal and neurological injuries.

In court on Jan. 13, Novo Nordisk attorney Katie Insogna said (via USA Today):

• 75% of the federal lawsuits include an allegation of gastroparesis, also known as “stomach paralysis,” a chronic condition where the stomach slows or stops emptying food into the small intestine;

• 18% of the cases allege the drugs caused ileus, a condition in which bowel muscles fail to push food and waste out of the body;

• 18% of the plaintiffs allege intestinal obstructions;

• 8% say they suffered from gallbladder injuries, with some of these patients requiring surgical removal of gangrenous tissue;

• 8% of the plaintiffs allege other serious gastrointestinal complications, such as extreme vomiting, chronic acid reflux or abdominal pain that required multiple hospitalizations in some cases. Others say their digestion issues have continued even after they stopped taking the drugs.

USA TODAY’s review of the lawsuits also found at least 110 plaintiffs alleging sudden blindness or severe vision changes, and at least one alleging Wernicke’s encephalopathy, a neurological condition linked to vitamin B1 deficiency.

The drugmakers deny the allegations. In a joint filing last year, the companies said "the safety profile of GLP-1 RAs has been well-established in hundreds of clinical trials, large-scale observational studies, and nearly two decades of real-world use."

"Novo Nordisk remains confident in the benefit-risk profile of our GLP-1 medicines, when used consistent with their indications and product labeling," said company spokesperson Flavia Brakling, adding that labels are updated "in cooperation with the FDA and consistent with federal regulations."

An Eli Lilly spokesperson said, "Patient safety is Lilly’s top priority," noting that the labels for Mounjaro, Zepbound and Trulicity have "always warned of potential ‘gastrointestinal adverse reactions, sometimes severe.’"

Legal experts say the cases may hinge on whether plaintiffs can prove causation and whether warnings were legally sufficient at the time.

“Proving the drugs caused certain outcomes will be an issue,” said Ana Santos Rutschman, a health-law professor at Villanova University, along with determining "the extent and timing of warnings."

For Todd Engel, the Maryland truck driver, the outcome has already been devastating. After four months on Ozempic to manage diabetes, he woke in December 2023 with vision loss in one eye. Diagnosed with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, he continued taking the drug after doctors failed to identify a cause. In October 2024, he lost vision in his remaining eye.

"You’re not going to believe this," his wife, Shelley, recalled him saying. "I can’t see at all."

Now legally blind, Engel has lost his job and commercial driver’s license. "This whole thing has been catastrophic to me and my wife," he said.

A 2024 JAMA Ophthalmology study of nearly 17,000 patients found an increased risk of NAION among those prescribed semaglutide compared with other treatments, though it did not establish causation. European regulators later described the condition as “very rare,” prompting label updates abroad. U.S. labels warn of vision changes but do not mention NAION by name.

“What happened to me should have never happened,” Engel said.

McClain’s case unfolded differently. After losing 40 pounds on Wegovy, she suffered a sudden colon rupture in March 2024, followed by emergency surgery, sepsis and months of recovery. She now lives with a permanent stoma.

“I read everything I could find on it before I went on it,” she said. “They did not warn about any of the stuff that happened to me at that time.”

In Louisiana, Mark Smith says his wife Robin developed permanent brain damage after months of vomiting while taking Mounjaro. Doctors later diagnosed her with Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

"I still have my wife, physically, not mentally anymore," he said.

Eli Lilly has said Mounjaro’s label has always warned of severe gastrointestinal reactions. Plaintiffs argue those warnings failed to convey how extreme or irreversible some outcomes could be.

"These drugs are not new," said Ziyad Al-Aly, director of research at the St. Louis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. "What’s new about them is that the companies then realized, ‘Oh my God, they actually work on weight loss.’"

Al-Aly said he sympathizes with the plaintiffs but believes the drugs’ benefits outweigh the risks for most patients. "There is nothing that’s really all benefit and no risk," he said.

The first bellwether trials in the consolidated litigation are not expected until 2027. Legal experts say such cases often take four to five years.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:20

'My Colon Literally Blew Up': Thousands Sue Over GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Side Effects

A growing wave of lawsuits is challenging the safety warnings accompanying blockbuster weight-loss drugs that have rapidly reshaped American medicine and culture, raising questions about whether patients were adequately informed of the risks tied to medications now used by tens of millions of people.

Todd Engel is one of several plaintiffs in a growing number of GLP-1 lawsuits (photo: Jack Gruber via USA Today)

The plaintiffs’ stories vary widely, but share a common claim: that drugs known as GLP-1 receptor agonists - including Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro - caused severe, life-altering injuries that were not sufficiently disclosed at the time they were prescribed.

A Maryland truck driver says he suffered what doctors described as an "eye stroke," losing vision first in one eye and then the other. A Louisiana woman developed a serious neurological condition after weeks of vomiting and malnutrition. An Oklahoma real-estate agent alleges her colon ruptured without warning while she was driving her granddaughter home from a softball game.

"My colon blew up. Literally blew up," said JoHelen McClain, the Oklahoma plaintiff. "I was trying to slim down and feel healthy."

All three are among more than 4,400 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits since 2023 against the drugs’ manufacturers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, according to court filings. The cases are now consolidated into federal and state litigation expected to take years to resolve.

Via USA Today

The suits come amid explosive growth in the use of GLP-1 drugs. An estimated 12% of American adults - more than 31 million people - are currently using a GLP-1 medication, according to the nonpartisan health policy group KFF. Prescriptions rose from roughly one million in 2018 to about nine million in 2022, and usage doubled again between 2024 and 2025, Gallup data show.

Originally developed to treat diabetes, the drugs mimic a hormone that slows digestion, stimulates insulin release and increases feelings of fullness. Their success has helped reduce U.S. obesity rates for the first time in more than a decade and spurred research into additional benefits, including reduced risks of kidney disease, addiction and dementia.

Yet plaintiffs allege that the same mechanism slowing digestion can, in some patients, lead to serious gastrointestinal and neurological injuries.

In court on Jan. 13, Novo Nordisk attorney Katie Insogna said (via USA Today):

• 75% of the federal lawsuits include an allegation of gastroparesis, also known as “stomach paralysis,” a chronic condition where the stomach slows or stops emptying food into the small intestine;

• 18% of the cases allege the drugs caused ileus, a condition in which bowel muscles fail to push food and waste out of the body;

• 18% of the plaintiffs allege intestinal obstructions;

• 8% say they suffered from gallbladder injuries, with some of these patients requiring surgical removal of gangrenous tissue;

• 8% of the plaintiffs allege other serious gastrointestinal complications, such as extreme vomiting, chronic acid reflux or abdominal pain that required multiple hospitalizations in some cases. Others say their digestion issues have continued even after they stopped taking the drugs.

USA TODAY’s review of the lawsuits also found at least 110 plaintiffs alleging sudden blindness or severe vision changes, and at least one alleging Wernicke’s encephalopathy, a neurological condition linked to vitamin B1 deficiency.

The drugmakers deny the allegations. In a joint filing last year, the companies said "the safety profile of GLP-1 RAs has been well-established in hundreds of clinical trials, large-scale observational studies, and nearly two decades of real-world use."

"Novo Nordisk remains confident in the benefit-risk profile of our GLP-1 medicines, when used consistent with their indications and product labeling," said company spokesperson Flavia Brakling, adding that labels are updated "in cooperation with the FDA and consistent with federal regulations."

An Eli Lilly spokesperson said, "Patient safety is Lilly’s top priority," noting that the labels for Mounjaro, Zepbound and Trulicity have "always warned of potential ‘gastrointestinal adverse reactions, sometimes severe.’"

Legal experts say the cases may hinge on whether plaintiffs can prove causation and whether warnings were legally sufficient at the time.

“Proving the drugs caused certain outcomes will be an issue,” said Ana Santos Rutschman, a health-law professor at Villanova University, along with determining "the extent and timing of warnings."

For Todd Engel, the Maryland truck driver, the outcome has already been devastating. After four months on Ozempic to manage diabetes, he woke in December 2023 with vision loss in one eye. Diagnosed with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, he continued taking the drug after doctors failed to identify a cause. In October 2024, he lost vision in his remaining eye.

"You’re not going to believe this," his wife, Shelley, recalled him saying. "I can’t see at all."

Now legally blind, Engel has lost his job and commercial driver’s license. "This whole thing has been catastrophic to me and my wife," he said.

A 2024 JAMA Ophthalmology study of nearly 17,000 patients found an increased risk of NAION among those prescribed semaglutide compared with other treatments, though it did not establish causation. European regulators later described the condition as “very rare,” prompting label updates abroad. U.S. labels warn of vision changes but do not mention NAION by name.

“What happened to me should have never happened,” Engel said.

McClain’s case unfolded differently. After losing 40 pounds on Wegovy, she suffered a sudden colon rupture in March 2024, followed by emergency surgery, sepsis and months of recovery. She now lives with a permanent stoma.

“I read everything I could find on it before I went on it,” she said. “They did not warn about any of the stuff that happened to me at that time.”

In Louisiana, Mark Smith says his wife Robin developed permanent brain damage after months of vomiting while taking Mounjaro. Doctors later diagnosed her with Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

"I still have my wife, physically, not mentally anymore," he said.

Eli Lilly has said Mounjaro’s label has always warned of severe gastrointestinal reactions. Plaintiffs argue those warnings failed to convey how extreme or irreversible some outcomes could be.

"These drugs are not new," said Ziyad Al-Aly, director of research at the St. Louis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. "What’s new about them is that the companies then realized, ‘Oh my God, they actually work on weight loss.’"

Al-Aly said he sympathizes with the plaintiffs but believes the drugs’ benefits outweigh the risks for most patients. "There is nothing that’s really all benefit and no risk," he said.

The first bellwether trials in the consolidated litigation are not expected until 2027. Legal experts say such cases often take four to five years.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:20

Waste Of The Day: How The Grinch Stole $30,000

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: The Grinch did not successfully steal Christmas this season, but he did use up $30,493 in taxpayer money.

A viral Grinch-themed house in Dallas drew crowds so large that the city needed extra police personnel hours, vehicles and barricades to control the nightly crowd of visitors, WFAA-TV reported.

Key facts: The 9,000-square-foot mansion in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in North Dallas became famous on TikTok in 2024, thanks in part to a Santa statue with President Donald Trump’s face. The house received coverage from the Today Show and an Instagram post from rapper Snoop Dogg, and the ensuing crowds cost the city of Dallas $25,375 in 2024 - rising to over $30,000 in 2025, according to WFAA.

Neighbors were unhappy, and the home received a citation for violating city codes on noise and light glare. The home was also featured in a city council presentation that warned of safety risks from large events, including residents trapped in their homes and limited access for first responders, according to WFAA.

Homeowner Ryan De Vitis called his neighbors “the real-life Grinch” over the controversy, which may explain his choice of theme for 2025.

But this year, his neighbors were prepared. The Preston Hollow Citizens for a Safer Community bought a special events permit and used their own money to hire off-duty police officers to limit vehicle and foot traffic in the area.

That offset "significant" expenses for taxpayers, the city told WFAA, but the Dallas police still had to devote additional resources towards securing the street.

Critical quote: “While I appreciate homeowners lighting their homes to bring joy to others during the holidays, compromising public safety resources to this extent doesn’t reflect the spirit of the season,” City Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis told KERA News last year.

Summary: The Grinch’s heart grows three sizes once he discovers the true meaning of Christmas, but the only thing growing in Dallas is the size of its projected budget deficits.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 20:55

Waste Of The Day: How The Grinch Stole $30,000

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: The Grinch did not successfully steal Christmas this season, but he did use up $30,493 in taxpayer money.

A viral Grinch-themed house in Dallas drew crowds so large that the city needed extra police personnel hours, vehicles and barricades to control the nightly crowd of visitors, WFAA-TV reported.

Key facts: The 9,000-square-foot mansion in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in North Dallas became famous on TikTok in 2024, thanks in part to a Santa statue with President Donald Trump’s face. The house received coverage from the Today Show and an Instagram post from rapper Snoop Dogg, and the ensuing crowds cost the city of Dallas $25,375 in 2024 - rising to over $30,000 in 2025, according to WFAA.

Neighbors were unhappy, and the home received a citation for violating city codes on noise and light glare. The home was also featured in a city council presentation that warned of safety risks from large events, including residents trapped in their homes and limited access for first responders, according to WFAA.

Homeowner Ryan De Vitis called his neighbors “the real-life Grinch” over the controversy, which may explain his choice of theme for 2025.

But this year, his neighbors were prepared. The Preston Hollow Citizens for a Safer Community bought a special events permit and used their own money to hire off-duty police officers to limit vehicle and foot traffic in the area.

That offset "significant" expenses for taxpayers, the city told WFAA, but the Dallas police still had to devote additional resources towards securing the street.

Critical quote: “While I appreciate homeowners lighting their homes to bring joy to others during the holidays, compromising public safety resources to this extent doesn’t reflect the spirit of the season,” City Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis told KERA News last year.

Summary: The Grinch’s heart grows three sizes once he discovers the true meaning of Christmas, but the only thing growing in Dallas is the size of its projected budget deficits.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 20:55

Trump Reopens Airspace Over Venezuela, Restores Direct US Flights After 5+ Years

Venezuela had already long been an embargoed country, akin to Cuba in many aspects. For example, direct commercial passenger and cargo flights between the US and Venezuela have been impossible, going back to a May 2019 suspension ordered during the first Trump administration.

But after the US military ouster of Maduro, President Trump said Thursday that he ordered the reopening of Venezuela's commercial airspace. This move, and the fact that Washington will now be overseeing the country's monthly budget, demonstrates how decisively the US now claims to be running affairs in the oil-rich South American state.

source: Flightradar24

Trump told a televised cabinet meeting he has already "informed" interim president Delcy Rodríguez that US oil companies would soon be arriving to scout potential projects.

It was once documented that after the US-NATO overthrow of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, the oil executives made it to Tripoli before the diplomats, as their private jets were faster. This looks to be the case with Venezuela too, given the US Embassy has not even yet reopened. 

"American citizens will very shortly be able to go to Venezuela, and they will be safe there. It’s under very strong control," Trump said at the White House.

Shortly after Trump’s remarks, American Airlines said it would move to resume flights to Venezuela, pending formal approval from the administration and assurances of "secure conditions". Trump confirmed that he had directed the Transportation Department to lift the previous restrictions.

Trump also had some positive words in support of Maduro's former Vice President, current interim leader Rodríguez:

The president said he had instructed the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, and Pentagon officials to implement the change before the day’s end. He characterized the security situation in Venezuela as being “under very strong control” after Rodríguez replaced Maduro.

She had days ago declared that she would stop taking orders from Washington, but this was clearly more for domestic consumption, where she has to pretend she's asserting national sovereignty in decision-making.

But Venezuela is clearly a country that is anything but sovereign at this moment. More details on Washington's role have been freshly revealed in the NY Times:

Venezuela’s interim government has agreed to submit a monthly “budget” to the Trump administration, which will release money from an account funded by the country’s oil sales and initially managed by Qatar, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday.

But the plan drew sharp questions from skeptical Democrats, and Mr. Rubio conceded that it was “novel” and hastily designed. The role of Qatar — a Middle Eastern country thousands of miles from Venezuela whose ruler has won President Trump’s favor — drew particular criticism from Democrats, who questioned its legality and transparency.

Mr. Rubio detailed the plan during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was Mr. Rubio’s first public testimony to Congress since American forces captured Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, on Jan. 3, and an opportunity to clarify U.S. policy toward the country.

WOW.

Sen. Shaheen reveals $500M from Venezuelan oil sales.

$300M went to the Maduro government.

The other $200M?

Marco Rubio admits it’s just “sitting in an account.”

In Qatar.

So who controls it? Who benefits? And why is Congress being kept in the dark? pic.twitter.com/kTpMuLShtk

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) January 28, 2026

Qatar's playing middleman is indeed interesting and ironic, given how suspicious conservatives have been of the tiny oil and gas rich Gulf country. Lately enemies of Tucker Carlson have blasted him for being influenced by Qatari funds, and yet here the Trump administration is quite openly and unapologetically embracing it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 20:30

Trump Reopens Airspace Over Venezuela, Restores Direct US Flights After 5+ Years

Venezuela had already long been an embargoed country, akin to Cuba in many aspects. For example, direct commercial passenger and cargo flights between the US and Venezuela have been impossible, going back to a May 2019 suspension ordered during the first Trump administration.

But after the US military ouster of Maduro, President Trump said Thursday that he ordered the reopening of Venezuela's commercial airspace. This move, and the fact that Washington will now be overseeing the country's monthly budget, demonstrates how decisively the US now claims to be running affairs in the oil-rich South American state.

source: Flightradar24

Trump told a televised cabinet meeting he has already "informed" interim president Delcy Rodríguez that US oil companies would soon be arriving to scout potential projects.

It was once documented that after the US-NATO overthrow of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, the oil executives made it to Tripoli before the diplomats, as their private jets were faster. This looks to be the case with Venezuela too, given the US Embassy has not even yet reopened. 

"American citizens will very shortly be able to go to Venezuela, and they will be safe there. It’s under very strong control," Trump said at the White House.

Shortly after Trump’s remarks, American Airlines said it would move to resume flights to Venezuela, pending formal approval from the administration and assurances of "secure conditions". Trump confirmed that he had directed the Transportation Department to lift the previous restrictions.

Trump also had some positive words in support of Maduro's former Vice President, current interim leader Rodríguez:

The president said he had instructed the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, and Pentagon officials to implement the change before the day’s end. He characterized the security situation in Venezuela as being “under very strong control” after Rodríguez replaced Maduro.

She had days ago declared that she would stop taking orders from Washington, but this was clearly more for domestic consumption, where she has to pretend she's asserting national sovereignty in decision-making.

But Venezuela is clearly a country that is anything but sovereign at this moment. More details on Washington's role have been freshly revealed in the NY Times:

Venezuela’s interim government has agreed to submit a monthly “budget” to the Trump administration, which will release money from an account funded by the country’s oil sales and initially managed by Qatar, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday.

But the plan drew sharp questions from skeptical Democrats, and Mr. Rubio conceded that it was “novel” and hastily designed. The role of Qatar — a Middle Eastern country thousands of miles from Venezuela whose ruler has won President Trump’s favor — drew particular criticism from Democrats, who questioned its legality and transparency.

Mr. Rubio detailed the plan during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was Mr. Rubio’s first public testimony to Congress since American forces captured Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, on Jan. 3, and an opportunity to clarify U.S. policy toward the country.

WOW.

Sen. Shaheen reveals $500M from Venezuelan oil sales.

$300M went to the Maduro government.

The other $200M?

Marco Rubio admits it’s just “sitting in an account.”

In Qatar.

So who controls it? Who benefits? And why is Congress being kept in the dark? pic.twitter.com/kTpMuLShtk

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) January 28, 2026

Qatar's playing middleman is indeed interesting and ironic, given how suspicious conservatives have been of the tiny oil and gas rich Gulf country. Lately enemies of Tucker Carlson have blasted him for being influenced by Qatari funds, and yet here the Trump administration is quite openly and unapologetically embracing it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 20:30

"Bananas And Rice" Woman Arrested By DHS For Rioting In Minneapolis

In an effort to crack down on violent rioters in Minneapolis, MN, federal authorities have arrested 16 people identified as alleged participants who assaulted ICE agents in order to obstruct them from carrying out deportation arrests.  

One of the suspects is Nasra Ahmed, 23, of Minnesota, who rose to national notoriety after remarks she made during a Jan. 21 news conference comparing Somali American identity to a cultural mix she described as “bananas and rice,” a phrase that quickly spread across social media. 

A child of Somali migrants, Ahmed claimed during a press conference that she had been wrongly detained (kidnapped) by ICE agents simply for being Somali in the vicinity of an ICE operation.  She also claimed that she had been held for two days without reason and that agents "brutalized" her and called her "racial slurs" during interrogation.  Democrats and the far-left media seized on the story as evidence that ICE was "out of control" and using random "racial profiling" in Minneapolis.

Critics noted that there was no evidence to back Ahmed's claims of abuse and that she seemed to be very excited to become the center of media attention, suggesting that she was going to "go down in history" for standing up to ICE.  Immigration officials stated that Ahmed was not an innocent bystander and she was, in fact, detained for trying to interfere with an ICE arrest.

Ahmed took to the media stage to wax philosophical about her courageous fight against ICE and what it means to be a Somali in America.  “It’s kind of like bananas and rice,” Ahmed said. “People don’t think you can eat bananas with rice, but that’s what it’s like to be Somali and American.”

Her bizarre "bananas and rice" analogy went viral as another example of the low-end IQ standards associated with Somali migrants, coupled with their now legendary overconfidence.    

Today, the activist's bananas and rice are back in hot water after she was arrested again by DHS for alleged participation in violent riots.  Nasra Ahmed is charged with spitting on agents, throwing eggs at them and resisting arrest.

Rice and Bananas pic.twitter.com/du8oojETE8

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) January 28, 2026

Attorney General Pam Bondi was on the ground in Minneapolis this week to oversee the arrests, largely based on video footage of identified activists engaging in attacks on agents.  

“Federal agents have arrested 16 Minnesota rioters for allegedly assaulting federal law enforcement - people who have been resisting and impeding our federal law enforcement rights."

“We expect more arrests to come,” Bondi added. “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: NOTHING will stop President Trump and this Department of Justice from enforcing the law."

The crackdown comes after the death of Anti-ICE activist Alex Pretti, who was also misrepresented as a "peaceful protester" by the media, only to be later exposed in video footage participating in violent attacks on ICE agents in the days leading up to the confrontation that ended in his shooting.

The pattern is becoming rather obvious:  Activists and paid agitators interfere with ICE arrests (often violently).  Activists face consequences.  Journalists and Democrats cry foul and claim they were poor innocent victims.  Then, new information comes to light which ultimately reveals the activists were not innocent at all.  

The political left jumps on the headlines to spread anti-deportation sentiment, then retracts quietly when these headlines prove to be false.  They know that a large percentage of the Democrat base does not independently investigate information and sources and will continue to believe the first media claims they see as if they are a proven fact.   

It's the reason why debating the political left has become a superfluous exercise - They live in an entirely separate and delusional universe based on completely fabricated conclusions. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 18:00

Why The Next Recession Will Be The Catalyst For Depression

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

This is why a recession will catalyze a collapse of the credit-asset bubble-dependent economy down to its foundations.

Narrative control works by having a pat answer for every skepticism and every doubt. Boiled down, the dominant narrative holds that the Federal Reserve (central banking) and the central government have the tools to quickly reverse any dip in GDP, a.k.a. recession, and return the economy to expansion.

The unstated foundation of this narrative is that recessions are bad, as only permanent expansion is good. That this isn't "free market capitalism" doesn't bother anyone, because the whole point of central banking and government is to eliminate the rough edges of "free market capitalism" with the sandpaper of "state capitalism," which creates or borrows as much money as needed to smooth over any spots of bother, a.k.a. recessions.

That recessions are essential market dynamics is not part of the narrative, which is conveniently binary: recessions bad, expansion good. Markets reflect human emotions, famously fear and greed, which manifest as debt and speculation, a.k.a. animal spirits: when we're confident and feeding off an expansion that appears to have no limit, then we borrow more money (debt expands) and "allocate the capital" (i.e. place it at risk to reap a future gain) to increasingly risky speculative investments.

This allocation of borrowed money into speculative assets pushes the price of those assets higher, increasing the collateral to support further borrowing to fund more speculation. In this manner, debt, asset valuations, collateral and speculation all fuel one another in a seemingly endless expansion that makes every participant richer.

This pyramiding of debt and "wealth" generates two self-liquidating dynamics: interest and risk. All debt comes with interest, the compensation due those who put their money at risk by lending it to the borrower. This debt service rises as debt expands, and also as risk increases: the riskier the speculation and the borrower, the higher the interest rate paid by the borrower.

Central banks can play games to reduce interest rates even as risk and interest payment rise, but since central banks own only a fraction of the total outstanding debt, their ability to "corner the market" is nil.

Their gaming the system to enable further expansion of debt and speculation functions not by actually buying up the majority of the new debt, it functions as a signal: the Federal Reserve has our back, they will bail out / recapitalize any lender losses while suppressing interest rates below what the unfettered market would demand, and so the pyramiding of debt, speculation and "wealth" can continue, apparently indefinitely.

But signaling has intrinsic limits, for it doesn't increase the income needed to service additional debt or guarantee speculations will pay off. These are the Achilles Heels of the central banking perpetual motion machine: for the vast majority of borrowers, both private and public, income doesn't automatically increase as debt increases. Income is influenced by market factors (supply and demand), technologies, state interventions (subsidies, stimulus spending, etc.) and the expansion or contraction of debt, interest rates and speculative investments.

In the total-economy context, what matters are total factor productivity gains and the distribution of those gains to wage earners, enterprises, owners of assets and the state, which collects taxes from all three of the private-sector classes. This distribution changes with social, political and financial tides.

The past 50 years have seen productivity gains flow to capital (corporations and owners of assets) at the expense of wage-earners. This means households and small businesses must service debt from a shrinking share of the economy. As a result, borrowing more becomes increasingly risky for both borrower and lender.

As more of the output goes to corporations and owners of assets, their collateral, income and creditworthiness rise, meaning they can borrow more at lower rates of interest than wage earners and small enterprises. The more they can borrow, the more they can own and the more they can earn.

These are the core engines of extreme wealth and income inequality. The rich get richer because they have the means to borrow more income-generating assets at lower rates than wage earners. And unlike wages, this asset-generated income rises as assets increasing in value support additional borrowing as they serve as collateral.

On the most fundamental level, if economic expansion no longer increases the income of household borrowers enough to service more debt, the entire structure of expanding debt, collateral and speculation is destabilized. Ultimately, assets generate income from either 1) issuing more debt, 2) investing more in risk assets or 3) consumer spending. All three are interconnected, i.e. tightly bound, as any decline in the expansion of debt, investing or spending eventually bleeds through to reduced ability to service more debt and the end of the expansion of debt.

Since debt is inherently risky--borrowers can default, i.e. stop paying interest and principal on the debt--then depending on expanding debt for economic expansion is also increasing risk, especially if household earnings are stagnating while debt and interest payments are increasing.

Since the percentage of output flowing to wages has been declining for 50 years, households have funded spending by borrowing more money. Prior to the 2000s, college students borrowed very little to fund their education. Now student loan debt is measured in the trillion-dollar range. Auto loans and credit card debt has also soared, along with shadow-banking debt that isn't even tracked: pay-in-installments, etc.

Speculative investments are also inherently risky: the investment can fail to pay off. If the speculation was funded by debt, then both the borrower and the lender go broke when the speculation fails.

Stagnating earnings, increasing debt to fund spending and increasingly risky debt-funded speculation generate a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy: economic expansion is now dependent on debt expanding to fund spending and the speculation that pushes asset valuations higher, increasing the collateral for even more borrowing.

Once income is no longer rising fast enough to service higher debt loads, defaults cascade throughout the system, triggering avalanches of declining income for both assets and wage earners as households default on rent, auto loans, student loans, credit cards and mortgages, collapsing consumer spending and laying waste to lenders and employers, who respond by reducing borrowing and laying off employees.

Speculations that looked sound in expansion go broke as lenders pull risky loans, household spending dries up and collateral collapses as risk assets are sold off to reduce risk by raising cash and paying down debt.

Credit-asset bubble-dependent economies are tightly bound systems: any drop in income and valuations, any tightening of credit, any rise in interest rates and any decline in collateral (i.e. the valuations of risk assets) feeds back into every other part of the system, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop of defaults, layoffs and sagging asset valuations.

In an economy saturated with debt, stimulus doesn't generate expansion, it generates inflation which limits central bank stimulus. Without that signal that "the Fed has our back," speculation and the borrowing that funded it both dry up. Once the inflow of new credit-funded investment falters, asset valuations enter a self-reinforcing free-fall.

In a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy, this inevitable unwinding is viewed as an unexpected catastrophe:

In an economy that allowed recessions to clear bad debt and excessive speculation, credit-asset bubbles popping is viewed as inevitable and normal.

What few seem to understand is 1) the last "real recession" that cleared excesses of debt, leverage and speculation was 1980-82, 45 years ago and 2) the buffers that enabled the eventual recovery back then are gone. Where total debt was low in 1980--about 50% more than GDP--now it's triple GDP. That means "borrowing our way to expansion" isn't possible: borrowers are already unable to service existing debt, never mind more debt.

As for the Fed rescuing the debt bubble by dropping interest rates to zero: recall that the Fed isn't buying more than a sliver of the $106 trillion debt; it's only generating a false signal that risk is low. In the real world, risk is rising inexorably due to excessive debt, interest payments, leverage and speculation.

As for bailing the system out as in 2008, that is no longer possible, either. The system was "saved" by recapitalizing the financial sector--the source of new debt and speculation. But this time around, the economy is saturated with debt, income has stagnated and cannot support more borrowing, and the credit-asset bubbles in housing and financial assets has reached unprecedented heights of risk, i.e. fragility.

This is why a recession that clears the system of excessive debt, leverage and speculation leaves a devastated economy incapable of expansion: the system is now totally dependent on excesses of debt, leverage and speculation for its survival, never mind expansion, and once that collapses (as all bubbles do), the signaling, confidence and wealth that enabled the bubble will no longer exist.

As for saving the system by converting fiat money to precious metals or cryptocurrencies: the debt--and the income needed to service the debt--will also be converted, and that doesn't change the inevitable collapse of credit-asset bubbles and all the economic activity that depended on the permanent expansion of that credit-asset bubble.

This is why a recession will catalyze a collapse of the credit-asset bubble-dependent economy down to its foundations. A re-inflation of a new credit-asset bubble will be viewed as the "solution," but that unstable system will no longer be viable. The real solution will be re-arranging the economy to thrive not on credit-asset bubbles but on productivity gains that are widely distributed to all the productive elements, not just the wealthiest asset owners.

This process will be time-consuming and difficult, as all the "winners" in the current bubble economy will expect both a return to outsized gains and a continuation of their outsized share of the gains. Neither will be possible, as the changes will demand time, sacrifice and massive long-term investment in productive assets.

The systemic risks inherent to a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy cannot be extinguished, they can only be cloaked or transferred to others. These artifices enable the expansion of the bubble at a cost paid by everyone when the system's self-liquidating dynamics pop the bubble.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 17:40

Kremlin Exasperated As Key Nuclear Treaty Expires Next Week, Crickets From US Side

Russia says it has tapped Washington on the shoulder many times related the the last remaining nuclear treaty between to the well-armed superpowers, but there have been crickets.

Moscow on Thursday reaffirmed it hasn't heard anything and is still eagerly awaiting a response from Washington to President Vladimir Putin's proposal to informally extend New START for another year. Presumably even if Trump officials have publicly signaled their willingness, a firm bilateral commitment has to be reached, with clear and open communication. 

 Kremlin.ru/Creative Commons

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned reporters that the impending expiration of the pact on February 5 could create a "serious gap" in the legal framework controlling strategic nuclear weapons.

With the clock ticking, Moscow's proposal underscores growing fears that, absent an extension, the world could face a nuclear arms vacuum between the world's two largest arsenals. Peskov's statement expressed some growing frustration and impatience:

"We keep waiting, but the deadline is approaching. There was no response from the United States," he said at a news briefing.

Peskov added that "the Kremlin's position is well known and it is consistent."

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed in 2010 by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, and limits the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 per side, and caps deployed delivery systems - including of missiles, bombers, and submarines - at 700.

The treaty is further designed to regulate targeting of each rival's political and military centers in a potential nuclear conflict. The hope was that as Witkoff and Kushner have continued direct dialogue with Putin and top Kremlin officials, there would be a breakthrough on the nuclear issue, rapidly improving the bilateral relationship. 

This was certainly one of the high bars set for last August's Alaska summit. Putin had stated just before meeting Trump in person that the "next stages" of discussions with the administrations could include reaching "agreements in the area of control over strategic offensive weapons."

Both leaders have shown willingness to reach a breakthrough on this issue, but alas nothing has materialized, and Russia appears genuinely surprised the US hasn't jumped at the offer to extend it another year, giving more time for longer negotiations for what the future of New START might hold.

In August 2023 the US accused Russia of violating the treaty in disallowing US on-site inspections under its stipulations. In response, Washington halted Russian inspectors' ability to do the same on American soil. The fact that the Ukraine war has been raging without end has also put pressure on the treaty toward unraveling.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 17:20

Apple Rises After Shocking China Sales Beat Offsets US Revenue Miss

Ahead of today's AAPL earnings report, we've had a very mixed picture from Mag 7 earnings so far: first, there was Microsoft, which crashed after its capex forecast unexpectedly jumped, then there was META, which soared after its capex forecast unexpectedly jumped (only in this case the company made up for it by pretending its ad revenue will also increase almost dollar for dollar with the new capex), and then there was TESLA which first dropped, then jumped, then dropped as the market digested the company's complete conversion from an auto company (now without the S and X models) and into a robotaxi "story" stock. As such, many are looking to AAPL to break the tie when it reports at 3pm today.

But before we look at the numbers, here’s what Wall Street is expecting:

• Revenue estimate $138.4 billion 
• Products revenue estimate $107.69 billion
• Mac revenue estimate $9.13 billion
• IPad revenue estimate $8.18 billion
• Wearables, home and accessories estimate $12.13 billion
• Services revenue estimate $30.02 billion

Recall that during its fourth quarter conference call, Apple took the rare step of saying that it expects double-digit iPhone growth as well as 10-12% overall revenue growth. There was no way Apple would report such numbers unless it was 100% confident in that being the case. 

As Bloomberg's Mark Gurman notes, Apple is projecting a monster quarter yet given the current climate around its AI crisis, the future of the company really hangs in the balance here, as it may be fair to say that if Apple beats estimates - or least meets expectations today - the current management of the company and way forward has some staying power. If, for some odd reason, the company misses expectations, we’re in for an extremely tough news cycle and the potential of real change in the months ahead. 

In retrospect, AAPL was not making it up, because the stock has moved higher (even if it has erased much of the gains) after the smartphone company reported earnings which beat many expectations, while the iPhone had its best ever quarter largely thanks to China.

Here are the details:

• EPS $2.84 vs. $2.40 y/y, beating estimates of $2.68
   
• Revenue $143.76 billion, +16% y/y, beating estimate $138.4 billion 
  • Products revenue $113.74 billion, +16% y/y, beating estimate $107.69 billion
    • IPhone revenue $85.27 billion, +23% y/y, beating estimate $78.31 billion
    • Mac revenue $8.39 billion, -6.7% y/y, missing estimate $9.13 billion
    • IPad revenue $8.60 billion, +6.3% y/y, beating estimate $8.18 billion
    • Wearables, home and accessories $11.49 billion, -2.2% y/y, missing estimate $12.13 billion
  • Services revenue $30.01 billion, +14% y/y, missing estimate $30.02 billion

Broken down by product...

... show that iPhone revenue - which hit a record high in Q1 thanks to China - was the most notable: 

Taking a closer look at the Geographic breakdown, one region stands out: 

• Americas rev. $58.53 billion, +11% y/y, missing estimate $59.06 billion
• Europe revenue $38.15 billion, +13% y/y, beating estimate $36.82 billion
• Japan revenue $9.41 billion, +4.7% y/y, beating estimate $9.24 billion
• Rest of Asia Pacific revenue $12.14 billion, +18% y/y, beating estimate $11.39 billion

and... 

• Greater China rev. $25.53 billion, +38% y/y, smashing estimate $21.82 billion

Yes: it was all about China, because while sales in the US actually missed, it was that country where no number is ever cooked - pardon the pun - where revenues (mostly iPhone revenues) grew a stunning 38% to $25.53bn, smashing estimates of a $21.82bn number...

... yet which in context seems very, very fishy, and makes one wonder if Cook cooked numbers with Xi's help.

Going down the income statement: 

• Total operating expenses $18.38 billion, +19% y/y, above estimate $18.18 billion
• Research and development operating expenses $10.89 billion, +32% y/y, above estimate $10.14 billion
• SG&A operating expense $7.49 billion, +4.4% y/y, below estimate $8.03 billion
   
• Gross margin $69.23 billion, +19% y/y, beating estimate $65.5 billion
   
• Cash and cash equivalents $45.32 billion, +50% y/y, below estimate $49.73 billion

Some more details from the press release: 

• Installed Base Now Has More Than 2.5B Active Devices
• Declares A Cash Dividend of $0.26 Per Share
• Generated Nearly $54 Billion in Operating Cash Flow
• Declared A Cash Dividend of $0.26 Per Share

Yet while the stocks spiked sharply higher on the news of the massive iPhone revenue beat, it has since faded much of the move once again, perhaps as investors inquire what the revenue/margin hit to iphone will be from buying RAM memory which has triple in price in recent weeks.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 17:04

Ghislaine Maxwell Cites Dozens Of Men In Alleged Epstein 'Secret Settlements'

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Convicted felon Ghislaine Maxwell claimed in December that at least 25 men with ties to Jeffrey Epstein entered “secret settlements” to serve charges over their alleged role in the late sex offender’s crimes. 

Maxwell made the claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on Dec. 17 in the U.S. Southern District of New York, according to Courthouse News. 

She is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and is seeking to void her conviction. 

Her filing comes amid renewed scrutiny surrounding the pending release of Epstein-related documents. 

The petition references four alleged “co-conspirators” and 25 additional men who were never indicted despite, according to Maxwell, being similarly implicated in the crimes. 

She said the government’s purported failure to charge those individuals showed she was selectively prosecuted. 

In the filing, Maxwell acknowledged that a defendant moving to dismiss for selective prosecution “bears the heavy burden of establishing” that others similarly situated were not prosecuted for the same conduct while she was singled out, and that the government’s decision was discriminatory or made in bad faith. 

“None of the 4 named co-conspirators or the 25 men with secret settlements were indicted,” Maxwell wrote. 

Maxwell claimed the existence of the 25 men emerged through government disclosures and civil litigation materials that were never provided to her defense. 

“New evidence reveals that there were 25 men with which the plaintiff lawyers reached secret settlements – that could equally be considered as coconspirators,” she added. “None of these men have been prosecuted and none has been revealed to Petitioner; she would have called them as witnesses had she known.” 

Maxwell further alleged that her indictment followed Epstein’s 2019 death in federal custody and was driven by political expediency. 

“New evidence reveals the reason why the Petitioner was indicted after having not been named and included in any of the earlier criminal indictments against Epstein or the Palm Beach Police Investigation, simply put it was for expediency and purely political motives following the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the care custody and control of the US Government,” she claimed. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 17:00

Erdogan Urges Trump To Let Him Mediate Iran Crisis, Amid Fears Of Refugee Explosion

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is pushing the idea of hosting a direct teleconference between US President Donald Trump and Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian in a last-ditch bid to cool rising tensions, and avoid US military action.

Regional sources have newly revealed that in a phone call with Trump on Monday, Erdogan urged Washington to pursue diplomacy over escalation and offered Turkey's services as an intermediary, a Turkish official said.

via Reuters

Trump reportedly signaled interest in the proposal, though Tehran has yet to respond. According to the same official, the Iranian president has not issued any public reaction.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is actually currently in Istanbul amid a diplomatic scramble to avert war. One big problem is that Tehran is willing to talk about its nuclear program, but the reported Washington push for it to limit or abolish its ballistic missile arsenal is seen as nothing less than suicide. 

The Iranians see this request as simply a non-starter, given the same limitations would not be imposed on Israel, and the Israelis have already mounted a surprise attack on the Islamic Republic last June.

Turkey is against any US-led strikes or a war, but is still pressuring Tehran to make meaningful internal reforms:

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Turkey’s foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, said: “It is wrong to attack Iran. It is wrong to start the war again. Iran is ready to negotiate in the nuclear file.”

He admitted Iran faced challenges at the bargaining table, saying: “It might seem humiliating for them. It will be very difficult to explain not only to themselves but to the leadership. So if we can make things better tolerated I think it will help.”

Fidan argued Iran also had to present a new face to the Middle East, saying he had been “very frank” with the Iranians that they “need to create trust in the region [and] they need to pay attention how they are perceived by the regional countries”.

Turkey has some other pressing interests, given the fact that it shares a far eastern border with Iran, and Iranian migrants and tourists have long played a role in its economy.

Ragıp Soylu of Middle East Eye has put it this way: "Lack of EU initiative to stop this escalation is worrisome. If Iran explodes, 90 million people wouldn’t stay only in the region and Turkey; they will definitely migrate to Europe."

He added, criticizing absent EU leadership: "But Von der Leyen is more interested in yoga camps in India."

If Turkey isn't happy about how things unfold regarding the US, Iran, and Israel - it could once again weaponize a potential new migrant crisis and hold it over Europe's head, as Erdogan did in 2015.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 15:40

HHS Responds To Criticism From Vaccine Companies

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has responded after executives of top vaccine companies took aim at the Trump administration in the wake of a series of actions on vaccines.

“Vaccine recommendations are based on the best available gold-standard scientific evidence and public health considerations, not corporate interests. Under this administration, HHS is not beholden to the pharmaceutical industry,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email on Jan. 28.

“Decisions are made through transparent processes with the sole aim of protecting the health of the American people. Protecting public health and restoring trust will continue to drive HHS’ vaccine policy.”

Under President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration has downgraded vaccine recommendations for shots against diseases such as COVID-19 and influenza.

Officials have also canceled contracts for vaccine research, including for projects involving messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines utilize mRNA.

Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, was among vaccine company executives recently criticising the Trump administration.

He told The Wall Street Journal during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland in January that Kennedy’s position on vaccines is “anti-science” and that a new secretary of health would be needed for discussions on vaccines to move forward.

Bourla also said that “we always knew that who is in the government is extremely important for our business because it is highly regulated.” In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration, part of HHS, decides whether to clear vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another HHS division, offers recommendations for cleared shots.

At the same event, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel told Bloomberg TV that Moderna has no plans to invest in late-stage trials for vaccines because the Trump administration’s actions are making the potential market size in the United States “much smaller.”

“You cannot make a return on investment if you don’t have access to the US market,” he said.

A nurse administers the flu vaccine in New York City on Nov. 11, 2002. Robert Giroux/Getty Images

In addition to narrowing vaccine recommendations and scaling back funding for vaccine research, Kennedy has announced officials are looking into whether vaccines cause autism. This week, he appointed new members to a federal autism committee, including people who have said autism is caused by vaccines.

“Vaccines will not be a growth area under the current administration,” ING Global Lead for Pharma and Healthcare Stephen Farrelly said.

Investors said that long-term prospects for vaccine makers remain robust, but that companies are now more beholden to the positions of political leaders.

“Unfortunately, success and failure will rest on the opinions of a few people. It’s not enough to have good science and commercial opportunity,” Clear Street analyst Bill Maughan said.

GlaxoSmithKline and French drugmaker Sanofi have already reported lower vaccine sales in the United States, and Australia’s CSL in the fall of 2025 postponed separating its vaccine unit, citing “heightened volatility” and falling U.S. vaccination rates.

Sanofi on Jan. 29 said it expected sales growth in 2026 overall, but sales from vaccines were expected to be slightly negative in part due to Trump administration changes.

“Dosing, administration, and insurance coverage remain largely the same ... It’s more a perception issue more than anything else,” Sanofi CFO François-Xavier Roger said on a call with journalists. “The change of vaccine policy may have an impact, but it’s difficult to quantify at this stage. It might be slightly negative, but it’s too early to say and to quantify.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 15:20

Unprecedented: Trump Gets Putin To Halt Strikes On Kiev For One Week In Call

In a surprising Thursday development, President Trump has claimed that Russia agreed to pause strikes on the Ukrainian capital and some other cities "for a week" - a decision he said came after direct personal intervention with Russian President Vladimir Putin. If accurate, this could represent a huge advance in the direction of peace, given the positive precedent it sets.

"Because of the extreme cold…I personally asked President Putin not to fire on Kiev and the cities and towns for a week," Trump told reporters during a cabinet meeting. According to Trump, Putin "agreed to do that," adding that "we’re very happy" with the outcome. Watch:

President Putin agreed not to strike Kiev for a week due to the record-cold winter — President Trump

“I personally asked Putin not to bomb Kyiv and other cities for a week, and he agreed to this,” pic.twitter.com/0UH9O9pbyC

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) January 29, 2026

The claim comes amid growing speculation about behind-the-scenes de-escalation talks. Earlier in the day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment on reports suggesting Moscow and Kiev had agreed to a so-called "energy ceasefire."

Early in the Trump administration, there had been perhaps a few weeks of such an energy ceasefire, where strikes seemed minimal and limited - but it ultimately failed to stick or take off. Ukraine has not acknowledged any such fresh energy ceasefire.

As for Trump's assertion, it appears to rest on personal diplomacy, with no formal confirmation from the Russian or Ukrainian sides. It reportedly happened in a phone call, which Russian state media has also featured a readout of. Here's a fresh TASS report:

According to Trump, the Russian leader "agreed to do that." "And I have to tell you, it was very nice. A lot of people said 'Don't waste the call.' You're not going to get that. And he did it, and we're very happy..., because on top of everything else, that's not what they [Ukrainians] need, [that is] missiles coming into their towns and cities. So I just thought, I should say, I thought it was a very, very good thing, and Ukraine almost didn't believe it, but they were very happy about it, because they are struggling badly," Trump added.

It was only on Wednesday that Russian drones struck Kiev and the surrounding region, killing two people and injuring others, and damaging a residential building. 

Via BBC

So the coming days and week will determine whether it's accurate, and if it holds. Likely President Putin and his military will indeed refrain, given the Russian leader is not going to want to embarrass or make angry his American counterpart.

Again, this is somewhat unprecedented and a positive sign for Trump's personal ability to de-escalate with world leaders. Let's hope he has the same sense when it comes to avoiding major military conflict with Iran.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 15:00

Bank Of America, JPMorgan Chase To Match $1,000 Contributions To Children's Accounts

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase said on Jan. 28 that they would match the U.S. government’s one‑time $1,000 contribution to children’s retirement accounts - also known as Trump Accounts - for eligible employees.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks during the Trump Accounts summit at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington on Jan. 28, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The current administration’s pilot program sets aside a $1,000 Treasury-funded deposit in a tax‑advantaged account for eligible children born in the United States between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, in a statement, said the company is focused on the financial health of its employees and their families, “including more than 190,000 here in the United States.

“By matching this contribution, we’re making it easier for them to start saving early, invest wisely, and plan for their family’s financial future,” Dimon said.

In recent months, the bank has rewarded staff in other ways.

The Wall Street titan awarded a $1,000 special grant to eligible employees worldwide who earn less than $80,000 in annual cash compensation, depositing the funds into U.S. workers’ 401(k) plans.

Beyond financial‑wellness benefits, JPMorgan Chase provides all new parents with 16 weeks of paid leave, regardless of caregiver status.

Bank of America will also match the $1,000 seed money, according to an internal memo viewed by The Epoch Times.

“We applaud that the federal government is providing innovative solutions for employees and families to plan for their future, and we welcome the opportunity to participate,” Bank of America stated.

Two of the largest U.S. banks join a number of other financial institutions that have made pledges regarding the new accounts.

BlackRock, BNY, Charles Schwab, Robinhood, and SoFi have announced matching contributions for the accounts.

Non-financial companies, including Steak ‘n Shake, have also started supporting Trump Accounts.

“By funding tax-advantaged investment accounts for our employees’ children, we are ensuring that the next generation of Americans participate from birth in our free-market, wealth-building economy,” the fast food company stated in a Jan. 28 X post.

“Steak n Shake has benefited from our country’s prosperity, and we are committed to giving back to our communities and our country.”

Wealthy individuals have also made major commitments, most notably Michael and Susan Dell, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, and rapper Nicki Minaj.

An authorized adult - parent, guardian, adult sibling, or grandparent - can open an account for a child if the adult has a valid Social Security number.

Although contributions are not mandatory, families may deposit up to $5,000 into each account each year.

The accounts’ funds will be invested in broad U.S. stock index funds and will track the overall performance of the stock market.

An analysis by the Treasury Department estimated that a single deposit could be lucrative by the time the recipient turns 60.

Officials project that the $1,000 seed money at birth can increase to almost $500,000 “with average returns” and more than $1 million “in strong markets.”

An exterior view of the new JPMorgan Chase global headquarters building at 270 Park Avenue in New York City on Nov. 13, 2025. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Financial markets have rocketed this year: The S&P 500 hit 7,000 for the first time on Jan. 28, rising by 2 percent to kick off the year. The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average has also climbed by 2 percent this month, to 49,000. And the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index is up almost 3 percent year to date, to nearly 24,000.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 14:40