From the MBA: MMortgage Applications Decreased Over a Two-Week Period in Latest MBA Weekly Survey

Mortgage applications decreased 9.7 percent from two weeks earlier, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey for the week ending January 2, 2026. The results include an adjustment for the holidays.

The Market Composite Index, a measure of mortgage loan application volume, decreased 9.7 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from two weeks earlier. On an unadjusted basis, the Index decreased 28 percent compared with two weeks ago. The holiday adjusted Refinance Index decreased 14 percent from two weeks ago and was 133 percent higher than the same week one year ago. The unadjusted Refinance Index decreased 31 percent from two weeks ago and was 108 percent higher than the same week one year ago. The seasonally adjusted Purchase Index decreased 6 percent from two weeks earlier. The unadjusted Purchase Index decreased 23 percent compared with two weeks ago and was 10 percent higher than the same week one year ago.

“Mortgage rates started the New Year with a decline to 6.25 percent, the lowest level since September 2024. Refinance applications were up 7 percent for the week but were at a slower pace than in the weeks leading up to the holidays,” said Joel Kan, MBA’s Vice President and Deputy Chief Economist. “FHA refinance applications saw a 19 percent increase, although that was a partial rebound from a drop the week before. MBA continues to expect mortgage rates to stay around current levels, with spells of refinance opportunities in the weeks when rates move lower.”

Added Kan, “Purchase applications were 10 percent higher than the same week a year ago but were down over the week following decreases in conventional and FHA applications. The average loan size was $408,700, the smallest in a year, driven by lower average loan sizes across both conventional and government loan types.”
...
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($806,500 or less) decreased to 6.25 percent from 6.32 percent, with points decreasing to 0.57 from 0.59 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans.
emphasis added

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows the MBA mortgage purchase index.

According to the MBA, purchase activity is up 10% year-over-year unadjusted. 
Red is a four-week average (blue is weekly).  
Purchase application activity is still depressed, but solidly above the lows of 2023 and above the lowest levels during the housing bust.  

The second graph shows the refinance index since 1990.

The refinance index increased from the bottom as mortgage rates declined, but is down from the recent peak in September as rates moved sideways.

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Wednesday:
• At 7:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index. This will be two weeks of data.

• At 8:15 AM, The ADP Employment Report for December. This report is for private payrolls only (no government). The consensus is for 50,000, up from -32,000 jobs added in November.

• At 10:00 AM, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey for November from the BLS.

• At 10:00 AM, the ISM Services Index for December.

Appeals Court Agrees To Fast-Track Challenge To $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

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

A federal appeals court on Jan. 5 agreed to expedite a business group’s appeal of a court ruling that upheld the Trump administration’s decision to increase the fee for H-1B visas for employees in specialty occupations to $100,000.

A U.S. flag and a U.S. H-1B Visa application form, in this illustration taken Sept. 26, 2025. Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a ruling on Dec. 23, 2025, declining to block the fee increase. Howell also granted summary judgment in favor of the Trump administration.

The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in occupations that require “the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher in a directly related specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States,” according to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) web page.

Specialty occupations covered under the program include engineering, mathematics, architecture, medicine and health, education, law, and accounting.

Before the policy change, the fee ranged from $2,000 to $5,000, depending on the employer’s size.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal of Howell’s decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 29, 2025. They included the Chamber of Commerce—a business federation with about 300,000 direct members—and the Association of American Universities, which represents 69 U.S.-based research universities, both of which had sued to block the policy.

The plaintiffs said in a motion to expedite the case filed with the appeals court on Jan. 2 that a ‍speedy review was necessary to preserve employers’ rights ahead of the annual H-1B visa lottery scheduled to begin in March. The Trump administration did not oppose the quicker timeline.

On Jan. 5, the D.C. Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ motion to expedite the case.

The court agreed to ‌a schedule that would allow oral arguments in the case to move forward in February. The first round of briefs is due from the plaintiffs by Jan. 9.

President Donald Trump signed Proclamation 10973 on Sept. 19, requiring that the $100,000 fee be paid before employers’ petitions for new H-1B visas are processed.

“The large-scale replacement of American workers through systemic abuse of the program has undermined both our economic and national security,” the proclamation states.

“Some employers, using practices now widely adopted by entire sectors, have abused the H-1B statute and its regulations to artificially suppress wages, resulting in a disadvantageous labor market for American citizens, while at the same time making it more difficult to attract and retain the highest skilled subset of temporary workers, with the largest impact seen in critical science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.”

The number of H-1B visas issued annually is capped at 65,000, with an additional 20,000 for advanced U.S. degree holders.

California and 19 other states—including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois—are also suing the Trump administration over the higher H-1B visa fee.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Dec. 12 statement that the $100,000 visa fee “creates unnecessary—and illegal—financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced further changes to the H-1B visa process last month.

As of Feb. 27, 2026, the department will be implementing a “weighted selection process” intended to rein in the current random lottery system and prioritize higher-skilled and higher-paid foreign nationals.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a Dec. 23 statement that the current random selection process allowed U.S. employers to exploit the system by “flooding the selection pool with lower-skilled foreign workers paid at low wages, to the detriment of the American workforce.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 17:40

Two Caribbean Nations Agree To Accept Asylum Seekers From US

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Caribbean nations of Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda announced on Jan. 5 that they agreed to take in third-country nationals who entered the United States illegally.

An undated photograph of Rendezvous Bay, Antigua. Antigua and Barbuda Tourism Authority

Dominican Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said the island nation has entered into an “internal agreement” with the United States that would allow illegal immigrants to be deported to Dominica in cases where the individuals cannot be returned to their home countries due to safety concerns.

Dominica has been in talks with the United States following U.S. President Donald Trump’s Dec. 16, 2025, proclamation that imposed “partial restrictions and entry limitations” on its citizens.

“Dominica has been engaged in ongoing dialogue with the United States on matters of mutual interest, and an agreement has been reached on one of the primary areas of collaboration,” Skerrit said during a news conference.

Skerrit stated that during talks, the U.S. State Department acknowledged that no “violent individuals” or illegal immigrants who pose national security threats should be sent to Dominica.

The Dominican leader did not provide details on when the discussion with the State Department occurred and when transfers could occur.

Skerrit said the move would help to protect Dominican citizens’ access to “lawful travel, education, employment, and family connections” in the United States while also strengthening his nation’s cooperation with the U.S. government.

“I believe this will further deepen our longstanding relationship and signal clearly that Dominica remains a willing and reliable partner of the United States in our region,” he said.

Antigua and Barbuda officials said the country has signed a nonbinding memorandum of understanding proposed by the United States on the possible acceptance of “a very limited number” of third-country nationals, including refugees.

The United States has sought cooperation in transferring illegal immigrants who cannot be returned to their home countries due to safety reasons, according to Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister’s Office.

The government said under the memorandum of understanding that the island nation would not take in anyone with a criminal record and would only accept third-country nationals who are “already present in the United States” and have passed the necessary intelligence vetting and national security assessments.

The Caribbean nation, also listed in Trump’s Dec. 16, 2025, proclamation, said it has been in talks with U.S. officials to restore normal visa issuance and renewals for its citizens.

The U.S. State Department has not released a statement regarding the agreements and did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

The White House said in a fact sheet that Trump imposed visa restrictions on nationals from Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and several other countries, citing “severe deficiencies in screening, vetting, and information-sharing” needed to protect national security and public safety.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 17:00

Chris Wright Takes Venezuela Pitch To Oil Executives In Miami

The Trump administration is accelerating efforts to draw US oil companies into Venezuela, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright expected to hold discussions with industry leaders this week as Washington maps out plans to revive the country’s collapsed energy sector, according to Bloomberg.

Wright will be in Miami for the Goldman Sachs Energy, Clean Tech & Utilities Conference, a major industry gathering that will bring together executives from Chevron, ConocoPhillips and other producers. Chevron remains the only global oil supermajor maintaining operations inside Venezuela .

President Donald Trump is betting that American energy firms will ultimately anchor Venezuela’s recovery, but companies are signaling they won’t rush in without firm political and legal assurances. Years of corruption and neglect have severely damaged production, leaving infrastructure in need of massive long-term reinvestment.

Bloomberg writes that despite Venezuela holding the world’s largest proven crude reserves, experts estimate restoring its oil system would require approximately $10 billion in investment every year for the next decade.

Industry participants say interest in the country is real, but the recent removal of President Nicolás Maduro alone is not enough to unlock capital. Companies want clarity on whether a durable government will emerge, whether contracts and the rule of law will be respected, and whether US political support for their presence in Venezuela will extend beyond Trump’s term in office.

The White House has already engaged multiple energy companies in early-stage talks, according to a US official. Administration officials say the private sector is prepared to move when conditions stabilize.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 16:40

Neither A Hyperpower Nor A Fortress

Authored by R. Jordan Prescott via RealClearDefense,

In January 2017, Donald Trump stated America First would be the foundation of his administration's agenda.

America First defies easy explanation, primarily because its invocation is a declaration of opposition, a rebuttal to proponents of globalization or overseas intervention.

The first Trump National Security Strategy (NSS), issued in 2017, framed America First as a realist construct for responding to the growing political, economic, and military competition presented by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

The new 2025 NSS refines this construct by declaring the administration's commitment to the "continued survival and safety of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic."

Whereas administrations have been issuing such strategy documents since Congress established the mandate in 1986, the latest Trump Administration NSS is unique in its arrival eight years after its first term version in 2017. Given the rarity of presidents succeeding their successor, the likelihood another administration will have such an opportunity is low.

The question of what changed is easily answered by reviewing the history of the intervening Biden Administration's crises and failures. Nevertheless, China, Ukraine, and Israel were flashpoints in preceding administrations. Accordingly, what catalyzed the revision of America First from the focus on great power competition to the emphasis on sovereignty?

As the unipolar moment faded, the neoliberal and neoconservative duopoly comprising the foreign policy elite announced the advent of a multipolar system demarcated by antagonism between capitalist democracies—the United States and the European Union—and mercantilist autocracies—Russia and the People's Republic of China.

The perspective was persuasive because it was consistent with the history of the West in conflict with hostile ideologies and regimes—World War II against fascism, the Cold War against communism, and the global war on terrorism.

The elite proceeded by coordinating with European allies to expand regional institutions and isolate Russia while pivoting to East Asia to counter the PRC.

Nevertheless, the fact of a highly integrated global economy hindered these efforts. The Russian economy may have been one-dimensional but global demand for its oil and natural gas ensured its viability even when sanctioned. Finally, the PRC was the world economy's dominant manufacturing power and integral to global supply chains.

Trump pierced this framework during his first term by demanding European allies increase their contributions to NATO, pursuing rapprochement with Russia, and identifying the PRC as the country's main adversary. Notably, however, Trump sought not to contain the PRC but to decouple it from the American economy. In the aftermath of the "forever wars" he denounced on the campaign trail and the socioeconomic "carnage" he lamented in his inaugural address, the great power competition was to be an economic contest, not a military showdown.

By the end of his first term, Trump succeeded in reshaping the country's understanding of the challenge posed by the PRC. However, European allies generally resisted Trump's demands, domestic opposition hindered his attempt at détente with Russia, and the onset of the pandemic foreclosed any reconfiguration of the global economy.

The subsequent Biden Administration retained the adversarial posture vis-à-vis China but reinstituted its military component. Furthermore, the Biden Administration reverted to supporting Europe unconditionally and isolating Russia.

The subsequent crisis in Europe, however, revealed the defect in the false dichotomy of a world divided between capitalist democracies and mercantilist autocracies.

The elite's worldview overlooked another attribute differentiating the four poles—the readiness to interfere and intervene in other countries' affairs.

Europe possesses minimal capacity and is reliant on American military power; the PRC possesses an extensive military but espouses non-interference.

In stark contrast, the US and Russia have repeatedly intervened politically, economically, and militarily in other countries. The former possesses the world's most powerful military and intervenes globally given its myriad commitments abroad; the latter possesses Europe's most powerful military and intervenes locally given security concerns in its near abroad.

Before Trump, Russia had long warned expanding the alliance to include Ukraine would be a red line that would prompt a military response. Under Trump, the decades-long eastward expansion of NATO paused. After Trump, NATO again signaled its readiness to admit Ukraine.

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent its accession to NATO. Even though the invasion revealed significant shortcomings in Russia's military and Ukraine was not an ally, the Biden Administration and NATO allies mobilized as if it were.

Thus, the two states most prone to intervention faced off in Europe—America by virtue of its membership in an obsolete alliance and Russia over a nation it considered integral to its security. In the space of two years, the elite's flawed worldview led to the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II and a potential confrontation between the United States and Russia.

Ending the conflict and preventing a far more catastrophic one in East Asia, would require a transformation of foreign policy premised on sovereignty and autonomy, not interdependence and obligations.

Upon Trump’s return to office, an America First predicated on sovereignty became manifest.

Trump immediately reiterated demands that the European allies not only increase their NATO contributions but enhance their military capabilities as well. Similarly, the administration actively re-engaged Russia on how to end the war in Ukraine. Lastly, Trump augmented his bid to decouple from China, and global supply chains by extension, by imposing tariffs extensively.

The new NSS ratifies this continuity and outlines the application of the sovereignty prism around the world. Discarding worldviews predicated on regime types and economic systems and civilizational clashes, America First exorcises the impetus to intervention. Americans need no longer worry their government will send their blood or treasure overseas for some think tank fever dream.

If the NSS is kinder to America's enemies more than its friends, it is because sovereignty as a criterion reveals how relative it is in the modern world.

Post-Westphalian Europe has been brought low by its dependence on America. The purported threat from Russia has not stirred Europeans from their debellicized state. Furthermore, the great nations of Europe are no longer bearing children nor willing to work longer. Indeed, underappreciated is how much both the US and Russia desire the revitalization of Europe.

Pre-Westphalian territories dotting the continents are beset by anarchy, tribalism, violence, criminality, militancy, jihadism, and nihilism – and their inhabitants are relentlessly breaching the borders of other sovereign states.

Westphalian peers like the PRC, Russia, the Gulf monarchies, and rebounding Latin American countries all practice "flexible realism," seeking good relations and peaceful commercial relations without imposing change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. And now, with a strategy focused solely on core vital national interests, America will no longer undertake regime change.

In 2017, the terms security and sovereignty appear in the strategy 117 and 13 times, respectively; in 2025, the count is 34 and 21. The 2025 National Security Strategy is neither a suicide note nor a blueprint for autarky. The elite's version of security severely compromised America's sovereignty. The elite will lament the passing of a hyperpower and allege the erection of a fortress, but the American people will find peace and prosperity in reasserted sovereignty.

As one commentator concluded, the elite worldview secures an order, America First secures a people.

At the inception of American sovereignty, the Founding Fathers warned against entangling alliances and a military evolving into another branch of government; in the modern day, America First will ensure the Republic is a safe and durable platform from which Americans can scan the horizon and confidently tackle the challenges of a new century.

R. Jordan Prescott is a private contractor working in defense and national security since 2002. He has been published in The American Conservative, The National Interest, Small Wars Journal, Modern War Institute, 19fortyfive, Responsible Statecraft, and RealClearDefense.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 16:20

"Are You Not Entertained?" Democrats Announce New Impeachment Games To Draw Midterm Voters

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Are You Not Entertained?”

With the country’s economy improving and other issues losing traction with the public, Democrats are increasingly turning to the one thing lacking in Washington: impeachments.

As they work to take back the House in the midterms, Democrats are again promising voters the equivalent of the Roman Games by restarting impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. For many liberal voters, impeachments are the thrilling cage matches of lawfare.

Facing a challenger on the left in New York, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., was the latest to dangle impeachment before his constituents. He insisted that Trump can be removed for his capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

The same people who introduced what I called an abusive “snap impeachment” against Trump are now suggesting that he can be impeached for an act that was previously upheld as lawful in the courts.

According to Goldman, the attack constitutes an undeclared war and is thus impeachable.

The professed shock over the attack is nothing short of comical from leaders who said nothing when Democratic presidents engaged in such attacks.

There were no widespread calls for impeachment when Clinton attacked Bosnia or Obama attacked Libya. In the latter case, I represented a few members to challenge the undeclared war in Libya. Obama (like Trump) dismissed any need to get congressional approval in attacking the capital city of a foreign nation and military sites to force regime change. Figures like then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lionized for their tough action in Libya.

Democratic members have combined a lack of memory with an equally startling lack of knowledge. Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) declared on national television that “the Constitution does not give the President the right to initiate military action.” It is, of course, entirely untrue.

Presidents cannot declare war under the Constitution, but they can certainly order the use of military forces without such a declaration. Kaine did not appear aggrieved when Democratic presidents repeatedly and routinely attacked foreign targets without prior congressional consultation, let alone approval. That includes President Barack Obama killing an American citizen who was not charged with any crime in a drone attack under his “kill list policy.”

Moreover, House and Senate Democrats have stated that they either support or do not object to the capture.

I have long opposed undeclared wars and such unilateral actions. However, as a legal analyst, I am asked whether a president has the legal authority under governing case law to carry out operations. Trump has that authority. We lost the Libyan case and other challenges to such unilateral action have also failed.

This includes the litigation surrounding the capture and prosecution of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. That also involved an attack on a foreign country. Indeed, it was a larger military operation that took days in the country to capture Noriega, followed by a regime change.

Noriega raised the same international and U.S. authorities being cited today by pundits and lost across the board. In appeals that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Noriega lost on his head-of-state immunity and other claims.

If there are grounds for such claims, Maduro is even less credible in making them. Roughly 50 countries refused to recognize him as the head of Venezuela after he lost the last election and seized control of the country. While he proclaimed in court this week that “I am still president of my country,” he has about the same claim to that office as Rep. Goldman.

There are good-faith objections to such military attacks on foreign countries under international law. This is a claim that other nations, such as China or Russia, could use to justify their own actions. However, this is a matter that will be resolved under U.S. law. While Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum declared that the action violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, it will be Article II of the United States Constitution that will dictate the outcome of this case.

Now, back to the impeachment games...

Goldman and others are suggesting that they will impeach President Trump for a capture that is virtually identical to the one in Noriega and declared lawful by the courts. Even putting aside the criminal prosecution, they would impeach him for attacks that are legally no different from those carried out by a long list of presidents, including Democratic presidents in the last two decades.

Neither history nor the Constitution matters in the impeachment games.

In the movie Gladiator, Emperor Commodus noted to the game organizer that the recreation of the Battle of Carthage seemed to get the conclusion wrong when the barbarians won: “My history’s a little hazy Cassius, but shouldn’t the Barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?”

He then said that it did not matter.

After all, these are the games and “I rather enjoy surprises.”

The impulsive use of impeachment is about good entertainment, not good government.

For politicians fighting to stay in power like Goldman, a flash impeachment is the same call to the mob.

To paraphrase, Senator Gracchus from the movie “I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the Mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. … The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate, it’s the sand of the Colosseum. He’ll bring them [impeachments], and they will love him for it.”

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 15:45

AI Expansion Highlights Dangers Of America's Aging Power Grid

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

America’s artificial intelligence (AI) boom is colliding with an older, slower-moving entity: the nation’s aging electrical grid.

An architectural rendering of Fermi America’s proposed 5,770-acre data center complex near Amarillo, Texas, illustrates its plans for 18 million-square-feet of AI data center development fueled by “the largest nuclear power complex in America” supported by “the nation's biggest combined-cycle natural gas project, solar power, and battery storage.” Fermi America

From Virginia’s data-center corridor to multi-state electricity markets, analysts, government agencies, and AI insiders say the scramble to handle technology’s expanding power demands will be an uphill battle.

At the same time, big tech companies and data centers are working to reduce the impact of AI’s expansion on the United States’ grid infrastructure. Some experts believe changes and significant investment are needed to reduce grid stress and possible energy shortages.

A primary driver of this concern is the explosion in data centers being built across the United States to support rapid AI buildout. In 2024, energy consumption reached an all-time high, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency expects 2025 and 2026 consumption to be even higher.

Presently, energy demands from data centers account for about 4 percent of electricity use in the United States and 1.5 percent of the world’s electricity use, EIA data show.

Although AI’s current computing needs represent just a fraction of total energy consumption, the rate of growth has raised the question of whether the United States’ energy infrastructure can keep up.

A significant portion of America’s power grid network dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, according to the Department of Energy. As of 2023, the agency observed that 70 percent of transmission lines were more than 25 years old and nearing the end of their lifecycles.

“This has major consequences on our communities: power outages, susceptibility to cyberattacks, or community emergencies caused by faulty grid infrastructure,” the agency stated.

And that’s without any added energy demands.

The Energy Department’s Grid Deployment Office has awarded $14.5 billion in grants to improve electrical infrastructure, according to Bank of America research, which also indicates that an additional $36.9 billion in private sector investments to U.S. grid upgrades have been made over the past couple of years.

The Bank of America analysis noted the United States is going through a period of power “load growth” primarily driven by building electrification, data centers, industrial demand, and the rise of electric vehicles (EVs).

“If load growth forecasts continue to rise, utilities will need to invest to meet required reserve margins and increase spending on both power generation and transmission and distribution capacity,” the July report said.

Perfect Storm

Even after two years of modernization efforts, the U.S. power grid network remains in a race to continue upgrading while consumption demand surges. Due to data center growth, researchers at S&P Global expect power grid requirements to increase 22 percent by the end of this year and nearly three times by 2030.

“People keep saying the lack of chips is the problem, and it’s not. It’s a lack of power,” Tyler Saltsman, CEO of Seattle-based EdgeRunner AI, told The Epoch Times.

Part of the conversation surrounding unsustainable AI growth in recent months homes in on structural shifts in support sectors.

An AI chip made by Tongfu Microelectronics is displayed during the World Semiconductor Congress in Nanjing, China, on July 19, 2023. STR/AFP via Getty Images

A Rand Technology analysis called graphics processing units, high-performance memory, and networking integrated circuits the “bedrock of AI infrastructure.” The demand for these components is rising faster than suppliers can deliver.

However, Saltsman believes a shortage of microchips is moot if the power grid can’t support AI’s rapid buildout.

Working at the intersection of AI and energy, Saltsman’s company has three active research and development contracts with the U.S. military. From his perspective, alarm over AI and U.S. energy infrastructure isn’t overstated.

“If anything, it’s downplayed. Our grid is pretty fried ... nationwide, you see a lot of lazy [maintenance] practices,” Saltsman said.

While he hasn’t encountered any power-related issues while working on the front lines of AI, Saltsman said he expects to if data center growth continues at the current rate.

“We can make chips much faster than we can make power,” he added.

When asked what could be done to safeguard U.S. power grids, Saltsman said, “We need to commit to building nuclear reactors, and we need to do it now, but that isn’t a quick fix.”

On average, a nuclear power plant takes more than five years to build, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Meanwhile, some energy experts believe concerns over AI and power demands are legitimate, but aren’t being framed correctly.

“The risk isn’t that AI will ‘break’ the U.S. grid, rather the risk is that outdated planning, cost-allocation rules, and inflexible load assumptions will force inefficient solutions like emergency peakers or deferred retirements despite smarter and cleaner alternatives that exist,” Gaurav Shah, managing partner at Trident Renewables, told The Epoch Times.

Emergency peakers are peak demand power plants that act as quick-start power generators that supply electricity to a grid during times of unexpectedly high demand. Incidents such as extreme weather events or power failures from other sources are often the impetus for their use.

Despite the relatively small portion of America’s total electricity consumption for which AI is responsible, energy demand growth has been enough to require the use of peaker plants.

Peaker plants contribute about 3 percent to the country’s electricity use, but have the capacity to produce 19 percent, according to a 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office.

“There are a ton of peaker plants that could operate more,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Reuters in an interview in September.

Shah has spent nearly 20 years working with U.S. energy infrastructure, including renewable energy, grid-connected assets, fuel transition projects, and, most recently, AI-linked energy strategy.

“This is a governance and market-design challenge more than a physics problem,” he said.

“The grid struggles with concentrated AI clusters in places like Northern Virginia, Texas, and parts of the Southeast,not because power doesn’t exist but because deliverability, redundancy, and timing don’t align,” Shah explained.

“Reforms like faster permitting for transmission upgrades and incentives for siting data centers near retiring industrial sites with existing grid headroom are much needed,” he said. “Without reforms, we are likely to see higher costs, delayed retirements of older plants, and localized reliability stress.”

“With the increase in EVs, it’s a perfect storm of factors,” Saltsman said.

High voltage power lines run along the electrical power grid in West Palm Beach, Fla., on May 16, 2024. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

He believes AI has the potential to be dangerous for U.S. electrical infrastructure. With the power grids already stressed and in need of upgrades, sudden surges in power loads—or even a rogue AI agent—could tip the scales for the worse.

“If you were to attack our power grid, you could potentially bring this country to its knees,” Saltsman said.

Regional Challenges

Shah said AI’s energy footprint is “hyperlocal,” and power grids will likely fail locally, not nationally.

He said a 100 megawatt data center in a congested area can cause more stress than 1 gigawatt of overall national growth in power demand.

Energy grids in the United States are broken down into different sections instead of a seamless power supply. Most of these subgrids are part of the Eastern Interconnection, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), or the Western Interconnection.

The Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) Interconnection serves what’s known as “data center alley” in Virginia, which is currently experiencing unprecedented data center growth alongside soaring energy demands, according to PJM Inside Lines.

Officials for the PJM Interconnection warned that an energy capacity shortage could affect its systems as early as June 2026.

“The demand for electricity is growing at the fastest pace in years, primarily from the proliferation of data centers, electrification of buildings and vehicles, and manufacturing,” the agency stated.

“Regions like ERCOT and PJM face different challenges. Texas has generation but not transmission constraints. The Northeast has aging infrastructure and limited siting options. AI load growth is geographically concentrated, capital-intensive, and fast,” Shah explained.

“National averages hide the fact that a single county can suddenly need the equivalent of a mid-sized city’s power demand. Planning frameworks were not built for this,” he said.

Big tech companies are well aware they’re in the hot seat when it comes to data center energy consumption, which is why many are rapidly adopting more energy-efficient practices to reduce their load demands. Companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are among the top purchasers of renewable energy, which amounted to nearly as much as the entire state of Florida last year, according to an annual report by the American Clean Power Association.

Major players in tech are investing in multiple strategies to blunt the impact of data center-related power demand spikes, including energy-efficient hardware, advanced cooling systems, and power management systems, according to NZero and Flexential.

Saltsman said with the current rate of AI expansion, it’s “not going to be a pretty sight … unless you also plan to build a power plant in that same area.”

“We need a unified plan on modernizing the grid,” he said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 15:05

Colombian President Says He Will 'Take Up Arms' If US Military Attacks

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Colombian President Gustavo Petro said Monday he will “take up arms again” if attacked, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that drug traffickers in Colombia could be the next target for the U.S. military.

(Left) President Donald Trump in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025. (Right) Colombian President Gustavo Petro in Rio de Janeiro on Nov. 19, 2024. Jim Watson, Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images

After hours of silence, Petro accused U.S. Secretary Marco Rubio in an early morning post on X of believing “false information against the state” from several intelligence colonels in the Colombian police, whom he said he has since fired.

He said the alleged lies about him came from Colombian politicians linked “to the mafia” who “want the US and Colombia to break off relations so that cocaine trafficking skyrockets worldwide.”

In September, the U.S. State Department determined that Colombia was one of a handful of countries that served as a major drug transit or production hub.

“Under President Petro’s leadership, coca cultivation and cocaine production have reached record highs, while Colombia’s government failed to meet even its own vastly reduced coca eradication goals, undermining years of mutually beneficial cooperation between our two countries against narco terrorists,” the State Department said.

Columbia’s security institutions and local authorities showed “skill and courage” in confronting terrorist and criminal groups, the department said, adding that the nation’s failure to meet its drug control obligations rests with its political leadership.

Petro denied all allegations of drug trafficking and corruption, while defending his government’s approach to fighting narcotraffickers and opposing military action that he said would put civilians at risk.

“I have ordered bombings, respecting all norms of humanitarian law, resulting in the deaths and capture of top commanders of armed groups subservient to drug trafficking,” he said of coca leaf plantations that serve as the world’s primary source for cocaine production.

“Their tactics include recruiting minors to protect their leaders from being bombed.

“If you bomb just one of these groups without sufficient intelligence, you will kill many children.

“If you bomb peasants, thousands of guerrillas will rise up in the mountains.”

He then said if the U.S. military targets him, as it did with ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, “a large part of my people love and respect, they will unleash the people’s jaguar.”

“I swore never to touch another weapon after the 1989 Peace Agreement, but for the sake of my country, I will take up arms again, weapons I don’t want.”

After defending his record and election by popular vote, Petro said, “I’m not illegitimate, nor am I a drug trafficker.”

“I have enormous faith in my people, and that is why I have asked them to defend the president against any illegitimate act of violence,” he said.

“The way to defend me is to take power in every municipality in the country.”

Colombian soldiers patrol an illegal trail on the Colombia–Venezuela border, near Cucuta, Norte de Santander Department, Colombia, on Dec. 12, 2025. Schneyder Mendoza/AFP via Getty Images

Trump hinted at possible actions against Colombia on Sunday, warning the country and Mexico that their drug traffickers could face U.S. military intervention.

“Colombia is very sick too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

“And he’s not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you.”

In December, Trump issued a warning to Petro to curb Colombia’s cocaine production.

Last fall, the Trump administration sanctioned Petro for failing to curb drug trafficking through his country.

Petro denied the claim, saying his administration had made record-setting cocaine seizures.

Amid the recent drug boat strikes by the United States in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, Petro said that a majority of the people killed were Colombian.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 14:25

Enemies Not Allowed To Control Large Oil Reserves: US Ambassador To United Nations

Via Middle East Eye

The US ambassador to the United Nations on Monday said that enemies of his country cannot be allowed to control vast oil reserves, such as the ones in Venezuela under President Nicolas Maduro.

Mike Waltz spoke less than two hours before Maduro made his first court appearance, not far from UN headquarters in Manhattan. Maduro is charged with narco-trafficking, among other charges, and has pleaded not guilty. "We're not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be used as a base of operation for our nation's adversaries," Waltz said. "You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States, under the control of illegitimate leaders, and not benefiting the people of Venezuela."

He insisted, however, that despite the US president himself saying that his administration will be "running" Venezuela, the US will not be "occupying" the Latin American nation. "There is no war against Venezuela or its people," Waltz told the UN Security Council (UNSC). "We are not occupying a country." 

US ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, via Reuters

US President Nicolas Maduro entered a not guilty plea in a federal courthouse in New York City on Monday, following his abduction by the US in the early hours of Saturday morning. 

US attorney general Pam Bondi said Maduro has been charged with "Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States". 

A federal grand jury returned an indictment against him and his wife, Cilia Flores, in 2020, under the first Trump administration. Five other defendants were named in the document, but not Flores. 

Bondi has since shared an unsealed indictment that charges Flores and the couple's son, who was not abducted with them, with trafficking drugs. Flores is also accused of ordering kidnappings and murders, and accepting bribes.

In the US, an unsealed indictment is effectively the withholding of formal criminal charges until the suspects have appeared in court. On Monday, Flores also appeared in court next to her husband and pleaded not guilty. 

Maduro's stunning abduction from Venezuela by US forces in the early hours of Saturday has been condemned by allies Russia and China, both of which are among the five permanent and veto-wielding members of the UNSC. 

But the US also has that power, meaning there will likely be no accountability at the UN for its actions. The body's secretary general, Antonio Guterres, has already said he fears there may have been a violation of international law in abducting a head of state from a sovereign country.

UN member states must "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state", the body's charter says. 

A statement from Guterres on Monday, read by UN political affairs chief Rosemary DiCarlo to the UNSC, said he is "deeply concerned about the possible intensification of instability in [Venezuela], the potential impact on the region, and the precedent it may set for how relations between and among states are conducted". 

He added that the UN will support all efforts at dialogue between the US and Venezuela. For his part, Venezuela's ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, said the abduction was "an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification".

The death count from the US attack on Venezuela has risen to 80, including civilians and members of security forces, according to a senior Venezuelan official who said the number could rise further, The New York Times reported on Monday. 

The Trump admin's talking points on what was behind the Venezuela intervention have been shifting...

Pete Hegesth, "We spent decades, purchased in American blood and got nothing economically in return"

"Now we can ensure we can access to additional wealth"

In case you had any doubt, it's all about oil pic.twitter.com/cac90Iid8x

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) January 5, 2026

US special forces abducted Venezuela's president from the capital, Caracas, early on Saturday, as American fighter jets bombed key military installations and bases across the country. Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, said the US seizure of Maduro had "Zionist undertones". 

Rodriguez, who served as Maduro's vice president, has been appointed by the Supreme Court to lead the country on an interim basis.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 13:45

Trump Admin Expands Massive Funding Cuts To Blue States Amid Widening Fraud Scandal

The Trump administration has taken decisive action against rampant welfare fraud beyond Minnesota, escalating a long-overdue reckoning for lax oversight under Democrat governance.

Following explosive revelations of massive fraud schemes - many tied to the state's Somali immigrant community - the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not only frozen federal child care payments to Minnesota, but has slashed funding allocated for social services and child care for multiple blue states, affecting programs such as the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Social Services Block Grant, the New York Post revealed Monday.

The Post reports:

At least $7.35 billion in TANF money will be prevented from going to California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. The CCDF funding block of nearly $2.4 billion affects all those states. Another $869 million from the Social Services Block Grant coffers is being kept from all five states as well. The funding pauses were to be announced via letters to each state sent Monday, citing concerns that benefits were fraudulently going to non-US citizens.

The move comes amid the continuing fallout from viral video by citizen reporter Nick Shirley, who documented dozens of purported child care facilities in Minneapolis that appeared empty or minimally operated yet received millions in taxpayer subsidies.

Last week, HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill announced the freeze on payments from the Child Care and Development Fund, declaring that future disbursements would require receipts, photos, and justifications to prevent abuse. Minnesota, which receives roughly $218 million annually for its Child Care Assistance Program serving low-income families, now faces heightened scrutiny, including demands for audits of suspect centers.

The Trump administration’s actions aim to address a broader crisis that has ballooned under Gov. Tim Walz’s (D) administration, encompassing the Feeding Our Future scandal - where over $250 million in COVID-era child nutrition funds were allegedly misused.

A bombshell report by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo and journalist Ryan Thorpe alleged that some diverted funds were transferred abroad - potentially reaching the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Al-Shabaab. The shocking report outlined how perpetrators allegedly diverted at least $250 million to $300 million by claiming to serve millions of children while delivering few or no meals. By late 2025, more than 70 individuals had been charged, with dozens convicted or pleading guilty; many were Somali-Americans. The funds were said to have been used for personal gains, including luxury vehicles and properties in the United States, Turkey, and Kenya.

In a stunning development Monday, Walz announced he would not seek re-election in 2026, citing the need to focus on governance (lol) amid the intensifying scandal that has eroded public trust and drawn fierce criticism of his oversight.

"I've decided to step out of the race and let others worry about the election while I focus on the work," Walz said, insisting his administration has cracked down on fraud but accusing opponents of politicizing the issue to "make our state a colder, meaner place.”

Walz’s decision to forgo another bid for governor represents a major scalp for Rufo, Shirley and independent journalism at large.

We bet it’s only a matter of time until another shoe drops. Will it be in California?

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 13:25

The BEA reported that light vehicle sales were at 16.0 million in December on a seasonally adjusted annual basis (SAAR). This was up 1.9% from the sales rate in November, and down 4.9% from December 2024.

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows light vehicle sales since 2006 from the BEA (blue) through December.
Vehicle sales were over 17 million SAAR in March and April as consumers rushed to "beat the tariffs".
Then sales were depressed in May and June. 
Sales were boosted in August and September due to the termination of the EV credit at the end of September.

The second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.

Sales in Decvember were slightly above the consensus forecast.
Light vehicle sales were up 2.4% in 2025 compared to 2024.

Stephen Miller Asserts US Has Right To Take Greenland, & Wouldn't Even Have To Fight For It

Stephen Miller, one of President Trump's top aides who serves as his deputy chief of staff for policy, just poured more fuel on the fire in terms of the ongoing spat with Denmark over the future of Greenland and sovereignty.

He said in fresh remarks that there won't be any military intervention to take the Arctic territory as simply "nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland." More importantly he spelled out the US administration's view that Denmark fundamentally does not have a right to the resource-rich Arctic territory.

Miller was asked by reporters on whether Trump might 'invade' Greenland next, after this weekend's 'shock' Venezuela action. "What do you mean military action against Greenland? Greenland has a population of 30,000 people," he began his response.

Getty Images

"The real question is what right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?" Miller then questioned.

And he added: "The US is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US. And so that’s a conversation that we’re going to have as a country. That’s a process we’re going to have as a community of nations."

Despite the somewhat absurd diplomatic circus surrounding the Greenland question, which has of course remained highly entertaining, Miller has an indisputable point on his NATO comment. If Washington were to ever pull out of NATO, the military alliance would simply become one only on paper - akin to a mere 'EU Army'.

Denmark's foreign policy committee is meanwhile Tuesday evening having an emergency session to try and figure out how to handle the growing diplomatic showdown with the Trump administration. According to more background and context related to the latest:

The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, responded on Monday by saying that an attack by the US on a Nato ally would mean the end of the military alliance and “post-second world war security”. It would, she warned, mark the end of “everything”.

Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, also made a strong statement in which he urged Trump to give up his “fantasies about annexation” and accused the US of “completely and utterly unacceptable” rhetoric. “Enough is enough,” he said.

Miller’s comments about Greenland came after his wife, the rightwing podcaster Katie Miller, posted a map on X of Greenland draped in a US flag with the caption “SOON” hours after the military operation in Venezuela.

Stephen Miller was later asked about this, to which he explained: "It has been the formal position of the US government since the beginning of this administration, frankly going back into the previous Trump administration, that Greenland should be part of the US. The president has been very clear about that."

Trump's Greenland rhetoric currently does appear more than just about bombastic social media claims, memes or mocking Europe - as there's currently said to be real, high level admin discussions:

According to two people familiar with private high-level discussions and granted anonymity to share their details, the White House has shown little interest in an overture last year from Denmark’s prime minister offering the U.S. the option to increase its military presence in Greenland, where it already operates a base and has long deployed troops at liberty.

“The option of more U.S. military presence has been on the table,” said one of the people, a European defense official. “The White House is not interested.”

The second person, an American in frequent contact with the administration and European officials, said that most of what Trump says he wants out of Greenland — access to investment resources like critical minerals, more troops and military bases, better intelligence sharing — could be easily accomplished by negotiating directly with Denmark, a steadfast ally.

Greenland - As viewed from a proper map

Why Greenland? Well because Moscow bases almost all of their strategic military assets on the Kola Peninsula next to Finland. This is where the Russian ICBM silos, submarine bases, and their strategic bombers are.

If you look at the… pic.twitter.com/z6qECCJ3u5

— Object Zero (@Object_Zero_) January 6, 2026

Europe is (as expected) immediately coming to Denmark's defense:

Six European allies have rallied to support Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland.

"Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark said in a joint statement.

On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons.

Meanwhile fresh commentary by Rabobank has some creative ideas that the administration might want to take up, such as providing every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country, which they would likely find very attractive.

That fresh Rabobank commentary and thought experiment is re-presented in the below:

* * *

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine applied to Central and South America, but its geographic boundaries were never explicitly defined. The Trump Administration, however, may be getting creative with borders, suggesting the Doctrine could soon extend to Greenland (which is still technically in the Western Hemisphere).
Greenland first surfaced as a talking point during Trump’s campaign. This has re-emerged over the weekend with Trump announcing that the U.S. “need[s] Greenland from a national security situation,” and that “we will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.” What exactly we’ll be talking about when it comes to Greenland is not yet clear, but Denmark—and the EU—is taking this as a threat.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that “if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister had some strong words for the Trump Administration, but seemed open to negotiations. “No more pressure,” he said, “No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law.”

While an outright U.S. military takeover seems unlikely, diplomatic maneuvering is another matter. Trump’s approach to Statecraft has often been described as “too much stick, not enough carrot.” In the case of Greenland, we may see a bit more carrot. Still, with a population of only around 50,000, one might imagine a thought experiment where, for the low, low price of $50 billion, the U.S. offers every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country. That might prove more attractive.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 12:45

Washington Post Won't Say Why Trust In Vaccines Is Gone

Authored by Roger Bate via the Brownstone Institute,

The Washington Post recently published a detailed investigation showing that childhood vaccination rates across the United States are falling sharply, particularly for measles. Fewer counties now meet the 95 percent coverage level commonly associated with herd immunity, and millions of children attend schools in communities below that threshold. 

On the basics, it’s true that routine childhood measles shots are among the most effective measures for keeping that particular infection at bay. But the Post’s analysis fails where it matters most: it cannot explain why trust has collapsed so broadly, so persistently, and so rationally for many ordinary people.

Instead, readers are offered a familiar diagnosis. Distrust of authorities. Political polarization. Misinformation. Backlash against mandates. All of this is curiously detached from responsibility. The article describes the consequences of distrust without confronting its causes.

That omission is not accidental. It reflects a broader unwillingness among elite media and public health institutions to reckon honestly with Covid-era failures. And without that reckoning, efforts to restore vaccine confidence are unlikely to succeed.

This is not an argument against vaccines. It is an argument about credibility.

During the Covid-19 period, public health authorities repeatedly overstated certainty, minimized uncertainty, and treated legitimate scientific disagreement as a threat rather than a feature of good science. 

Claims about vaccines preventing infection and transmission were presented as settled fact, not evolving hypotheses. When those claims weakened or collapsed under new evidence, they were revised quietly, without acknowledgment of error.

The same pattern appeared across other policies: masking, school closures, natural immunity, and population-level risk. Positions shifted, sometimes dramatically, but rarely with public explanation. The message conveyed—intentionally or not—was that narrative management mattered more than transparency.

This mattered because trust is cumulative. People do not evaluate each public health recommendation in isolation. They judge institutions based on patterns of behavior over time. When authorities insist they were always right, even when claims visibly change, credibility erodes.

Worse, dissent was often suppressed rather than debated. Scientists and clinicians who questioned prevailing policies—on lockdowns, school closures, or mandates—were frequently labeled as misinformation spreaders rather than engaged on the merits. Government coordination with social media platforms blurred the line between combating falsehoods and policing debate. Once that line is crossed, institutional trust does not merely decline—it inverts.

None of this requires assuming bad faith. Emergencies are hard. Decisions were made under pressure. But good faith does not excuse overstatement, nor does difficulty justify refusing retrospective evaluation.

The result of this approach is now visible in the data the Washington Post reports—but does not explain.

Evidence from Pennsylvania illustrates the point. Montgomery County, a large, affluent, highly educated Philadelphia suburb, has historically had strong vaccination uptake and robust healthcare access. It is not a place easily dismissed as anti-science or anti-medicine.

Yet my physician survey research conducted in the county during and after the pandemic tells a different story. Clinicians reported that while initial Covid vaccine uptake was high in 2021, acceptance declined sharply over time, particularly for boosters. More importantly, many physicians observed a spillover effect: growing hesitancy not only toward Covid vaccines, but toward other vaccines as well.

Patients were not primarily citing technical fears about vaccine safety. They were expressing distrust of public health authorities. They referenced shifting claims, perceived exaggeration, and the absence of acknowledgment of error. Named figures—most notably Dr. Anthony Fauci—were mentioned not as sources of reassurance, but as symbols of lost credibility.

Ongoing follow-up work in Montgomery County suggests this dynamic is not fading. Hesitancy appears to be hardening, increasingly framed not as uncertainty about specific vaccines, but as refusal to rely on institutions that have never conducted a transparent review of their pandemic performance. The absence of any meaningful Covid audit is frequently cited as a reason for continued distrust.

The Washington Post notes “distrust of authorities” but treats it as a sociological condition rather than a consequence of institutional behavior. That framing is convenient, but it is incomplete. Distrust did not emerge from nowhere. It was earned.

This matters for policy because different causes demand different solutions. If vaccine hesitancy were primarily driven by ignorance about vaccine science, then more education and clearer messaging might suffice. But when hesitancy is rooted in governance failure—overconfidence, suppression of debate, refusal to acknowledge mistakes—messaging alone will not work. In fact, it may backfire.

What is missing is accountability—not punishment, not jail, not tribunals—but acknowledgment.

In every other domain of public life, major failures are followed by audits. Financial crises, industrial accidents, intelligence breakdowns, transportation disasters—all prompt formal reviews aimed at understanding what went wrong and how to do better. These processes are not about retribution. They are about restoring confidence that institutions can learn.

Covid has been the exception.

There has been no comprehensive, independent, and transparent review of pandemic decision-making in the United States. Agencies have issued self-assessments, but these emphasize difficulty rather than error. Senior officials rarely concede specific mistakes. Media coverage largely treats criticism as politically motivated rather than analytically serious.

The result is a lingering credibility deficit. Each new public health recommendation—whether about boosters, childhood vaccines, or unrelated interventions—is filtered through the unresolved memory of Covid. People are not asking whether measles vaccines worked in 1965. They are asking whether they can trust institutions that refuse to reflect honestly on 2020–2022.

The Washington Post is right to warn about falling vaccination rates. But by refusing to confront the institutional roots of distrust, it is not part of the solution. It documents the smoke while declining to examine the fire.

Measles immunity matters. But so should elite misinformation, overstatement, and institutional defensiveness.

Until public health authorities—and the media that defend them—are willing to acknowledge Covid-era failures openly, trust will not be restored. And without trust, even the best vaccines will struggle to achieve the coverage they deserve.

The problem is not that science failed. It is that institutions have not yet admitted where they did.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 12:25

Cuba's Security-State Colonization In Americas, Proven By Delta Force Killing 32 Intel Agents Surrounding Maduro

Submitted by The Bureau's Michael Lima,

For years, the Cuban regime has insisted that its presence in Venezuela was benign—limited to doctors, nurses, and sports trainers offering humanitarian solidarity. The deaths of 32 Cuban military and intelligence personnel while defending Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro have now shattered that fiction.

As early as March 2019, Cuba’s ambassador to Canada, Josefina Vidal, appeared on CBC News to denounce Canadian reporting on Cuba’s security intervention in Venezuela. She dismissed the claims outright: “The assertion that thousands of Cubans would allegedly be inserted into the structures of the armed and security forces of Venezuela, supporting the government of (legitimate) President Nicolás Maduro, is a scandalous slander,” she said, demanding proof.

Today, that proof is unmistakable. These men did not die treating patients or coaching athletes. They were killed as part of Maduro’s inner security ring, exposing Cuba’s central role in exporting its intelligence and repression model to keep authoritarian allies in power.

The Cuban Embassy in the United States honored, in an emotional gathering, the memory of the 32 Cubans who recently died in Venezuela and condemned the blatant violation of all norms of international law by the US government, which is exerting its imperial power over our America. pic.twitter.com/msX6PyMiP6

— Cuban Embassy in US (@EmbaCubaUS) January 6, 2026

This reality did not emerge overnight. Cuban-Venezuelan security cooperation dates back at least to 2008, when both regimes signed agreements granting Havana extraordinary influence over Venezuela’s armed forces and intelligence services. Under these accords, Cuba trained Venezuelan soldiers, restructured key military units, trained intelligence agents in Havana, and—most consequentially—reoriented Venezuela’s intelligence apparatus away from external threats and toward surveilling its own officers and commanders. This transformation proved vital to regime survival, allowing it to neutralize internal dissent and consolidate power for more than two decades.

That architecture of control became fully visible on January 3, 2026, during Operation Absolute Resolve, a U.S. military operation carried out by Delta Force and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment that resulted in the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their transfer to the United States. On January 5, Maduro appeared in federal court in New York to face a four-count indictment accusing him of leading a 25-year narco-terrorism conspiracy.

During the operation, 32 Cuban operatives from the Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior were killed while defending Maduro. Their deaths were not denied by Havana. On the contrary, the Cuban government confirmed both the casualties and their military ranks in Presidential Decree No. 1147, signed by Miguel Díaz-Canel, which also declared two days of national mourning. The decree amounted to an extraordinary admission: Cuban state forces were embedded at the highest levels of Venezuela’s security apparatus.

Those who talk about respecting sovereignty and international law in #Venezuela should explain why 32 of the 40 casualties of the US operation were Cuban thugs protecting #Maduro.#Cuba is the one that steals Venezuelan oil and violates international law and human rights. pic.twitter.com/UgzTYIlOhj

— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) January 6, 2026

Although the Cuban regime did not officially disclose their names, the independent Cuban outlet 14ymedio identified six of the deceased, along with their ranks and provinces of origin, using social media posts, private messages, and partial confirmations from local authorities. Most were from eastern Cuba, particularly Granma and Santiago de Cuba. Among them were Fernando Báez Hidalgo, 26, linked to the Interior Ministry’s Personal Security Directorate; Landy Osoria López, a State Security operative deployed in Caracas; and Yordenis Marlonis, reportedly part of the Venezuelan president’s direct protection detail.

Others appeared to belong to the Avispas Negras (Black Wasps), an Interior Ministry unit sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for violently suppressing the July 11, 2021 pro-democracy protests. At least one of those killed was identified as a cryptographer.

The extent of this penetration was underscored days later by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated that Maduro’s entire security structure was effectively controlled by Cubans—those who guarded him, those who monitored loyalty within the regime, and those who kept him insulated from his own people. The implication was unmistakable: Venezuela had not merely allied with Cuba; it had been colonized by Cuban intelligence.

This model of exported repression is not unique to Venezuela. A similar pattern has taken root in Nicaragua. Since the mass protests of April 2018, credible accounts from retired Nicaraguan military officers—including Major Roberto Samcam—indicate that dictator Daniel Ortega has increasingly surrounded himself with Cuban advisers embedded in his security apparatus, displacing Nicaraguan personnel who once formed his inner circle.

Independent reporting suggests that roughly 60 Cuban advisers operate within Nicaragua’s military and security structures, overseeing surveillance, loyalty screening, and repression. During Operation Clean-Up in April 2018, Cuban special forces reportedly operated alongside paramilitary units during mass arrests and the violent dismantling of civilian resistance—an archetypal case of the “Cubanization” of repression.

The military operation that led to Maduro’s capture signals a decisive shift in U.S. credibility and deterrence. For years, autocrats faced little cost as U.S. responses were limited to statements and sanctions that failed to change behavior. It would now be a strategic mistake for the United States—after executing such a sophisticated operation—not to pair it with a coherent political strategy to promote a democratic transition in Venezuela.

A democratic Venezuela—one that respects electoral results and the popular will, especially that of the more than 70% of Venezuelans who voted for Edmundo González in the July 28, 2024 elections—would halt the export of authoritarianism, dismantle state-sponsored narcotrafficking networks, help reverse the refugee exodus, and reemerge as a reliable energy partner.

Sustained oil production growth is unrealistic under a corrupt criminal regime; by contrast, JP Morgan estimates that a political transition could raise output to 1.3–1.4 million barrels per day within two years, and potentially to 2.5 million over the next decade.

History shows that democratic transitions fail when senior power brokers and regime institutions escape accountability. Figures such as Diosdado Cabello, Delcy Rodríguez, Jorge Rodríguez, and Vladimir Padrino López must face justice—or mafia-like structures will persist.

The eventual fall of the regime would have far-reaching regional consequences: deepening Cuba’s isolation, fracturing the authoritarian axis with Russia, curbing the influence of China and Iran, weakening ELN and FARC groups in Colombia linked to drug trafficking, and helping stem the largest mass exodus in Latin American history.

Despite the deaths of the 32 Cuban operatives, as long as the Venezuelan regime remains in power, many other Cuban intelligence advisers will continue to be embedded across multiple spheres of influence. These deaths reveal how authoritarian regimes sustain one another through intelligence sharing and the export of repression—regardless of the human cost.

Repressive regimes do not stand alone—they sustain one another. The Cubans who died defending Nicolás Maduro did so not in defense of Venezuela, but in defense of a repressive system responsible for crimes against humanity, torture, political imprisonment, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings—a system built on surveillance, fear, and impunity. Their deaths mark not only the collapse of a security ring, but the unmasking of an entire axis of repression in the Americas.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 11:45

UBS: "Copper Is The Commodity Everyone Wants To Own"

Goldman's "circular melt-up" call and its recent upgrade to the 2026 London Metal Exchange (LME) copper price forecast have so far proven correct, as the industrial metal surged above $13,000 a ton with traders continuing to price in tighter global supply and a broader risk-on mood across metals.

Three-month LME copper futures rose as much as 3.1% to a record $13,387.50, surpassing the previous record high set just a day earlier. The move is driven by the risk that the Trump administration may impose tariffs on refined copper, prompting a multi-month surge in US inventory and draining supplies from major global markets.

"Copper extended its rally on Tuesday, with prices surging to a record $13,187 per ton, fuelled by a rush to ship the metal to the US amid tariff uncertainty and persistent supply disruptions," UBS analyst Aditi Samajpati wrote in a brief note to clients earlier.

Samajpati continued, "The US premium has driven global inventory imbalances, with US stockpiles rising while the rest of the world faces tightening supplies. Speculative trading intensified as investors bet on further gains, supported by the metal's critical role in energy transition and ongoing mine setbacks in Chile, Indonesia, and Congo."

She added, "The rally is also part of a broader upswing in metals, with gold, silver, and platinum hitting new highs."

In a separate note, UBS analyst Dan Major noted, "Net speculative positioning is elevated, and it is well known that copper is the commodity everyone wants to own."

The prospect of US import curbs, combined with strong demand due to copper's role in high-growth sectors such as data center buildouts and power grid upgrades, fueled a wave of optimistic calls late in 2025.

"Inventories used to act as a buffer, but now they're locked in the US," Li Xuezhi, head of research at Chaos Ternary Futures Co., recently told Bloomberg. "So the buffer is gone and everyone will have to scramble."

Latest reporting:

• Goldman: $10,000 Is New Price Floor For Copper

• Copper Hits Record High; Goldman Warns A "Circular Melt-Up" Is Now Driving Global Market

• Goldman Upgrades Copper Price Forecast Weeks After Warning About "Circular Melt-Up"

"The logic behind this rally remains," said Li. "We need to track the trend and not get fixated on absolute price levels."

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 11:25

The End Of NATO?

By Molly Schwartz, Cross-Asset Macro Strategist at Rabobank

The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, asserted American influence in the Western Hemisphere at a time when newly independent South American nations were emerging from European colonial rule. While the Doctrine, as a tool of policy, warns Europe to keep its hands off, it stopped short of declaring that the United States would act as nanny for these fledgling states.

Don’s interpretation of the Doctrine, however, seems a bit different — though not entirely unique. Indeed, digging a massive trench to split a country in two is a rather explicit form of U.S. intervention, though the recent operation in Venezuela marks the first time we’ve seen something like this from Washington since the Bush Administration (‘H’, not ‘W’). and the current Administration’s rhetoric surrounding the operation certainly sets it apart.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified: “There’s not a war. [There is a] war against drug trafficking organizations—not a war against Venezuela.” Some might argue that a war is still a war regardless of how the opposition is defined, but Rubio would disagree. He has also made the core intentions of the U.S. clear: “This is the Western Hemisphere. This is where we live—and we’re not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operation for adversaries, competitors, and rivals of the United States.”

As for Maduro, the situation appears straightforward. He is expected to be convicted by the Southern District of New York on at least one of the charges levied against him and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. Maduro, however, has asserted that he is “not guilty of narco-terrorism charges,” proclaiming “I am innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man.”

On Monday, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as acting president, following Trump’s weekend comments to The Atlantic: “If [Rodriguez] doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price—probably bigger than Maduro.”

Rodriguez’s tone has shifted dramatically since the weekend. Initially condemning Maduro’s arrest as “barbaric,” she now extends an olive branch to Washington, stating: “We invite the U.S. government to work together on a cooperative agenda focused on shared development, within the framework of international law, and to strengthen lasting community coexistence.”

But Venezuela’s future is still uncertain. There has been a whirlwind of headlines questioning how much control the U.S. will take over Venezuela’s energy infrastructure or if they will ultimately end up taking control at all. Trump has thus made his position clear that he wants to be “very strongly involved” in the Venezuelan oil industry.

As noted by Senior Energy Strategist, Joe DeLaura, “a vast amount of capital investment would be needed to get Venezuela back up to its previous production levels…the minimum timeframe for getting output back to where it once was would be five to ten years and billions of dollars.”

Venezuela’s government is in flux as well. Will Maduro’s government, headed by Rodriguez, stay in place, or is she on borrowed time? Rodriguez’ recent mollification may have bought her a few more months (or perhaps that cushy apartment in Qatar that Maduro turned down), but the question remains: will we see true regime change in Venezuela after all? 

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine applied to Central and South America, but its geographic boundaries were never explicitly defined. The Trump Administration, however, may be getting creative with borders, suggesting the Doctrine could soon extend to Greenland (which is still technically in the Western Hemisphere).

Greenland first surfaced as a talking point during Trump’s campaign. This has re-emerged over the weekend with Trump announcing that the U.S. “need[s] Greenland from a national security situation,” and that “we will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.” What exactly we’ll be talking about when it comes to Greenland is not yet clear, but Denmark—and the EU—is taking this as a threat.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that “if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister had some strong words for the Trump Administration, but seemed open to negotiations. “No more pressure,” he said, “No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law.”

While an outright U.S. military takeover seems unlikely, diplomatic maneuvering is another matter. Trump’s approach to Statecraft has often been described as “too much stick, not enough carrot.” In the case of Greenland, we may see a bit more carrot. Still, with a population of only around 50,000, one might imagine a thought experiment where, for the low, low price of $50 billion, the U.S. offers every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country. That might prove more attractive.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 11:05

This graph shows heavy truck sales since 1967 using data from the BEA. The dashed line is the December 2025 seasonally adjusted annual sales rate (SAAR) of 311 thousand.

Note: "Heavy trucks - trucks more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight."

Click on graph for larger image.

Heavy truck sales were at 311 thousand SAAR in December, down from 336 thousand in November, and down 32.5% from 461 thousand SAAR in December 2024.
Sales were down 15.3% in 2025 compared to annual sales in 2024.
Usually, heavy truck sales decline sharply prior to a recession, and sales have collapsed recently.

Did DOJ Prosecutors Violate Trump's Executive Order By Selling Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin?

Authored by Frank Corva via BitcoinMagazine.com,

It seems that the U.S. Marshall Service (USMS) has sold the $6.3 million worth of bitcoin that Samourai Wallet developers Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill paid the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as a fee that was part of their guilty plea.

In doing so, it has potentially violated Executive Order (EO) 14233, which mandates that bitcoin acquired via criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings should be held as part of the United States’ Strategy Bitcoin Reserve (SBR).

If the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the federal judicial district in which the Samourai case was to be tried, did, in fact, violate EO 14233, it would not be the first time employees of the SDNY have acted in defiance of direction from the federal government.

What Happened to the Bitcoin?

According to a document titled “Asset Liquidation Agreement”, which has been obtained exclusively by Bitcoin Magazine and has not until now been made public, the bitcoin that Rodriguez and Hill forfeited is to be sold — or already has been.

As per the document, the defendants agreed to transfer $6,367,139.69 worth of bitcoin — 57.55353033 bitcoin at the time the final party signed the agreement, which was Assistant United States Attorney Cecilia Vogelon November 3, 2025 — to the USMS.

The bitcoin, which was sent from address bc1q4pntkz06z7xxvdcers09cyjqz5gf8ut4pua22r on November 3, 2025, seems to have bypassed any direct custody by the USMS. Instead, it seems to have been sent directly to Coinbase Prime address 3Lz5ULL7nG7vv6nwc8kNnbjDmSnawKS3n8 (Arkham Intel attributes this address to the brokerage), presumably to be sold.

This Coinbase Prime address currently has a zero balance, indicating that the bitcoin may have already been sold.

Violating Executive Order 14233

If the USMS has sold the forfeited bitcoin, it likely contravened EO 14233, which orders that bitcoin acquired by the U.S. government via criminal forfeiture, termed “Government BTC” in the EO, “shall not be sold” and should be contributed into the U.S. SBR.

If the USMS sold the bitcoin, they did so at their own discretion and not as a legal mandate, which indicates that certain members of the DOJ may still view bitcoin as a taboo asset to be offloaded as opposed to a strategic asset that President Trump has directed government agencies to retain.

Given that the Samourai prosecution originated under the previous administration, which was notoriously hostile toward noncustodial crypto tools and their developers, the decision to ignore EO 14233 and sell the bitcoin despite a mandate from the executive branch fits a pattern of treating bitcoin as something that should be removed from government balance sheets as soon as possible.

Legal Details Regarding the Forfeiture and Liquidation

According to a legal source close to this matter, the Samourai developers’ forfeited their bitcoin under 18 U.S. Code § 982(a)(1), which stipulates that any offense that violates 18 U.S. Code § 1960, the statute that prohibits the operation of unlicensed money transmitting businesses, orders that person to forfeit to the United States any property involved in the offense.

Judging by § 982 and its incorporation of 21 U.S.C. § 853(c), a criminal forfeiture statute that stipulates that “property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States,” the bitcoin that Rodriguez and Hill forfeited fits the EO’s definition of “Government BTC”.

Neither § 982 nor the incorporated § 853 requires that property that is forfeited as part of a criminal offense be liquidated. Furthermore, the fund forfeiture statutes cited in section three of the EO — 31 U.S.C. § 9705 and 28 U.S.C. § 524(c) — regulate where forfeiture proceeds are deposited and how they may be used; they do not require that forfeited bitcoin be converted to cash rather than held in kind.

The EO also stipulates that “Government BTC” falls under the umbrella of “Government Digital Assets” and states that “the head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets” except in certain scenarios, none of which apply in the Rodriguez or Hill cases and, in all of which, the U.S. attorney general would play a role in determining what should be done with the forfeited digital assets.

The Sovereign District of New York

When taking EO 14233 and the statutes cited in this article into account, the SDNY seems to have acted in a manner that defies the EO 14233’s mandate to transfer bitcoin obtained via criminal forfeiture to the U.S. SBR.

This would not mark the first time that the SDNY has acted in such a manner. 

The judicial jurisdiction, sometimes colloquially referred to as “Sovereign District of New York,” has earned a reputation for operating independently and unilaterally, despite being part of a federal system.

The fact that the SDNY proceeded with the cases against Rodriguez and Hill as well as the case against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, is further evidence of this.

On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memo entitled “Ending Regulation By Prosecution” in which he stated “the Department [of Justice] will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users…”

The SDNY seemed to disregard the language in this memo, though, as it proceeded with the Samourai Wallet or Tornado Cash cases.

And when the defense team for Hill and Rodrguez learned as per a Brady request that two high-ranking members of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) “strongly suggested” that Samourai Wallet wasn’t serving as a money transmitter due to the noncustodial nature of the service, the prosecution proceeded anyway.

When it comes to criminal cases tried within the federal court system, over 90% of defendants are convicted and sentenced, with as little as 0.4% being acquitted some years. And the prosecution for SDNY cases has a reputation for having an even higher win rate.

Rodriguez was aware of these statistics, as well as the fact that Judge Denise Cote, the judge who presided over his and Hill’s cases, has a reputation for harsh sentencing.

He told me as much the morning before he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter business charge.

Is the War on Crypto Really Over?

Many Bitcoin and crypto proponents who voted for President Trump in 2024 as well as the crypto industry, which supported the president in his reelection, are now beginning to question whether or not President Trump really does want to see an end to the war on crypto.

For this to happen, the DOJ under President Trump must honor what is mandated in EO 14233 and follow Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s guidance to stop prosecuting developers of noncustodial crypto technology.

To the latter point, President Trump recently stated that he is considering a pardon for Rodriguez.

His pardoning Rodriguez as well having the DOJ look into why it sold the bitcoin that the Samourai developers forfeited would send a signal that the president is quite serious about his pro-Bitcoin and pro-crypto stance.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 10:25

Today, in the Real Estate Newsletter: Asking Rents Decline Year-over-year

Brief excerpt:

Another monthly update on rents.

Tracking rents is important for understanding the dynamics of the housing market. Slower household formation and increased supply (more multi-family completions) has kept asking rents under pressure.

More recently, immigration policy has become a negative for rentals.

Apartment List: Asking Rent Growth -1.3% Year-over-year ...

The national median rent fell 0.8% in December, and now stands at $1,356. This closes the book on 2025, with five consecutive months of rent declines. Based on recent years, we expect another 1-2 months of rent drops before the market turns a corner in early Spring.

Realtor.com: 28th Consecutive Month with Year-over-year Decline in Rents

Across the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, median asking rent for 0-2 bedroom units fell for the 28th consecutive month on a year-over-year basis.

There is much more in the article.