What The Scopes Trial Was Really About

Authored by J Scott Turner via RealClearScience,

This is the centennial year for the Scopes “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, 1925’s “trial of the century”. In the dock was John Scopes, a substitute high school teacher who was accused of violating the state’s recently passed Butler Act, which prohibited any state school from teaching any theory of the origin of man that contradicted the account in Genesis. Scopes’ conviction was later overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality.  

By any objective measure, the Scopes trial should arouse no greater attention in 2025 than Dayton’s 1925 Strawberry Festival. It set no legal precedent, led to no repeal of the Butler Act, and everyone involved just got on with their lives. Yet here we are, still talking about it a hundred years later, in commemorative conferences, in high profile commentaries, on podcasts, and even a documentary (full disclosure, produced by me).  

Interest in the Scopes trial has been kept alive by a prevailing narrative that has built up over the last century: of two titans of 1920s America, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, squaring off in an epic courtroom confrontation of science versus religion, evolution versus creation, academic freedom versus state control of education.  

We have known for some time that little of this narrative is true. The Scopes trial was a put-up job, instigated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Dayton town luminaries who wanted to bring commerce and publicity to their small town and its sluggish economy. The “epic confrontation” was more performative than substantive, with drama provided by the defense’s claim that evolutionism and Darwinism were crystalline scientific truths, and that any contrary claims, particularly when the doubts were religiously-motivated, posed a threat to civilization itself. Ever since 1925, scientists generally have bought into the Scopes defense’s narrative. But just how strong was their case?  

The Scopes defense team brought in a group of scientific expert witnesses to inform the Court how misguided the Butler Act was. The judge, John Raulston, allowed one of the experts, Maynard Metcalf of Johns Hopkins, to testify, but with the jury absent. Based on Metcalf’s testimony, Raulston barred the defense from calling any of the other expert witnesses, and struck Metcalf’s testimony from the trial transcript. Even so, Raulston invited the experts to submit written statements for the trial record, essentially amicus curiae briefs. Their statements give us a window into the strength of the defense’s case.  

To put the matter politely, the experts were underwhelming. Metcalf’s testimony was supercilious and condescending, resting on the presumption that something had to be true because he, an expert, said it. The others’ statements were vague and tended to wander off-topic. Two of the experts trotted out the dubious Piltdown Man fossil as proof of the “missing link” between apes and humans. At best, this was evidence of expert laziness and wishful thinking. Since its “discovery” in 1912, doubts had swirled about the Piltdown fossils’ authenticity, later definitively revealed by Charles Oakley and Joseph Weiner as a hoax and an “evolutionary absurdity.”  

Aside from those faux pas, the experts fell into a logical error: an insistent conflation of evolutionism – the proposition that life on Earth has a history – with Darwinism, a proposed mechanism for evolution. In the Scopes trial record, the two terms are used interchangeably, one the synonym of the other, when they are in fact quite distinct things.  

Since the mid-nineteenth century, evolutionism has rested on a solid scientific foundation, both for life in general, and for human origins in particular. We know it is scientific because scientific knowledge is by its nature tentative and provisional, which the science of human origins exemplifies. In 1925, the science of human origins painted a different sketch of human origins than the one we presently paint, but then as now, the sketch is informed by the ongoing dialogue with nature that defines science. Our picture of human origins will continue to adjust as more evidence emerges. 

In 1925, in contrast, Darwinism was at its lowest scientific ebb since its inception in 1859. This period is known broadly as the eclipse of Darwinism. Darwinism’s most serious challenge came from Thomas Hunt Morgan’s mutationist theory for evolution, which he claimed invalidated Darwinian natural selection or at least relegated it to a minor role. While Darwinism’s bacon would eventually be pulled out of the fire by Ronald Fisher’s “genetical theory of natural selection”, that was still five years into the future. How, then, did the scientifically weak Darwinian idea come to be synonymously bound to the more scientifically robust evolutionism, both at the Scopes trial, and in the minds of the public?  

Beginning in the late 19th century, Darwinism became transformed into an ideology – “popular Darwinism” – that could be enlisted as support for a wide range of political and social causes. Some of these were flatly contradictory to one another. “Social Darwinism”, for example, has been a justification both for generous social welfare programs, and for abolishing them entirely. Generally, popular Darwinism has served as a proxy for progressive ideology, like Wilson’s “living constitution.”  

The nebulousness of popular Darwinism puts William Jennings Bryan and the anti-evolution movements in the 1920s South in a different light. Bryan’s principal complaint about popular Darwinism was its fundamental emptiness: that if Darwinism could mean anything at all, it also could mean nothing at all, making it a nihilistic ideology that would bear bitter fruit wherever it took root. The social and economic upheavals in the decade following the Great War seemed to provide ample evidence for Bryan’s argument, which resonated strongly in the largely agrarian and tradition-minded South. It was not ignorance and religious bigotry that was at work here. To the contrary, people of the South were paying close attention to events, and were not liking what they saw.  

Bryan’s critique of Darwinism was the seed crystal that precipitated these anxieties into political action, among them the passage of the Butler Act. John Butler was a communicant of the fundamentalist Primitive Baptist Church, but his eponymous Act drew support from across a broad spectrum of Tennessee society, both secular and religious. So strong was that support that Tennessee’s progressive Democrat governor, Austin Peay, felt compelled to sign it into law.  

What was at stake in the Scopes trial was not a conflict of science versus religion, or evolution versus creation. Rather, it was a political tussle over a different question entirely, namely, who gets to decide how parents educate their children? In passing the Butler Act, the people of Tennessee arrogated that decision to themselves. For their temerity, the ACLU decided it had to parachute into Dayton to take the decision back. To the extent that the high-minded rhetoric of the Scopes defense played a role, it was a political agenda masquerading as science.  

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 23:00

Ancient RNA Extracted From Extinct Woolly Mammoth Fuels De-Extinction Dreams

European researchers have achieved a milestone in paleogenomics by sequencing RNA from a woolly mammoth specimen dating back approximately 39,000 to 40,000 years, roughly three times older than the previous record for ancient RNA.

The RNA was recovered from a well-preserved juvenile mammoth known as Yuka, discovered in northern Siberian permafrost in 2010, according to Love Dalén, a professor of evolutionary genomics at Stockholm University and lead author of a study published in the journal Cell. Dalén told the Wall Street Journal that the findings could aid in identifying the genetic traits responsible for the mammoth's distinctive woolly coat. The researcher first encountered the specimen, named after the Yukagir region where it was found by locals, during a visit to Yakutsk, Russia, in 2012.

The skin and muscle of Yuka’s front left leg are exceptionally well preserved
Love Dalen

“While the path to de-extinction might be a little bit longer than most people appreciate, I think this is actually a very important steppingstone on the way,” said Marc Friedländer, an RNA biologist from Stockholm University and a co-author of the paper.
The Wall Street Journal notes:

Yuka’s legs were intact, as were the animal’s foot pads and trunk, covered in reddish-brown fur. The skull, genitalia and internal organs were missing. Genetic analyses revealed the animal was a male; some of the RNA had come from a Y chromosome.

RNA, or ribonucleic acid, adds another level of insight into an animal beyond DNA, Dalén said, showing which genes are active in a cell at one time. DNA contains the recipe for how to make an organism, but RNA passes along the instructions on how to build and operate it.

Although the specific RNA sequences have limited direct application to current editing efforts, experts say the proof that RNA survives millennia expands the toolkit for reconstructing ancient biology. This could help prioritize gene edits for traits like thick fur, cold tolerance, and fat metabolism.

Yuka had been found thawing out of a permafrost cliff near the Siberian coastline. The young mammoth, which lived and died during the last Ice Age some 39,000 years ago, had been buried and frozen for millennia. Valeri Plotnikov

“If at some point in the future that we want to bring back the mammoth or other extinct animals, then it’s very important to recognize that we need to understand them not just at the DNA level, but also all the other components that make up an animal, like the RNA and the proteins,” Friedländer said.

“The Russians said, ‘Come with me, and we’ll bring you to see something interesting,’” he said. “They walked me into this room, and there’s this dead mammoth lying on an autopsy table.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 22:35

Trump Administration Faces Balancing Act On Agriculture

Authored by Beige Luciano-Adams via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration has in recent months rolled out a series of actions to address the long-brewing existential crisis facing America’s family farmers and ranchers, who for years have been pummeled by industry consolidation and rising costs, as well as regulatory, environmental, and trade issues.

Cows roam the ranch of R.C. and Annia Carter outside of Ten Sleep, Wyo., on Oct. 14, 2025. John Fredricks /The Epoch Times

Traditionally the backbone of American agriculture, family operations are disappearing, shrinking by more than 17 percent since 2017. In 2024, the number of U.S. farms dropped to the lowest level in more than a century.

In the cattle and beef industry, an ongoing contraction driven by a dwindling domestic herd has created an increasingly unstable climate. As prices soar and processing plants shutter, the Trump administration faces a balancing act between calming consumer anxieties and reassuring ranchers that it will deliver on deep reforms.

The Trump administration has proposed renewed antitrust enforcement, land-use reform, and supportive programming for ranchers. But the administration also slashed the tariffs it imposed earlier this year on beef imports, which ranchers say may undercut their business.

In conversation with The Epoch Times, many ranchers have been largely sanguine about what they see as an administration that is listening to their concerns and taking decisive action, but suggest more is needed to transform an industry that has become deeply exploitative, corrupt, and anti-competitive.

“Trump is trying to satisfy a lot of people right now, and I don’t mean that in a bad way,” Patrick Robinette, a North Carolina cattle producer and industry consultant, told The Epoch Times.

“But he made promises to the rural people that he was going to improve their economy. He also made promises to the consumer that he was gonna lower their prices.”

Patrick Robinette on his family ranch in North Carolina, in this photo taken within the past five years. Courtesy of Patrick Robinette Trump’s Reforms

In October, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human Services, along with the Small Business Administration, unveiled a sweeping plan to restore the nation’s shrinking cattle herd and bolster independent ranchers, including by expanding grazing on federal lands, a reversal of Biden-era policy.

Noting that around 10 percent (24 million acres) of grazing allotments are currently vacant, the Departments of Agriculture and Interior plan to position “grazing as a central element of federal land management,” while also promoting innovative tools such as virtual fencing and “outcome-based practices to sustain ecological health,” signaling federal support for regenerative grazing practices. The USDA in December confirmed it will launch a $700 million pilot program focused on regenerative agriculture.

Additionally, the government is attempting to assuage longstanding rancher concerns over predatory endangered species by developing new standards of evidence for compensating producers whose herds are impacted by wolves, bears, and coyotes.

In an attempt to address consolidation in the packing industry and stabilize prices, the White House is also ramping up loans and grants to support small- and medium-sized processors that supply local and regional markets.

And to make ranching more accessible, it plans to expand benefits for new ranchers and prioritize support for veteran-owned and operated ranches.

The USDA announced earlier this month a $12 billion bailout for farmers “in response to temporary trade market disruptions and increased production costs.”

A worker spreads salted meat, which will be dried and then packed at a plant of JBS SA, the world's largest beef producer, in Santana de Parnaiba, Brazil, on Dec. 19, 2017. Paulo Whitaker/Reuters Antitrust Challenges

President Donald Trump on Nov. 7 ordered a Department of Justice (DOJ) crackdown on “foreign-owned meat packing cartels,” referring to the handful of massive conglomerates that dominate the industry, citing potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation. He said that the companies artificially inflate prices and jeopardize U.S. food security.

The “Big Four” meatpackers—Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS, and National Beef—control 85 percent of U.S. beef processing and vast majorities of pork and poultry markets. JBS and National Beef are majority-owned by Brazilian parent companies.

For decades, industry consolidation has “crushed competition and hammered cattle producers,” the Trump administration said in its Nov. 7 memo, citing “mounting evidence” showing monopoly power has “slashed payments to ranchers, reduced herd sizes, driven up consumer prices and threatened America’s food supply chain.”

Robinette said it’s about time for a DOJ investigation. “But the other side to it is, maybe nothing comes out of it.”

He pointed to a similar investigation of the same companies in 2020, following years of class-action consumer lawsuits and urging from producers.

In a Nov. 21 statement, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, which represents independent producers and processors, said it appreciated the Trump administration returning to the issue, but added that past inquiries left producers without answers.

“We urge the Administration to ensure this investigation leads to substantive action and real reforms,” it stated.

Multiple federal investigations of the companies and their subsidiaries have spanned across administrations, resulting in millions in settlement payouts.

But their hold on the market remains.

The 2020 DOJ investigation, according to Farm Action, a nonpartisan watchdog group, produced “no major enforcement actions or reforms.”

All the “Big Four” companies have faced multiple antitrust lawsuits. Last month, Tyson and Cargill paid a combined $87.5 million to settle a federal class action lawsuit brought by consumers who accused them of conspiring to inflate beef prices by restricting supply. Along with other poultry producers, they settled a civil wage-fixing case in January for $398 million, which mirrored a DOJ case.

JBS, the world’s largest meat processing company, settled a case for $83.5 million in January, in which producers alleged all four companies conspired to artificially reduce the price of cattle.

The conglomerate has also been plagued by corruption scandals in the United States and in Brazil. In 2017, JBS owners agreed to a $3.2 billion plea deal in Brazil after admitting to bribing more than 1,800 politicians to illicitly acquire financing; in 2020, the company pleaded guilty to bribery charges and agreed to pay around $256 million in criminal fines following a DOJ investigation.

Despite increased scrutiny from lawmakers across various administrations over antitrust concerns, consolidation and U.S. expansion have continued.

According to a recent analysis by Farm Action, price-fixing settlement payouts remain a tiny fraction of the companies’ profits. And five years after the last DOJ investigation, their hold on the market remains undiminished.

“This time,” the group urges, “the DOJ must dig deeper into the collusion and political influence that define this industry.”

Heather Hampton-Knodle feeds cattle on her ranch in Illinois in 2025. Courtesy of Heather Hampton-Knodle Trade Policy

In an effort to curb domestic beef prices, Trump in October proposed increasing imports from Argentina, drawing ire from U.S. ranchers who say cheap imports undercut them while failing to lower consumer prices.

In November, the administration solidified an agreement with Argentina that will quadruple low-tariff beef imports from the country, to some 80,000 metric tons.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association opposed the move and urged the president to “let the cattle markets work.”

Responding to pushback from ranchers, Trump said in an Oct. 22 Truth Social post that “the only reason cattle ranchers are doing so well, for the first time in decades,” is because of his tariffs.

“If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years – Terrible! It would be nice if they understood that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor.”

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has attributed much of the affordability crisis to inherited impacts from the last administration, including a $50 billion agricultural trade deficit, and has defended Trump’s trade policy as putting America first. She also noted that while the cost of many staples has fallen since Trump took office, beef remains an outlier.

“The president is committed to getting that down but also to ensuring that we’re supporting, protecting and rebuilding our herd for our cattle ranchers,” she said in a Nov. 20 interview.

Heather Hampton-Knodle, an Illinois-based cattle producer and former president of American Agri-Women, told The Epoch Times that the Argentina beef deal “is really hard to relate to, given how tariff policies have impacted us on both ends—our costs of inputs and our opportunities for exports.”

Hampton-Knodle blames tariffs for driving up farm bankruptcies and the cost of inputs such as fertilizers, which are mostly imported.

“This is not sustainable,” she said, noting emergency federal aid for farmers—such as that doled out during Trump’s first administration, a $10 billion payout in March, and a similar, upcoming plan—only goes to the creditors, not to the root cause.

“It does not result in a return to farmers so they can reinvest in their business or send their children to college or do the things that people in developed countries want to do,” she said.

Hampton-Knodle said solidifying multiple significant trade deals could help smaller producers.

In the bigger picture, she said, “I am concerned not only for beef producers, but agriculture as a whole, that we continue to be pawns on other people’s chess boards.”

“A deeper understanding of how farming actually works and how the majority of us are price takers—we’re not price makers—would really help develop better policy.”

Some industry players welcomed the Trump administration’s efforts to address rising consumer prices.

Following a Nov. 14 executive order removing tariffs on certain foods and agricultural products, Michelle Korsmo, president of the National Restaurant Association, called the move a “common-sense step” to strengthen the food supply chain.

“This action delivers needed relief for restaurants and their customers at a time when food costs have risen nearly 40 percent over the past four years,” Korsmo said in a statement.

Trump on Nov. 20 issued an executive order exempting a range of Brazilian agricultural imports, including beef, from 40 percent retaliatory tariffs he’d imposed in July; reciprocal 10 percent tariffs remain in place.

Trade group representatives from different parts of the U.S. supply chain took opposite positions on the issue, a display of the complex balance the administration is trying to strike.

“When the president imposed 40 percent tariffs on Brazilian beef, we viewed it as a signal to support our industry’s ability to produce what we consume,” Bill Bullard, CEO of R-Calf, told The Epoch Times.

“Now, that’s been erased, sending a new signal that will deter the domestic industry from rebuilding and expanding as needed.”

On the other hand, the International Fresh Produce Association, a trade organization, welcomed Trump’s removal of the 40 percent tariff, noting Brazil is a “key global supplier” that complements U.S. production.

“This action will help maintain the affordability of high-quality fresh produce for American consumers,” the association said in a statement.

Cattle Versus Beef Prices

Before 2020, the issue for ranchers was that the price of live cattle collapsed while beef prices soared, benefitting processor conglomerates. While cattle prices historically followed beef prices closely, they began to diverge around 2015.

Bullard, of R-Calf, suggests the longstanding disconnect between cattle and beef prices is evidence of market failure.

A drought that began in 2020 accelerated the decline of the national herd, he explained, and cattle prices started chasing already inflated beef prices.

Both cattle and beef prices have hit record highs in recent months. The USDA reported this month that cattle prices fluctuated following the news of imports from Brazil and Tyson’s announcement of beef packing plant closures, but projects that tight supply will support record prices through 2026.

Bullard, in a recent analysis, points out that the per capita supply of beef was higher in 2024 than at any time since 2020. Still, domestic production has not kept up with consumption, and the United States has become increasingly reliant on imports.

A New World screwworm outbreak that temporarily suspended cattle imports from Mexico, which the United States relies on to maintain a stable supply of inexpensive beef, has also contributed to the shortage.

“Our problem is that we’ve reduced our nation’s ranchers and their herd size over the past few decades to the point where it cannot ... meet domestic food security needs, but also it cannot withstand any form of economic shock without causing severe price anomalies for producers and consumers,” Bullard said in his analysis.

While the Trump administration is telling ranchers that beef prices are too high, R-Calf has asked the administration to investigate how much of that is caused by anticompetitive practices on the part of packers and retailers.

In its Oct. 21 letter to the president decrying the Argentina trade deal, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association stressed today’s beef prices are not due to inflation or market manipulation, but rather the result of decades of industry contraction, a depleted national herd, and increased input costs for ranchers.

“For the first time in years, cattle producers are finally earning prices that reflect actual costs of production—a long-overdue correction, not an unintended sign of distress,” the group said.

But some warn the recent upswing may be particularly volatile.

As processing plants shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic, Robinette explains, many ranchers began switching at least part of their operation to a direct-to-consumer model. He suspects the jump in live cattle prices that followed, while good for producers, won’t last and may be artificial.

Robinette said one theory he is watching is “that the Big Four have worked with the brokers to artificially increase the price of the cattle, and then there will be a certain period of time, and they’ll collapse that price.” The purpose, he said, would be to undermine the direct-to-consumer model and further consolidate the market.

“The big Packers can afford to lose $300 a head while the independent producers and packers cannot—we don’t have enough runway,” R.C. Carter, an independent rancher based in Wyoming, told The Epoch Times.

Ranchers reason that conglomerates can afford temporary losses in part because they can make up for it with cheap imports.

“They need that foreign beef coming in at 30 or 40 percent below the USDA beef price so they can make their 2 to 3 percent margin they’re doing now,” Robinette said.

The Epoch Times contacted JBS, Cargill, Tyson, and National Beef for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

USDA prime beef is displayed at a Costco store in Novato, Calif., on Nov. 11, 2025. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Origin Labeling

A group of independent cattle ranchers has been lobbying the Trump administration to issue an executive order reinstating Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, which they argue does not require congressional intervention, as it is based on existing federal code.

The White House and USDA did not respond to inquiries about a potential executive order by publication time.

For Robert Groom, a cattle producer and U.S. Cattlemen’s Association board member representing the Northeast, the problem is not so much that imports have increased, but that they have been deceptively labeled for decades.

“I’m not so worried about imports from Argentina or Brazil or anywhere if it’s properly inspected, and if it retains its origin [labeling] all the way to [the] consumer,” he told The Epoch Times. But under current policy, the country-of-origin label can be stripped and replaced with a “USDA Inspected” label, which consumers mistakenly believe is U.S. origin beef.

“Demand for beef has been on a continual upward trend since the early 1990s. That signal hasn’t gone through to the [producer]—they’ve lost money far more years than they made money. There’s no incentive to rebuild, and that’s entirely because we have no product differentiation,” he said.

The USDA in November announced that, beginning in 2026, it will begin enforcing compliance on products that bear voluntary U.S. origin labels—meaning that ultimately only animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States can make such claims. It also plans to invest in independent processors. This, however, doesn’t mean it will enforce Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling.

Groom is encouraged by the Trump administration’s focus on rebuilding the domestic herd and helping small producers.

“Their hearts are definitely in the right place; it’s just that some of the fundamental factors behind this are going to need to be at the top of their list,” he stated.

As for the DOJ investigation, Robinette said, it’s too broad and too soon to tell. The past two years will show razor-thin margins for the meat packers; looking further back, he said, a different pattern emerges.

“They are manipulating our market. It’s been obvious for decades, but nobody would touch ‘em,” he stated.

For now, there is an uneasy balance.

*  *  * Please consider buying clean, high-quality beef here.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 22:10

Meta Chose Revenue Over Policing Chinese Scam Ads, Documents Show

Meta knowingly tolerated large volumes of fraudulent advertising from China to protect billions of dollars in revenue, a new investigation from Reuters unveiled this week. Internal documents show executives prioritized minimizing “revenue impact” over fully cracking down on scams, illegal gambling, pornography and other banned ads.

Although Meta platforms are blocked inside China, Chinese companies are allowed to advertise to users abroad, according to Reuters. That business grew rapidly, reaching more than $18 billion in revenue in 2024—about 11% of Meta’s global sales. Internal estimates showed roughly 19% of that revenue, more than $3 billion, came from prohibited or fraudulent ads.

Meta documents reviewed by Reuters describe China as the company’s top “Scam Exporting Nation,” responsible for roughly a quarter of scam ads worldwide. Victims ranged from U.S. and Canadian investors to consumers in Taiwan. An internal presentation warned, “We need to make significant investment to reduce growing harm.”

In 2024, Meta briefly did just that. A dedicated China-focused anti-fraud team cut problematic ads roughly in half, from 19% to 9% of China-related revenue. But after what one document described as an “Integrity Strategy pivot and follow-up from Zuck,” the team was asked to pause its work. Meta later disbanded the unit, lifted restrictions on new Chinese ad agencies, and shelved additional anti-scam measures.

Within months, fraudulent advertising rebounded. By mid-2025, banned ads again made up about 16% of Meta’s China revenue. Former Facebook executive Rob Leathern said the scale of abuse was indefensible: “The levels that you’re talking about are not defensible. I don’t know how anyone could think this is okay.”

Reuters writes that Meta relies on a network of Chinese ad resellers that receive commissions and special protections. Ads flagged for violations often remain live during lengthy secondary reviews, allowing scammers time to profit. One internal document acknowledged that the delay was “adequate for scammers to accomplish their objectives.”

An external report commissioned by Meta concluded that the company’s own policies fostered systemic corruption. Because the ads target foreign users, Chinese authorities generally do not intervene, leaving fraudsters with “little or no risk.” Compared with competitors, the report found Meta’s enforcement in China to be inconsistent.

Despite internal warnings, Meta decided it would permanently tolerate higher levels of misconduct from Chinese advertisers rather than seek parity with ad quality elsewhere. A February 2025 document said the company would aim only to “maintain the % of global harm” from China.

Meta disputes aspects of Reuters’ findings, saying the China-focused team was always temporary and that Zuckerberg did not order its shutdown. The company says it has blocked or removed tens of millions of ads and cooperates with law enforcement. Still, internal discussions show enforcement proposals repeatedly scaled back because “the revenue impact is too high.”

As one document bluntly concluded, even when abusive accounts are shut down, “It’s likely the revenue will return.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 21:45

'I Inherited A Mess And I'm Fixing It': Watch President Trump Unveil 'Warrior Dividend', Signal Housing Reform, Not Mention Venezuela

Update (2120ET): As expected, President Trump celebrated the successes of his first year back in office as part of tonight's national address from the White House.

“11 months ago, I inherited a mess, and I’m fixing it,” Trump began.

“When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years, and some would say in the history of our country, which caused prices to be higher than ever before, making life unaffordable for millions and millions of Americans.”

As JustTheNews' Ben Whedon reports, Trump touched on a wide array of subjects, highlighting the decline in maritime drug trafficking, his efforts to tackle wokeness in schools, and the revitalization of the military, among others.

"Drugs brought in by ocean and by sea are now down 94%" he said. "We have broken the grip of sinister woke radicals in our schools, and control over those schools is back now in the hands of our great and loving states where education belongs, after rebuilding the United States military in my first term, and with the addition we are adding right now, we have the most powerful military anywhere in the world, and it's not even close."

Early in the speech, he addressed affordability, insisting that his use of tariffs had helped to address the issue.

"Much of this success has been accomplished by tariffs, my favorite word tariffs, which for many decades have been used successfully by other countries against us, but not anymore," he said.

"Companies know that if they build in America there are no tariffs and that's why they're coming home to the USA in record numbers."

He also used the speech to announce a Christmas bonus to American service members to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the nation.

"Tonight, I am also proud to announce ...1,450,000 military service members will receive a special we call 'warrior dividend' before Christmas," Trump said.

"So warrior dividend in honor of our nation's founding in 1776, we are sending every soldier $1,776... and the checks are already on the way."

Later in the speech, he vowed to dramatically reform the American housing industry as costs of living increasingly rank among the top issues for young Americans.

"I will announce some of the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history," he promised.

"A major factor driving up housing costs was the colossal border invasion."

"The last administration and their allies in Congress brought in millions and millions of migrants and gave them taxpayer funded housing while your rent and housing costs skyrocketed," he lamented.

"Over 60% of growth in the rental market came from foreign migrants."

"At the same time, illegal aliens stole American jobs and flooded emergency rooms getting free health care and education paid for by you, the American taxpayer," he went on.

"They also increase the cost of law enforcement by numbers so high that they are not even to be mentioned. For the first time in 50 years, we are now seeing reverse migration."

And finally, perhaps most notably, not a mention of the word 'Venezuela'.

Watch President Trump's address here:

President Trump is due to deliver remarks to the nation at 9 p.m. ET.

While there has been no confirmation of the content of the address, The White House said his speech will highlight the administration’s actions during the past year and tease priorities for 2026.

Prediction markets see Venezuela, Inflation, and the Border as the most likely topics for discussion...

Source: PolyMarket

..with some suggesting the 'peace-maker' president may use this moment to announce kinetic actions in Venezuela (following his complete blockade of sanctioned oil tankers this week)...

Earlier in the evening, Trump told reporters:

• *TRUMP ON VENEZUELA: IT'S A BLOCKADE, NOT LETTING ANYONE GO THROUGH WHO SHOULDN'T

• *TRUMP CLAIMS VENEZUELA 'ILLEGALLY TOOK' US HOLDINGS, THREW OUR COMPANIES OUT, WE WANT IT BACK

• *TRUMP ON VENZ.: GETTING LAND, OIL RIGHTS, THEY TOOK IT AWAY

• *TRUMP: MESSAGE THIS EVENING IS OUR COUNTRY WILL BE STRONG

• TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKING US OIL INDUSTRY IF THEY WOULD RETURN TO VENEZUELA ONCE MADURO IS GONE -POLITICO

Odds have been rising...

Source: PolyMarket

“It has been a great year for our Country, and THE BEST IS YET TO COME!" Trump posted on social media on Tuesday while announcing the speech.

Watch Live here (due to start at 2100ET):

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 21:30

Polysilicon: An Opportunity To Demonstrate 'America First'

Authored by Emma Bishop via RealClearPolicy,

If the world’s future is powered by semiconductors and designed by advanced AI chips, then it will be printed on polysilicon; the purest manmade material and the foundation for any semiconductor chip. Without it, advanced technologies and electronics would not exist.

Importantly, the U.S. currently faces a decision: to rely on imported polysilicon from China to unlock the electronic economy, or to protect and expand existing capacity across the U.S. and allied nations to feed the growing demand for chips, and therefore for polysilicon. The ongoing Section 232 investigation into imported polysilicon is at the heart of this opportunity, as it allows the U.S. to confront China’s stranglehold on a key advanced material head-on. The investigation provides the federal government with the opportunity to enforce tariffs, quotas, or other import restrictions on Chinese polysilicon, and raises the question of how strong a stance the administration will take to cut dependence on volatile supply chains for vital technologies. 

What makes this Section 232 decision unique is that polysilicon is one of a few materials the U.S. already produces in sufficient quantities. Today, the U.S. has approximately 50,000 metric tons (MT) of active production, with an additional 16,000 MT of announced new capacity and 17,600 MT of idled capacity that could be restarted. This production capacity, bolstered by supply from allies, is sufficient to meet expected U.S. demand.

China controls the polysilicon market and erodes global competition by producing more than double the polysilicon needed to meet global demand. State-backed programs including massive subsidies, limited environmental oversight, and forced labor programs targeting Uyghur workers are taken advantage of by Chinese entities as they produce polysilicon far below free-market prices. Cratering the global price for these materials enables China’s supply chain network to undermine the short- and long-term financial viability of U.S. and allied companies.

This moment demands uncompromising policy to protect American jobs and capabilities while reducing our dependence on the global behemoth that controls these markets, and the Section 232 investigation provides an opportunity to seize it. Yet, at such a critical time, some groups are calling on the administration to implement a tariff-rate quota (TRQ), which guarantees access to underpriced material by designating the amount of Chinese polysilicon that can enter the market duty-free. This approach does nothing to counter China’s anti-competitive, market-manipulative tactics, and instead institutionalizes dependence on an adversary while leaving American industry and workers out to dry. leaving American industry and workers out to dry.

As PV Tech recently noted, policymakers face key design questions for the 232: Will restrictions only cover raw polysilicon or extend to wafers, cells, and modules? Will enforcement differ by region, creating carve-outs for “friendly” exporters? Those questions are irrelevant if the U.S. begins with a quota for Chinese content - undermining the very goal of the Section 232 investigation, which is to address national security vulnerabilities associated with import reliance. In addition, a quota signals an interest in this cheaper material despite the ramifications of this dependence, leading importers to also relabel shipments, reroute through third countries, and exploit country-of-origin loopholes. That is not a trade remedy; it’s a blueprint for circumvention.

As with rare earths, we have seen what happens when the U.S. becomes dependent on a foreign adversary. Repeating mistakes that hurt existing domestic capacity in the interest of cheaper material is a short-term political compromise with long-term implications for U.S. competitiveness and technological leadership. Working closely with our G-7 partners presents an opportunity to coordinate restrictions on Chinese-origin or -linked polysilicon, close circumvention pathways, and create a unified front among free-market economies to prevent dependence on artificially low-cost polysilicon fraught with abusive labor regimes and environmental negligence.

The United States does not need half-measures. It needs clear, uncompromising enforcement that restores domestic market confidence. A full prohibition on imports of Chinese-origin and -linked polysilicon and derivatives ensures a competitive, transparent, and reliable supply chain for the material, unlocking a new era of advanced technologies. Anything less will leave American manufacturing expertise vulnerable, American jobs on the line, and America’s national security at risk.

Emma Bishop is the President of the Advanced Materials Security Council (AMSC) and a Vice President at Venn Strategies. Alex Rubin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 21:20

One-Party-Rule Maryland Democrats Ignore Power Bill Crisis, Push Ahead With Slavery Reparations Study

Instead of addressing the state’s mounting crises, from fiscal mess, soaring power bills, and exodus of residents to violent crime and illegal aliens, unhinged Democrats in Annapolis spent their time on Tuesday overriding Gov. Wes Moore’s veto of Senate Bill 587, creating a reparations commission to study how Maryland should address slavery and racial discrimination.

What better way to spend precious time as the year winds down? Many thought the entire reparations and wealth-redistribution grift was over. Apparently, not in Maryland.

Democrats in the state still cannot read the tea leaves and remain hellbent on pushing a continued state-killing agenda that has unleashed mounting crises, such as the growing deficit crisis, continued exodus of residents to red states, and a power bill crisis.

All of this is happening under one-party left-wing rule, where accountability is nonexistent in what has effectively become a state run by Democratic kings.

Moore had vetoed the Senate Bill 587 in May, arguing that Maryland has already studied the legacy of slavery extensively and should focus on direct policies to reduce racial disparities rather than launching another commission.

"Democrats have launched another spending spree, starting with an unnecessary special session and then forcing through a misguided Reparations Commission," conservative state representative Nino Mangione wrote on Facebook. "Even the big-spending Governor knew this was a bad idea. Voters should remember who supported this waste and hold them accountable at the ballot box."

Conservative state representative Matthew Morgan stated, "This bill betrays the original intention, the unifying event of the civil rights movement. It's immoral, and it's fiscally ruinous to this state, and it sends a message to the generations out there now in Maryland that if you're concerned about fairness, dignity, opportunity in this state, to flee Maryland."

Today, the Maryland Freedom Caucus was in Annapolis for a Special Session to elect a new Speaker of the House and take up any vetoes from the governor. The most important of the day was SB587 - the Maryland Reparations Commission. This bill will divide Marylanders along racial… pic.twitter.com/o8nadR3q3v

— Maryland Freedom Caucus (@MDFreedomCaucus) December 17, 2025

The commission will study potential reparations, including apologies, direct payments, property tax rebates, childcare support, debt forgiveness, and higher-education tuition assistance. It will issue a preliminary report by January 1, 2027, a final report by November 1, 2027, and sunset in summer 2028.

The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland hailed the override in an X post.

LBCMD applauds the General Assembly’s override of the veto of the Maryland Reparations Commission (SB 587), which will now become law in our state. This landmark action establishes a rigorous & comprehensive plan for reparations and marks MD’s first-ever step toward reparations. pic.twitter.com/RL1ftjPeOD

— Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland (@BlackCaucusMD) December 16, 2025

Residents are fleeing the state (read report), as smart money recognizes that one-party Democratic rule has sent it what may be a terminal decline.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 20:30

67% Of Canadians Say Cost Of Living In Their Region Is Worst They've Seen

Authored by Jennifer Cowan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nearly seven in every 10 Canadians are identifying the cost of living in their area as a major issue, according to a newly released survey.

A person pushes a shopping cart through the produce section of a grocery store in Toronto, on Nov. 22, 2022. Carlos Osorio/Reuters

An Abacus Data poll found that 67 percent of the 1,500 people surveyed earlier this month said the cost of living in their area is the worst they can ever remember it being. Another 21 percent say the cost of living is bad where they live, although they can recall periods when it was even more challenging.

Only 11 percent say the cost of living is not bad, the survey said.

A recent poll in the United States found that 46 percent of Americans say the cost of living is the most challenging they can recall, which suggests that Canadians are experiencing this pressure even more intensely, Abacus Data CEO David Coletto said in the survey report.

Canadians polled also said the cost of living should be the federal government’s top priority. Sixty-two percent of people polled identified it as one of their top three issues compared to health care at 40 percent, and economic growth at 34 percent.

Housing affordability was fourth on the list at 25 percent, followed by immigration and the Canada-U.S. trade relationship at 24 percent.

Food and Housing Prices Top Concerns

The cost of groceries play a major role in the cost of living and Canadians largely cited food prices as a contributing factor to the rising cost of living, Coletto said.

“The most widely cited concern is grocery prices, selected by 81 percent of Canadians,” he wrote. “Food prices are the most universal and emotionally resonant cost because they are unavoidable and visible every week.”

He noted that the concern rises sharply with age, from 61 percent of those in the 18 to 29 age group to 93 percent of those who are 60 and older.

The survey results were released the same day as new data from Statistics Canada indicated an increase in food prices in November, following a similar rise in October.

Food prices from stores experienced a year-over-year increase of 4.7 percent in November following a rise of 3.4 percent the previous month, StatCan said.

Housing expenses, such as rent, mortgage payments, and property prices, was the second most-frequently cited cost-of-living issue, accounting for 50 percent overall.

“Here the generational divide is clearer,” Coletto said. “Six in 10 Canadians under 30 cite housing as a major pressure, compared with fewer than four in 10 among those aged 60 and over.”

While other costs were mentioned as a concern by those surveyed, they held less significance than food or housing costs. Still, utility bills, household item prices, health-care costs, transportation costs, insurance bills, and debt repayments are all on Canadians’ radar, the poll found.

“While affordability is a shared concern, what people mean by affordability varies by life stage,” Coletto said. “Messages that treat the cost of living as a single problem risk missing the specific pressure points that different audiences feel most acutely.”

Political Impact

The increasing cost of living has been identified as the primary concern nationwide; however, this issue is especially pronounced in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, according to the poll’s findings.

A significant majority across all age demographics said affordability should be a primary focus for the federal government, Coletto said. Younger Canadians tend to associate this issue with housing affordability, whereas older Canadians are more inclined to connect it with health care and Canada’s trade relationship with the United States.

Many Canadians see affordability as a structural and global issue rather than merely the consequence of a single government’s choices, which mitigates blame, despite ongoing high levels of frustration, Coletto said. But he warned that could change over time.

“For now, the cost of living remains a warning light rather than a red light for the Carney government,” he wrote. “But the intensity of feeling, combined with seasonal pressures and fragile household finances, means the issue is unlikely to fade quietly into the background.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 20:05

Conrad Black: China's Expanding Influence Rekindles US Engagement In Latin America

Authored by Conrad Black via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Venezuela has followed a sharply sloping descent from being the most prosperous country in Latin America 50 years ago, based on its ample oil resources, to a catastrophic condition today. With the election of Marxist Hugo Chavez in 1999, and the succession of Nicolas Maduro as president in 2013 after Chavez’s death, approximately 20 percent of the population of Venezuela (8 million people) has fled the country and its GDP has declined by about 70 percent. It is by many yardsticks the most chronically under-performing country in the world.

The U.S. Navy warship USS Lake Erie docks at the Port of Balboa in Panama City on Aug. 29, 2025. The United States sent three warships to the region amid escalating tensions with Venezuela. Mauricio Valenzuela/AFP via Getty Images

Maduro is closely associated with the crime syndicate Tren de Aragua, and he is routinely declared by the U.S. government to be leading a narco-terrorist state whose chief occupation is trafficking slaves and the most dangerous narcotics into the United States and other countries in the Americas. The American contention is that Maduro’s conduct has been unconstitutional and he has no basis in popular support, and he is not in fact the legitimate head of the Venezuelan state. His principal occupation is held to be as an importer and exporter of narcotics and a trafficker in human lives of extraordinary barbarity. The United States has announced a reward of $50 million for the capture of Maduro, and it recognizes Venezuela’s president to be the opposition leader María Machado, who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, having with difficulty escaped from Venezuela.

For much of Latin American history, the U.S. government was largely influenced in its policy towards Latin American countries by the perceived corporate economic interest of the United States. The flamboyant and partially unbalanced Marine General Smedley Butler claimed that the U.S. Marine Corps in Latin America was, for many decades, deployed at the whim of the United Fruit Company to extract the maximum possible profit from the countries where it operated. There was some truth in this, and a number of Latin American leftist politicians, particularly Juan Peron in Argentina and Victoriano Huerta, Pancho Villa, and to some extent Plutarco Elias Calles in Mexico, opposed the United States with socialistic measures, including nationalization of foreign economic assets.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the United States to what he called the Good Neighbor Policy, which was sincere and widely appreciated. He took a relatively relaxed view of Mexican nationalization of the oil industry—mainly from Americans, provided a modest compensation was paid—and relations between the United States and Latin America were reasonably composed in the early post-war years, especially after Peron was overthrown as president of Argentina in 1955.

The rise of the Latin American communists, in particular Fidel Castro, who seized control in Havana in 1959, introduced a new era of competition in Latin America between the U.S. interest and the international communist challengers. President Kennedy founded the Alliance for Progress, and it did make some progress. Castro’s celebrated sidekick, Che Guevara, was killed by Bolivian authorities while attempting to promote land reform in 1967. And the dapper communist Salvador Allende was accused by Congress and the Supreme Court of Chile of radically violating the constitution, and died in the coup conducted by the commander of the Chilean army, General Augusto Pinochet, who stepped down as president of Chile after 17 years in 1990.

The end of the Cold War in 1991, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of international communism, was a heavy blow to the Latin American left, and for some decades the United States was effectively uninterested in Latin American politics, no matter how hostile to the United States some of the region’s countries became. The United States viewed Chavez in Venezuela, the semi-communist Bolivian Eva Morales, the returning Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the communist Chilean president Gabriel Boric, and Brazil’s veteran leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva with indifference.

With the rise of China as a meddlesome country and the emphasis on strategic minerals and other vital supplies, including oil, the United States has snapped out of its torpor about what it considers to be the profoundly boring and frequently juvenile political antics of Latin America. It has been encouraged in this by the victory of the tremendously colorful libertarian capitalist Javier Milei as president of Argentina. The young president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, has also attracted its interest, as has the new conservative president of Chile, José Kast, and as did the immediate former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro.

The United States has made it clear that it will not tolerate the installation of foreign military bases in Latin America, nor a policy that withholds from Washington access to any natural resources it considers to be essential. The Organization of American States (OAS) has often had a leftist majority, but the United States itself has made it clear that it does not consider ostensible Latin American political leaders who are in fact chiefly preoccupied in their vocations as narco-terrorists and slave traffickers to be worthy of any protections set up for them by international organizations. The U.S. government demonstrated when they seized the president of Panama, Manuel Noriega, in 1989 and ultimately imprisoned him as an industrial-level narcotics importer into the United States, that they weren’t much interested in what the OAS thought about it.

The United States has tired of attempting to see the Latin American countries in a nation-building role, although the current administration is strongly supporting President Milei in Argentina now. But the U.S. government under both major parties has made clear that those South American political leaders who antagonize the United States by joining forces with the chief terrorist and narcotics organizations can count on rather unsportsmanlike responses from Washington.

In the current circumstances between the United States and Venezuela, there can be little doubt that President Trump will intervene to assist the majority of Venezuelans who are opposed to the government, and will continue to treat the regime as a criminal enterprise. Maduro is unlikely to last long and will not be much lamented, least of all in Venezuela.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 19:15

Trump Expands Travel Ban To Block Palestinians, Others From Entering The US

President Donald Trump has once again expanded the U.S. travel ban, adding seven new countries and, for the first time, holders of Palestinian Authority passports to a growing list of nations whose citizens are barred from entering the United States. The move brings the number of countries facing travel restrictions to nearly 40, as the administration doubles down on its promise to tighten America’s borders and restore national security by strengthening control over who gets in—and who does not.

The new ban applies to Syria, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and Laos, along with anyone traveling on a Palestinian Authority passport. The restrictions have no exceptions for individual circumstances. 

Trump’s proclamation cites threats to the safety and stability of the United States as the justification.

“It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security and public safety, incite hate crimes, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes,” Trump said in his proclamation.

“The United States must exercise extreme vigilance during the visa-issuance and immigration processes to identify, prior to their admission or entry into the United States, foreign nationals who intend to harm Americans or our national interests. “

Trump added, “The United States Government must ensure that admitted aliens do not intend to threaten its citizens; undermine or destabilize its culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; or advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.”

The inclusion of Syria comes in the wake of an attack earlier this week that killed two U.S. troops and a civilian.

Syrian authorities identified the perpetrator as a security officer set to be dismissed due to “extremist Islamist ideas.”

The attack reinforced long-standing concerns within the administration about the region’s volatility and the risk of infiltration by radicals.

The addition of Palestinian Authority passport holders formalizes what had functioned as an informal ban for years. 

The other countries - Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan - are plagued by weak institutions, Islamist militancy, and chronic instability.

Laos was included due to authoritarian consolidation and close ties to China.

Trump said all face “chronic vetting deficiencies” that pose risks to U.S. security.

Partial restrictions also apply to countries including Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, and Senegal.

While athletes will be allowed to enter for next year’s World Cup, no such guarantees have been made for fans or journalists. 

Other countries - including Angola, Benin, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua and Barbuda, and Tonga - are also facing new forms of limited travel restrictions.

Trump had already banned the entry of Somalis.

Other countries remaining on the full travel ban are Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Sudan, and Yemen.

Trump last month made the ban even more sweeping against Afghans, severing a program that brought in Afghans who had fought alongside the United States against the Taliban, after an Afghan veteran who appeared to have post-traumatic stress shot two National Guards troops deployed by Trump in Washington.

The White House acknowledged "significant progress" by one initially targeted country, Turkmenistan.

The Central Asian country's nationals will once again be able to secure US visas, but only as non-immigrants.

Trump has also all but ended refugee admissions, with the United States now only accepting South Africans from the white Afrikaner minority.

A total of 39 countries now have a full or partial travel ban imposed.

Trump’s travel bans have routinely triggered fierce resistance from Democrats. In 2017, his first ban, driven by terrorism concerns, was immediately smeared as racist because the affected countries were Muslim majority countries. That charge rang hollow, given that the list of countries of concern was developed under the Obama administration. The problem wasn’t the ban, it was who was implementing it. The same pattern played out at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, when Trump’s travel restrictions were attacked as xenophobic, only for governments around the world to adopt nearly identical measures shortly thereafter.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 18:50

Executives At Bankrupt Subprime Auto Lender Tricolor Charged With Fraud

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times,

The former CEO and chief operating officer of subprime auto dealer and financier Tricolor Holdings were formally charged on Dec. 16 with bank and wire fraud for their alleged roles in what officials say was a years-long scheme to defraud banks and private credit lenders of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Tricolor founder Daniel Chu and David Goodgame were indicted in federal court in Manhattan for multiple financial schemes that started in 2018 and include double-pledging collateral to multiple lenders, as well as manipulating the characteristics of delinquent loans in order to meet lender requirements, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York said in a statement.

“CEO Daniel Chu was the leader of an elaborate scheme to defraud creditors of Tricolor,” U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said.

“At his direction, Tricolor repeatedly lied to banks and other credit providers, including by falsifying auto-loan data and ‘double pledging’ collateral. Fraud became an integral component of Tricolor’s business strategy.”

Tricolor’s former CFO, Jerome Kollar, and financial executive Ameryn Seibold pled guilty to fraud charges for their roles in the scheme and have been cooperating with the investigation of the company’s top executives, the indictment noted.

According to the indictment, Chu directed Tricolor leadership to double-pledge loan collateral to multiple banks, as well as to manipulate data on nonperforming loans in order to bundle them and obtain additional lending. The executives also allegedly made up records that included false payments on loans.

By August, Tricolor had obtained roughly $2.2 billion from lenders and investors, though it only had about $1.4 billion in actual assets.

Founded in 2007 in Irving, Texas, Tricolor on Sept. 10 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The company operated more than 60 dealerships, primarily in California and Texas, and its buy-here-pay-here financing model proved attractive to subprime borrowers.

The scheme began to implode this past summer when lender JPMorgan Chase confronted Tricolor and Chu about the $800 million discrepancy. The banker in October recorded a $170 million charge-off in the third quarter due to its exposure to Tricolor debt.

“It is not our finest moment,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said at the time.

Other lenders include Barclays PLC, Zions, and Western Alliance. Fifth Third Bancorp recorded a similar $178 million charge-off in the third quarter based on its wholesale lending to Tricolor, while Zions said it would take a $50 million write-off.

As Tricolor began to unravel—the company in September placed more than 1,000 employees on unpaid leave and shuttered operations just before it filed for bankruptcy—Chu directed his chief financial officer to pay him a bonus of $6.25 million, the indictment said.

Chu allegedly used some of the funds to pay for a multimillion-dollar property in Beverley Hills in August.

Tricolor’s turbulent financial failure mirrors that of auto parts supplier First Brands Group, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Sept. 28. First Brands Group listed debts between $10 billion and $50 billion.

Its collapse has roiled credit markets, a Moody’s Investors Services report said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 18:25

Vance Fires Back At Media Smear: "I Only Believe In The Conspiracy Theories That Are True"

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a brazen attempt by legacy media to sow discord within the Trump administration, Vanity Fair dropped a so-called “exclusive” interview with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, cherry-picking her words to paint Vice President JD Vance as some wild-eyed “conspiracy theorist.” But Vance didn’t back down—he turned the tables, reminding everyone how many “conspiracies” turned out to be stone-cold facts suppressed by the deep state and their press lapdogs.

This latest media ambush highlights the relentless efforts to undermine the Trump Administration, but as usual, it backfired spectacularly when Vance delivered a masterclass in exposing the hypocrisy.

The drama kicked off with Vanity Fair’s multi-part interview series on Wiles, where she casually noted that Vance has “been a conspiracy theorist for a decade.” Framed amid broader comments on the administration’s inner workings, the outlet spun it as internal friction, even dragging in digs at other figures like tech innovator Elon Musk as an “odd duck” and claiming President Trump has “an alcoholic’s personality.”

Predictably, the corporate press pile-on followed, with outlets like The Washington Post amplifying the narrative as if it exposed chaos in the White House.

Wiles wasn’t having it. She fired back on X, slamming the piece as a “disingenuously framed hit piece” that omitted “significant context” to craft a “chaotic and negative narrative” about the team steering America back on track.

President Trump himself stood firm, defending his chief of staff against the smear campaign.

President Trump is backing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles after her explosive remarks in a Vanity Fair interview. @rachelvscott reports. pic.twitter.com/VVPC2EymmU

— Good Morning America (@GMA) December 17, 2025

Speaking in Pennsylvania, Vance faced a reporter from The Washington Post head-on about the “conspiracy theorist” label. Far from dodging, he owned it with precision, listing “theories” that proved prophetic while mocking the media’s complicity in real cover-ups.

“Sometimes I am a conspiracy theorist, but I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true,” Vance declared. He added, “And by the way, Susie and I have joked in private and in public about that for a long time.”

Vance didn’t stop there. He rattled off examples that hit like truth bombs: “For example, I believed in the crazy conspiracy theory back in 2020 that it was stupid to mask three-year-olds at the height of the COVID pandemic, that we should actually let them develop some language skills.”

Then he hammered the Biden cover-up: “I believed in this crazy conspiracy theory that the media and the government were covering up the fact that Joe Biden was clearly unable to do the job.”

And on the weaponization of justice: “And I believed in the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was trying to throw his political opponents in jail rather than win an argument against his political opponents.”

Wrapping it up, Vance delivered the knockout: “So, at least on some of these conspiracy theories, it turns out that a conspiracy theory is just something that was true six months before the media admitted it.”

VANCE: "Sometimes I am a conspiracy theorist, but I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true. On some of these conspiracy theories, it turns out that a conspiracy theory is just something that was true six months BEFORE the media admitted it." ? pic.twitter.com/2hu0VwJVC4

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) December 16, 2025

Vance is spot on. The media spent years dismissing legitimate concerns as right-wing paranoia. CNN’s Jake Tapper, for example, labeled questions about Biden’s cognitive decline a “right-wing conspiracy” before going on to release his own book about Biden’s decline.

Remember how they ridiculed the COVID lab-leak theory until even their own “experts” admitted it was plausible and probably the most likely scenario? And don’t get us started on the Russia collusion hoax they peddled to sabotage Trump’s first term.

At its core, this episode underscores the ongoing battle against leftists and their media enablers, who label any inconvenient truth a “conspiracy” to maintain control. The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ now just basically means someone who is right. Vance’s response serves as a reminder that questioning the narrative isn’t fringe; it’s essential to reclaiming freedoms.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 17:00

Where Did Global Warming Go? US East Sees Snowiest Start In Nearly Two Decades

The so-called "climate crisis" narrative was built on a house of cards and has been unraveling ever since Bill Gates acknowledged the risks were overstated, and a major study long used to project climate catastrophe was recently retracted.

In reality, the narrative became a vehicle for globalist Democrats to raid the U.S. Treasury and push de-growth policies that weakened the U.S. under the Biden-Harris regime. Meanwhile, China aggressively expanded coal-fired power generation, raising the question of whether the push for "green" policies amounted to little more than self-sabotage.

Another climate reality is that polar vortex mayhem across the eastern half of the U.S. this month has produced one of the snowiest starts to the Northern Hemisphere winter season in nearly two decades. This winter blast undermines the narrative pushed by Democrats, climate-aligned NGOs, and left-wing billionaires, as well as their favored youth spokesperson, Greta, who routinely promoted misinformation and disinformation of imminent planetary inferno unless higher taxes on working-class people, an urgent need to ban cow farts, and eliminate petrol-powered cars and gas stoves.

Meteorologist Ben Noll revealed the visually displeasing reality of a strong winter start for the eastern half of the Lower 48 that Democrats don't want the mainstream to see...

"Fueled in part by an unusually early disruption to the polar vortex, 18 states and D.C. have experienced more snow than average so far this season. In some states, it's been the snowiest start in almost two decades," Noll wrote on X.

Noll noted, "States such as Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana experienced their snowiest start to the season since at least 2008. Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, D.C., New Jersey, and Vermont rank in the top three snowiest over that same period."

"Snowfall has been two to five times the season-to-date average in a zone from Iowa to the Mid-Atlantic coast," he said.

However, Al Gore's global warming appears to be lingering in the western U.S.

The West has been a different story when it comes to snow.

Snowfall has been well below-average across California’s Sierra Mountains and also historically low in Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Colorado. pic.twitter.com/Z9yuancYmb

— Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) December 17, 2025

The good news for those in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast is that relief, or "global warming," will return ahead of Christmas. And now it is only a matter of time before the next polar vortex.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 16:40

It's Affordability, Stupid?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

The recent Democratic cry of “affordability” is ironic in many ways.

The left-wing narrative of Trump hyperinflation was one of desperation and came only after previous memes had failed to resonate.

The 2025 generic “dictator,” “fascist,” and “Nazi” smear points never helped the left much.

Nor did the nihilist government shutdown over the “Obamacare crisis” work other than perhaps to depress fourth-quarter GDP.

Nor did the earlier spring 2025 melodramatic predictions of an impending “Trade War,” “Recession,” and stock-market “Meltdown resonate.”

Nor did the “Gestapo,” “SS,” and “Nazi” ICE smears become effective talking points.

The “illegal orders” and “unconstitutional use of force” in destroying narcotraffickers’ shipments in transit of lethal drugs were mostly empty rhetoric.

Then the Democrats got smart and remembered how Trump had won in 2024.

He ran and triumphed on pointing out that gasoline had gone sky-high under Biden, who drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, put federal oil and gas lands off-limits, and wasted hundreds of billions on green subsidies.

Biden entered office with Trump’s national gas average of $2.39 a gallon and promptly doubled it to $5—until it settled down to a four-year average of $3.35-40 a gallon. That was roughly 35-40 cents higher than the present $3.00 Trump national average.

Biden’s four-year inflation had cumulatively hit 21.5% and it climbed much higher when staples like key foods, insurance, housing, energy, cars, etc., were tabulated separately.

Trump thundered that he had left Biden with a 2020 near-historically low 1.2-4% inflation rate—and then Biden’s four years had more than quadrupled it to an average of 5.2% per year.

In any case, in the 2024 campaign, the case was made that Biden had added $8 trillion to the national debt while making staples unaffordable to the middle class. Trump easily won on that economics/affordability issue.

The affordability case was seemingly closed, given that the Democrats never had an answer for Biden’s misery indices and thus turned to the other smears mentioned above.

But then a funny thing happened.

Trump had entered office with a monthly inflation rate of 3%, but did not somehow immediately lower it.

And the rate remains. After ten months of Trump’s tenure, it was still at the same 3%.

Yet suddenly, the left cried, “Affordability!”

Apparently, Trump was culpable because in months he had yet to undo all the damage Biden had inflicted over four years, despite the fact that Trump’s inflation was already 2.2 points less than the Biden four-year yearly average—and headed downward.

But the public was exhausted by high prices and wanted Trump not just to lower dramatically the average Biden inflation rate but also to reduce the Biden 21.5 aggregate inflation and to do so immediately.

The Trump team did not believe anyone would believe this yarn for a number of reasons.

One, no one could credibly believe that the party responsible for hyperinflation could dare to blame its successor for not immediately, in ten months, cleaning up the mess that Democrats had wrought over four years.

Two, Trump had enacted a series of dramatic initiatives that may soon not only lower inflation but could create a veritable boom from some $10 trillion in promised foreign investment. More deregulation, extended tax cuts, and additional reductions are in the big beautiful bill.

The administration has been fast-tracking new federal fossil fuel leasing, pipeline construction, and incentives for greater production of oil and gas, and massive natural gas exports. The borders are closed. Two million illegal aliens have left the U.S., lessening social welfare costs and increasing labor opportunities for U.S. citizens.

By year’s end, some $200-300 billion in 2025 tariff revenue will be collected, coupled with increased domestic opportunities for U.S. business expansion.

So, apparently, the Trump administration thought that the public was aware that mid- to long-term remedies were underway that would fuel the economy in mid-2025.

Thus, did they assume “affordability” was not yet really an issue and needed little explanation, given the good news to come was already self-evident?

Or, they were so consumed with foreign affairs—and indeed, dramatic successes abroad—that they thought such good news would naturally become force multipliers of the implicitly bright economic forecasts.

Indeed, efforts to end the Ukraine war, the elimination of the immediate threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, and a ceasefire in the Middle East were in sharp contrast to the prior four years, when two theater wars broke out on Biden’s watch after the disastrous misadventure in Kabul.

Finally, all Israeli hostages who were still alive returned. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran’s military have all suffered terrible damage.

Each month, there seems to be a new announcement of more favorable trade agreements with major commercial partners.

Once dismal military recruitment is now at a historic high. There is not a reduction but a veritable end of all illegal immigration.

Trump tried to fashion cease-fires in wars all over the world: the Congo-Rwanda, India-Pakistan, Cambodia-Thailand, Azerbaijan-Armenia, and Ethiopia-Egypt.

So why did Trump people not see the left gaining some traction on the affordability issue?

The administration has so far not fully absorbed three realities.

• One, their likely successful economic stimuli and reforms will not kick in fully until mid-2026. So they needed to argue for a little more patience or to explain in detail exactly how, why, and when the economy will correct the Biden catastrophe.

• Two, they did not pound home enough the difference between Trump’s economic legacy in 2020, the ensuing Biden four-year failure, and now his own ten-month new efforts to build upon what he had once accomplished.

• Third, even foreign successes, ironically, can detract from the economy. True, good coverage of a Trump ascendant abroad helped him at home. But when the economy is demagogued as “unaffordable,” Trump’s attention overseas is used as proof that he doesn’t care about those at home.

In other words, in an election cycle, a presidential Nobel Peace Prize is worth less than a one percent inflation rate.

There is a year left before the midterms. If the Democrats win the House, they will stall the entire Trump agenda. They will impeach him in their first month. And they will subpoena and wage lawfare against all major Trump appointees in hopes of either bankrupting them or putting them in jail.

Obviously, to continue the MAGA counter-revolution, all emphasis should be on the economy. Every policy initiative should be discussed in terms of its economic utility, from ending illegal immigration to recording oil pumping to foreign investment.

Detail matters.

Trashing Biden is far less effective than comparing the actual data of his four-year averages with Trump’s own first-term stats so far: gas prices, the inflation rate, illegal entries, deportations, foreign investment, and other economic indicators.

Foreign policy must be presented in domestic and preferably economic terms: blowing up a narco-trafficking boat saves thousands of lives.

Providing NATO leadership offers leverage with the far more hostile EU—as in “decide whether as Europe-NATO you wish for an American presence, or as Europe-EU you do not like us and wish us gone—but not both.”

What is the dollar effect of deportation on job growth and higher wages for Americans, or on vastly reduced entitlement costs?

In sum, the economy is already better than Biden’s yearly averages. Events are in play that will create substantial national wealth soon, which will make the middle class better off. And successes abroad translate to an enhanced economy at home.

But all that in a unified fashion has to be hammered home rather than assumed.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 16:20

Wall Street's $4 Quadrillion Backbone To Roll-Out Tokenized US Treasuries

Authored by Jesse Coghlan via CoinTelegraph.com,

The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation said it is set to bring tokenized US Treasurys onchain, and plans to expand to a “broad spectrum” of assets in the future.

The DTCC said on Wednesday that it plans to “enable a subset of US Treasury securities” custodied at its subsidiary, the Depository Trust Company, to be minted on the Canton Network, a permissioned blockchain created by the fintech company Digital Asset.

“This collaboration creates a roadmap to bring real-world, high-value tokenization use cases to market, starting with US Treasury securities and eventually expanding to a broad spectrum of DTC-eligible assets across network providers,” said DTCC CEO Frank LaSalla.

The DTCC runs crucial market infrastructure for clearing, settlement and trading of US securities and reported that its subsidiaries processed $3.7 quadrillion in securities transactions last year.

Frank LaSalla speaking with CNBC’s “Crypto World” on Friday after receiving the SEC’s no-action letter. Source: YouTube

The company received a rare “no-action” letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday that greenlit a securities tokenization service “on pre-approved blockchains for three years,” and confirmed that the agency won’t take enforcement action against DTCC if its product operates as described.

More securities to be tokenized

The trio is working to launch a minimum viable product in a controlled environment by the first half of 2026, and the DTCC stated that it will “increase the size and scope of the project in the months that follow based upon client interest.”

It added that the whole partnership roadmap between the three companies would “unfold over multiple years,” but for now it aims to provide access to “digitized financial instruments in a secure and regulated environment.”

The DTCC said last week that the SEC’s letter “applies to a defined set of highly liquid assets,” including US Treasury bills, bonds and notes, exchange-traded funds (ETF) tracking major indexes and the Russell 1000, which tracks the 1,000 largest public US companies.

The company added that it would also join the Canton Network’s governance and would take up the position of co-chair alongside Euroclear on the blockchain’s backing organization, the Canton Foundation.

Markets are moving onchain, but analyst expects a slow burn

SEC chair Paul Atkins said on Friday after his agency gave DTCC a no-action letter that the company’s initiative “marks an important step towards onchain capital markets.”

“US financial markets are poised to move onchain,” he said, adding the SEC “is prioritizing innovation and embracing new technologies to enable this onchain future.”

The same day, NYDIG global head of research Greg Cipolaro said that the tokenization of securities won’t immediately be a major boon to the crypto market, but that could change if tokenized assets are allowed to better integrate on blockchains.

Cipolaro said that traditional finance structures are still required on tokenized assets; their designs can “differ greatly,” and most are hosted on private blockchains like Canton, meaning not all can work with the wider decentralized financial system.

“In the future, one could see these RWAs being part of DeFi (composability), either as collateral for borrowing, an asset to be lent out, or for trading,” he added. “This will take time as technology develops, infrastructure is built out, and rules and regulations evolve.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 15:40

DOD Flirting With Aviation Disaster: 2nd Near-Collision With USAF Tanker Off Venezuela

Just one day after almost killing everyone aboard a passenger jet, the US Air Force narrowly dodged another near-disaster off the coast of Venezuela -- this time with a business jet. For many, the two frightening incidents intensify a perception that the administration's militarism against Venezuela is as reckless as it is unwarranted and unconstitutional.

Within a day of each other, two midair disasters nearly unfolded off Venezuela involving USAF refueling tankers, like this KC-45 Pegasus (USAF Photo)

For those who missed our reporting on the first near-disaster, on Saturday, a JetBlue Airbus A320 heading to New York's JFK Airport from the Caribbean island of Curaçao was forced to take evasive action when the pilots suddenly found themselves staring down an approaching USAF refueling tanker at the same altitude and only two or three miles away.

"It was an air-to-air refueler from the United States Air Force...We had to stop our climb and actually descend to avoid hitting them," the JetBlue pilot told air traffic controllers. "They don't have their transponder turned on. It's outrageous." (A transponder is a device that helps make aircraft appear on the radars of controllers and other aircraft.) The controller replied, "I don't have anything on my scope." Here's a reconstruction of that incident, overlaying radar and audio: 

Now comes news that, on Saturday, the passengers and pilots on a Dassault Falcon 900EX business jet heading to Miami from Aruba had their own brush with death via an Air Force tanker. In this case, an air traffic controller alerted the Falcon pilot and directed him to a new course: "Turn right heading 020. An unidentified traffic, 12 o'clock, closing 10 miles, level not known."  

After spotting the aircraft, the rattled Falcon pilot informed the controller. "We just got that traffic. I don't know how we didn't get an RA for that," he said, referring to a Resolution Advisory, a command generated by an on-board Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). "They were really close -- and you turned us into them." The controller explained that the unidentified craft "keep[s] turning irregular." 

As it climbed out of Aruba, a Dassault 900EX like this one was almost destroyed by a KC-46 tanker operating off Venezuela

Trying to gather as much information as possible about the unidentified craft, the controller asked the Falcon pilot if he could discern its altitude or type. "Somewhere around 26 [thousand feet]. We were climbing right into him.. It was big, maybe like a triple-7, [767], something like that. It was a wide-body." It's not clear how CNN confirmed it was an Air Force tanker, but Russ Niles at AvBrief.com similarly concluded that it appeared to be a KC-46 tanker. While there's no indication of how many were aboard the Falcon 900EX, it's typically configured to carry 10 to 14 passengers.  

In November, the Federal Aviation Administration warned US carriers about potential dangers from "heightened military activity" at "all altitudes" in and around Venezuela. “Threats could pose a potential risk to aircraft at all altitudes, including during overflight, the arrival and departure phases of flight, and/or airports and aircraft on the ground,” the FAA said in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). In response, several airlines cancelled flights in and out of Venezuela. 

Seeking to rein in the administration's widening military activity around Venezuela, resolutions are advancing in both the House and Senate that would bar the Pentagon from engaging in hostilities there without congressional approval. The House version, may be voted on as early as Thursday, counts Republicans Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Don Bacon among its cosponsors. Republican Rand Paul helped introduce a similar measure in the Senate, saying, “The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war.”

At the urging of long-hawkish Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump has ordered many aggressive moves in and around Venezuela: 

• Attacking boats purported to be carrying illicit drugs, killing at least 95 people. Compounding the controversy over using the military to summarily execute alleged drug offenders who likely weren't even heading to the United States, at least one of the strikes included subsequent fire on survivors clinging to the wreckage. 
• Ordering a "total and complete blockade" of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela. That order on Tuesday came after last week's interception and seizure of a tanker near the country's coast, which prompted supertankers bound for Venezuela to make U-turns.  
• Repeatedly threatening land warfare, recently telling reporters that, following on the boat attacks, "very soon we're going to start doing it on land too." 
• Flying B-52 bombers near the coastline and F-18 fighters deep inside the Gulf of Venezuela. 
• Reportedly authorizing covert operations to overthrow President Nicolas Maduro, seemingly betraying his campaign promises to be a "peace president" and to resist the Deep State's long-running obsession with regime change.   

Blockading Venezuela and changing its government was never even mentioned by Trump 2024. Trump instead vowed no regime-change wars.

But the Cuban community in which Rubio was raised long craved using the US to take over Venezuela and then Cuba. And it makes Trump feel tough. https://t.co/kAeHi98Enj

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 17, 2025

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 15:20

Gavin Newsom Singles Out CZ, Ross Ulbricht, Arthur Hayes As Trump's "Criminal Cronies"

Authored by Vismaya V via Decrypt.co,

California Governor Gavin Newsom has launched a website tracking what he calls President Donald Trump's "criminal cronies,” a list that includes Trump himself alongside convicted drug lords, January 6 insurrectionists, and several prominent crypto figures who have received presidential pardons.

The tracker, unveiled Tuesday, spotlights Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht, and BitMEX co-founders Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, Gregory Dwyer, and Samuel Reed, among the recipients of Trump's pardons.

CRIMINAL IN CHIEF: DONALD TRUMP

34 felony convictions. Cozying up to convicted sex traffickers. Cashing in on crypto grifts. Inviting foreign influence into American politics.
This is the standard Trump sets.

See more at: https://t.co/B05K1ZIqBW pic.twitter.com/cfDAEacmib

— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) December 16, 2025

"Governor Newsom is driving crime down—and Donald Trump is pardoning drug lords and driving criminals into government," Newsom's office said in a statement announcing the website, alongside new data showing violent crime declining across California's major cities.

The crypto-heavy pardon list comes amid mounting Democratic concerns about Trump's crypto dealings and potential conflicts of interest, entangling U.S. governance with private crypto interests.

Newsom supports "responsible crypto and blockchain innovation while prioritizing consumer protection, not fraud," according to his office, positioning California as a counterweight to what Democrats characterize as Trump's alleged corruption.

The launch came the same week that Decrypt asked President Trump whether he would consider pardoning Samourai Wallet developer Keonne Rodriguez.

“I’ll look at it,” the president said, leaving open the possibility of further crypto-related pardons.

CZ's "full and unconditional" pardon

Changpeng Zhao’s "full and unconditional pardon” came after pleading guilty to money laundering charges for allowing illicit funds, including money flowing to “terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers,” through Binance's platform, said Newsom.

Newsom’s site notes that Binance “was an important supporter of the Trump family’s own business,” World Liberty Financial, and mocks Trump’s claim that he doesn’t know Zhao, joking, “Maybe Sneaky Pete used the autopen while Trump slept?”

Last week, World Liberty Financial's USD1 stablecoin became part of Binance's core infrastructure, with Binance denying any connection between Zhao's pardon and the expanded integration of USD1, calling such suggestions "false and defamatory."

Silk Road and BitMEX

Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, the now-shuttered dark web marketplace that facilitated over $214 million in illegal drug sales (often via Bitcoin), received a pardon for his 2015 conviction on narcotics and money-laundering conspiracy charges.

The BitMEX co-founders all received pardons in March after pleading guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act. Trump also pardoned HDR Global Trading Limited, the corporation that owns the cryptocurrency exchange.

Decrypt has contacted the White House, CZ and Arthur Hayes for additional comment.

Democrats vs. Trump

Newsom’s site highlights what it calls Trump’s “crypto corruption,” claiming that the president’s family has “raked in at least $800 million dollars in crypto” since the start of 2025. The site also alleges that Trump’s SEC suspended an investigation into Tron founder Justin Sun “just weeks after Sun invested $75 million into Trump’s crypto company World Liberty Financial,” as well as accusing the president of “cashing in” on his TRUMP meme coin by offering tours of the White House to investors.

This isn’t the first time that Newsom has shone a spotlight on Trump’s crypto activities; in September, the California Governor said on the "Pivot" podcast he would release his own meme coin called "Trump Corruption Coin,” mocking the president's TRUMP meme coin.

His website joins a widening chorus of Democratic criticism aimed at Trump’s connections with crypto projects.

Senator Elizabeth Warren's letter this week to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted decentralized exchange PancakeSwap's role in facilitating trading of USD1, and its reported use by North Korean backers to launder stolen crypto funds.

Meanwhile, House Democrats recently labeled the Trump White House “the world’s most corrupt crypto startup operation,” citing reports that the family earned more than $800 million in crypto ventures this year.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 15:00

Ford To Lay Off 1,600 Workers As Kentucky EV Battery Plant Pivots To Data Center Storage

Ford will lay off all 1,600 workers at its newly built electric-vehicle battery plant in Glendale, Kentucky, as it pivots away from EV production and converts the facility to make battery-storage systems for data centers, utilities, and renewable-energy developers, according to WDRB.

The company said Monday it plans to begin shipping battery energy-storage systems from plants in Kentucky and Michigan in late 2027, calling the move a shift toward “higher-return opportunities,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford estimates the transition away from its EV strategy will cost $19.5 billion and disclosed that it has lost about $13 billion on EVs since 2023.

“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting,” CEO Jim Farley told the Journal.

In a video message to employees, Michael Adams, CEO of BlueOval SK—the former Ford–SK On joint venture—said the move would mark “the end of all BlueOval SK positions in Kentucky.” Workers will continue to receive pay and benefits for 60 days, though no firm layoff date was given. Ford said it plans to hire about 2,100 workers for the revamped facility and that displaced employees will be eligible to apply.

WDRB writes that the Hardin County project was originally pitched as a $5.8 billion investment to supply batteries for Ford’s EVs, including the F-150 Lightning. But slowing EV demand, excess capacity, and changes in emissions policy forced a rethink. Ford recently canceled production of the electric pickup and paused work on a second battery plant next door, which remains unfinished.

Industry analysts say the problem goes deeper than demand. “They built the wrong kind of battery and the wrong chemistry for that here in Kentucky,” said WSJ automotive reporter Chris Otts, adding that retooling the plant requires a full overhaul and years of lead time.

Ford and SK On formally ended their partnership last week. Ford will take full ownership of the Kentucky plants, while SK On will run a nearly completed Tennessee facility focused on similar energy-storage products. Under Ford’s revised plan, the Glendale site is expected to operate at just 23% of its original planned capacity when production begins in 2027.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said the state is renegotiating its incentive agreement with Ford and prioritizing support for displaced workers through job fairs and other resources. Republican state lawmakers representing the area said they would closely monitor Ford’s commitments as the project shifts toward grid-scale energy storage.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 14:40

Solid 20Y Auction Stops Through After Jump In Foreign Demand

With stocks selling off again, and with capital - especially tech capital - scrambling for a flight to safety, it should hardly surprise anyone that today's 20Y auction was strong. 

Pricing at a high yield of 4.798%, this was almost 10bps higher than the 4.71% stop in November (when the auction tailed by 0.2bps), and stopped through today's When Issued 4.799% by 0.1bps, the 6th stop through in the past 7 auctions. 

The bid to cover jumped from 2.41 in November to 2.67, just above the 2.65 recent average. 

The internals were also solid, as foreigners (aka Indirects) took down 65.2% of the auction, the highest since July; and with Directs awarded 22.2%, a bit below the 25.3% recent average, Dealers were left holding 12.6%, up from 11.4% in November and above the six-auction average of 11.0%.

Overall, this was a solid auction, which is what one would expected today, and while yields moved lower by about a basis point on the news, the reaction was to be expected. The big question is what happens to both issuance and yields if and when the AI trade continues to blow up and Trump decides to shift their existential risk to the balance sheet of the US taxpayer, similar to what happened in 2008 when it was banks, not AI companies, that were seen as Too Big To Fail.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 13:17

California Allows Tesla To Continue Sales In State... For Now

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has placed on hold an order suspending Tesla’s car sales in the state, granting the electric vehicle maker additional time to respond to allegations of misleading marketing and overstated self-driving capabilities.

Teslas fill the charging stations at a newly opened Tesla Diner in Hollywood, Calif., July 22, 2025. Jill McLaughlin/The Epoch Times

DMV Director Steve Gordon told reporters on Tuesday that the agency adopted a judge’s recommendation for a 30-day suspension of Tesla’s manufacturing and sales licenses, but stayed the measures.

The stay lasts for 90 days on sales and indefinitely on manufacturing, which Gordon said provides Tesla “one more chance to be able to remedy the situation.” Gordon noted that he hopes Tesla will “find a way to get these misleading statements corrected.”

Tesla can appeal the order within the agency or in court, Gordon said.

The DMV first filed complaints in 2022, alleging that Tesla had made untrue or misleading statements about its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) features. According to regulatory filings, the agency claimed that the branding implied the vehicles could operate autonomously, in violation of state advertising regulations. A DMV spokesperson at the time indicated that successful action could require Tesla to better educate consumers about feature limitations and provide cautionary warnings.

In a 2024 ruling, a judge threw out Tesla’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, accepting the state’s argument that even with disclaimers, misleading terms could attract customers unlawfully. The DMV argued Tesla’s language led reasonable people to believe vehicles functioned autonomously, despite requiring active supervision.

A lawyer at Tesla stated in a hearing that the company had “clearly and consistently” explained that cars equipped with Autopilot and FSD software require driver supervision and are not autonomous.

“Tesla has never misled consumers. Never. And not even close,” the lawyer said.

Tesla is currently facing reduced demand for their electric vehicles after the end of key tax credits. CEO Elon Musk has shifted the company’s focus to robotaxis that use an unsupervised FSD version and humanoid robots.

Autopilot assists with highway tasks like acceleration, braking, and lane-keeping, while FSD enables lane changes, traffic signal obedience, and city driving—all under supervision. Tesla employs “supervised” FSD in consumer vehicles while “unsupervised” variants are used in factory operations and a monitored robotaxi service in Austin.

The DMV’s stance echoes broader scrutiny. In 2022, drivers filed a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court alleging false claims about Autopilot and FSD, seeking damages for purchasers since 2016. That suit followed the DMV’s initial complaints.

The company was victorious in 2023 in a trial over a fatal crash involving Autopilot, with jurors finding that the company had provided sufficient driver warnings. In a separate 2024 ruling, fraud claims against Musk and officials were dismissed, finding that statements such as Autopilot being safer than average drivers were not fraudulent.

Additionally, a 2023 recall of 362,000 vehicles addressed FSD software bugs risking crashes at intersections, underscoring ongoing safety concerns. Federal probes by the Justice Department and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continue into Autopilot and range claims.

The automaker did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the latest developments.

Reuters contributed to this report

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 13:00