Trust In The US Government Has Plunged From 77% To 17%

Over the past seven decades, Americans’ trust in the federal government has dropped from postwar highs to historic lows.

In 1964, 77% said they trusted Washington to do what is right most of the time.

As of September 2025, that figure stands at just 17%.

The chart below, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, tracks this long-term shift, using data from Pew Research Center.

While trust has occasionally surged during moments of national crisis, the broader trajectory shows a steady erosion across generations.

From Postwar Highs to Vietnam-Era Decline

Trust peaked in 1964, when 77% of Americans said they trusted the federal government most of the time. Even in 1958, nearly three-quarters of the public expressed confidence in the federal government.

That began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By 1970, trust had fallen to 54%, and it slipped further to 36% by 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate.

The Vietnam War, political scandals, and economic turbulence reshaped public opinion for decades to come.

Date Trust the government (%) 9/28/2025 17 2/9/2025 19 5/19/2024 18 6/11/2023 19 05/01/2022 20 4/11/2021 21 8/2/2020 24 4/12/2020 21 3/25/2019 17 12/04/2017 18 4/11/2017 19 10/04/2015 18 7/20/2014 19 2/26/2014 18 11/15/2013 20 10/13/2013 19 5/31/2013 20 02/06/2013 22 1/13/2013 23 10/31/2012 19 10/19/2011 17 10/04/2011 15 9/23/2011 18 8/21/2011 21 2/28/2011 23 10/21/2010 23 10/01/2010 21 09/06/2010 23 09/01/2010 23 04/05/2010 23 04/05/2010 22 3/21/2010 24 2/12/2010 22 02/05/2010 21 1/10/2010 20 12/20/2009 21 8/31/2009 22 6/12/2009 23 12/21/2008 25 10/15/2008 24 10/13/2008 24 07/09/2007 24 01/09/2007 28 10/08/2006 29 9/15/2006 30 02/05/2006 31 1/20/2006 33 01/06/2006 32 12/02/2005 32 9/11/2005 31 09/09/2005 30 6/19/2005 35 10/15/2004 39 7/15/2004 41 3/21/2004 38 10/26/2003 36 7/27/2003 43 10/15/2002 46 09/04/2002 46 09/02/2002 40 7/13/2002 40 6/17/2002 43 1/24/2002 46 12/07/2001 49 10/25/2001 54 10/06/2001 49 1/17/2001 44 10/31/2000 38 10/15/2000 42 07/09/2000 39 04/02/2000 38 2/14/2000 34 10/03/1999 36 9/14/1999 33 5/16/1999 33 2/21/1999 31 2/12/1999 32 02/04/1999 34 1/10/1999 34 01/03/1999 37 12/01/1998 33 11/15/1998 30 11/01/1998 26 10/26/1998 28 8/10/1998 31 2/22/1998 35 02/01/1998 33 1/25/1998 32 1/19/1998 32 10/31/1997 31 8/27/1997 31 06/01/1997 26 1/14/1997 27 11/02/1996 27 10/15/1996 28 5/12/1996 31 05/06/1996 29 11/19/1995 27 08/07/1995 22 08/05/1995 21 3/19/1995 20 2/22/1995 21 12/01/1994 21 10/29/1994 22 10/23/1994 20 06/06/1994 19 1/30/1994 20 1/20/1994 22 3/24/1993 25 1/17/1993 25 1/14/1993 25 10/23/1992 25 10/15/1992 25 06/08/1992 29 10/20/1991 35 03/06/1991 42 03/01/1991 46 1/27/1991 40 12/01/1990 33 10/28/1990 32 09/06/1990 35 1/16/1990 38 6/29/1989 39 1/15/1989 41 11/10/1988 43 10/15/1988 41 1/23/1988 40 10/18/1987 43 06/01/1987 43 03/01/1987 44 1/21/1987 43 1/19/1987 42 12/01/1986 44 11/30/1986 43 09/09/1986 44 1/19/1986 44 11/06/1985 43 7/29/1985 42 3/21/1985 40 2/27/1985 42 2/22/1985 45 11/14/1984 44 10/15/1984 41 12/01/1982 39 11/07/1980 32 10/15/1980 30 3/12/1980 27 11/03/1979 28 12/01/1978 31 10/23/1977 32 4/25/1977 34 10/15/1976 36 09/05/1976 35 6/15/1976 35 03/01/1976 34 02/08/1976 35 12/01/1974 36 10/15/1972 53 12/01/1970 54 10/15/1968 62 12/01/1966 65 10/15/1964 77 12/01/1958 73 Temporary Surges During National Crises

Although the long-term trend is downward, trust has occasionally rebounded during moments of national unity. After the 9/11 attacks, trust jumped from 44% to 54% in a matter of months. It was one of the last times a majority expressed confidence in Washington.

Similar, though smaller, increases occurred during other crises. In early 2020, trust briefly rose to 24% amid the COVID-19 outbreak. However, these bumps have proven short-lived, with trust quickly returning to lower levels.

A New Era of Persistent Low Trust

Since the mid-2000s, trust in government has rarely crossed the 30% mark. In the 2010s and early 2020s, it often dipped below 20%.

As of September 2025, just 17% of Americans say they trust the federal government most of the time — near the lowest level recorded in Pew’s time series.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out America’s Growing Mountain of Debt on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 07:20

Poland Plans Social Media Ban For Under-15s

Three months after Australia banned minors under the age of 16 from accessing social media, Poland is preparing to do the same thing.

A 14-year-old boy poses at his home near Gosford as he looks at social media on his mobile phone in New South Wales, Australia, on Oct. 24, 2025. David Gray/AFP via Getty Images

A bill is currently being prepared by the largest party in Poland's ruling Civic Coalition Party that would prohibit children under the age of 15 from using social media platforms, and would require tech companies to verify users' ages. 

Education Minister Barbara Nowacka laid out the plan on Friday, which include fines of up to 6% of the worldwide (global) revenue of social media companies if their services remain accessible to under-15s. 

"We need to limit access to social media for children under 15. At the same time, we need to work on mental health and raise awareness among children, parents, and the entire Polish society about the dangers of social media," Nowacka said. 

If sped through legislation, Poland's bill could take effect as early as 2027, however the coalition hasn't fully signed off yet, and it will undoubtedly face legal pushback from US tech giants. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, on Dec. 10, Australia became the first country to impose nationwide restrictions on minors accessing social media, banning those under 16 from a dozen platforms.

The restrictions were brought in amid concerns over mental health, online harms, and screen addiction affecting Australian children.

Poland is the latest country in the European Union to say it was planning to introduce a ban or some other form of restriction, with other member states similarly citing concerns over children’s mental health.

In France, legislation is moving through parliament to ban children younger than age 15 from accessing social media platforms. Denmark and Slovenia are likewise looking at bans for under-15s.

Spain will follow Australia in banning social media for minors under age 16.

Portugal is taking a different approach. Rather than introducing an outright ban on children under a certain age from accessing social media, it aims to require explicit parental consent for children aged 13 to 16 to access the platforms.

Other countries around the world are making similar plans, including Malaysia, which says it will ban social media accounts for children younger than age 16 this year.

‘Age-Gating’ Social Media

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a series of new proposals earlier this month aimed at protecting young people from social media addiction, including a proposed ban for under-16s, subject to a public consultation.

Some measures by the UK and the EU to curb online harms have led to tensions with the United States, home of many big tech companies, around issues of free speech and regulatory overreach.

Privacy and free speech advocates, such as UK-based Open Rights Group, say that a social media ban for under-16s would be an ineffective response to online harms.

The Open Rights Group says it would lead to “age-gating” across all social media platforms, requiring users to prove their age.

“Protecting children online should not mean building a surveillance infrastructure for everyone,” Open Rights Group spokesman James Baker said.

“We need regulation that puts users back in control, not policies that force people to trade their privacy and voice for access to modern life.”

Rachel Roberts and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 04:15

Gulf States Say They've Shot Down More Than 1,500 Iranian Missiles, Drones

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Five Persian Gulf nations that host U.S. military installations claim they have collectively shot down more than 1,500 Iranian missiles and drones since the United States and Israel launched their joint attack at 9:45 a.m. Tehran time on Feb. 28.

A plume of smoke rises from a reported Iranian strike in the industrial district of Doha on March 1, 2026. Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

The United Arab Emirates (UAE)—whose forces have battled Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen—has borne the brunt of the Iranian attacks.

While numbers are fluid and reported timelines varied, as of 6 p.m. ET on March 1—2:30 a.m. March 2 in Iran—the UAE Ministry of Defense reported it had knocked down 165 ballistic missiles, two cruise missiles, and more than 540 drones.

Debris from destroyed projectiles crashed into several Abu Dhabi residential neighborhoods, killing at least one civilian, the ministry reported, also stating that at least three people have been killed in Iranian strikes in UAE.

The attacks are “a blatant violation of national sovereignty and international law,” the ministry said in a statement, warning UAE would “take all necessary measures to protect its territory, citizens and residents, and to safeguard its sovereignty, security and stability.”

Bahrain’s military said March 1 that its air defense systems had intercepted at least 45 missiles and nine drones, with the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama and a British navy base specifically targeted.

No casualties were reported at the U.S. and UK bases. British forces reported shooting down a drone in Manama. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on March 1 said the British have accepted a U.S, request to use its bases across the Middle East, including its large air base in Cyprus, to strike Iranian missile launchers.

Kuwait’s military reported it shot down nearly 100 missiles and almost 300 drones during the first 24 to 36 hours of the conflict.

The Iranian attacks focused on Ali Al-Salem Air Base where American and other international forces are stationed. Drones also struck Kuwait International Airport on Feb. 28, causing minor injuries and “limited damage.”

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani, however, told Italian news outlet ANSA that a Kuwait International Airport runway sustained extensive damage.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defense said it shot down 65 ballistic missiles and at least 12 drones fired at it from Iran. “We possess the full ability to protect the country and fend off any external threat,” the Qatari ministry said, adding Qatar is “secure and stable,” although the country’s air space has been temporary closed to commercial traffic.

Two ballistic missiles struck the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base causing no reported casualties and little damage, while a drone strike disabled an early warning radar installation.

Most U.S. Air Force airmen and aircraft normally stationed at Al-Udeid, including KC-135s in-flight refueling jets, C-17A Globemaster transports, and C-130 Hercules airlift transports, were moved to other bases in the Mediterranean and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in the days preceding the attack.

Jordan’s armed forces reported March 1 that they had intercepted 13 ballistic missiles and knocked down nearly 50 drones targeting U.S. forces at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base.

“The armed forces engaged 49 drones and ballistic missiles targeting Jordanian territory today,” the Jordanian armed forces said in a statement, adding “13 ballistic missiles were successfully intercepted by Jordanian air defense systems, while drones were shot down.”

An undetermined number of missile and drone attacks have also been reported in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria.

U.S. forces at Harir Air Base in Erbil in northern Iraq’s Kurdistan area were attacked with missiles and drones with no casualties and little damage reported. British forces report they knocked down several missiles in Iraq.

ZeroPointNow Mon, 03/02/2026 - 03:30

UK, France, Germany Slam Iran For 'Reckless' Retaliation - Are Ready To Assist Israel And US

Leaders from Germany, the UK and France are waving their fists over Iran's "reckless" retaliatory strikes in the region, and say they're ready to throw down to stop Tehran from further responses. 

Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer makes a statement from Downing Street in central London on Feb. 28, 2026, following the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. Jonathan Brady/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

On Sunday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron stood in solidarity, saying in a joint statement that they were "appalled" by Iran's "reckless" retaliatory strikes that targeted not only US and Israeli military sites in the region - but other allies as well (Dubai got the business, among others). 

"We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source," the statement reads. "We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter." 

British forces have already engaged - with a Typhoon fighter jet shooting down an Iranian drone with an air-to-air missile during a defensive air patrol in Qatar. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, Starmer addressed his nation on the matter later on March 1, revealing that he also granted a request from the United States to use UK bases in the region to attack Iranian missile sites. But he affirmed that this did not mean that he was tasking British armed forces to join the United States in offensive action.

“Iran has launched sustained attacks across the region, at countries who did not attack them,” Starmer said. ”They’ve hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. This is clearly a dangerous situation.”

The prime minister noted that at least 200,000 British citizens were in the Middle East, including residents, families on vacation, and others in transit.

He defended his government’s decision to allow the United States to use British bases to attack Iranian missile launchers and storage depots, calling it a “defensive” action and saying the only way the threat will be stopped is by destroying the missiles at their source.

“Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, so we are supporting the collective self-defense of our allies and our people in the region, because that is our duty to the British people,” Starmer said.

Meanwhile, Merz announced on X that he would meet with U.S. President Donald Trump on March 3 to discuss the latest developments, noting that he remained in close contact with other European powers, Israel, and the affected region.

“Now is not the time for finger-pointing, but for unity and joint action,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 02:45

When The Return Flight Is The Only Goal: Merz Ends China Trip

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

It took some time for the supposed difference between Annalena Baerbock’s feminist foreign policy and the approach that the diplomatic corps under Chancellor Friedrich Merz would take to become clear. What has changed is less the substance than the performative act. Under the Sauerland-born Merz, tone and gestures shifted—the staging is meant to appear more masculine, sober in style, perhaps more professional, less embarrassingly activist—but the content remains largely unchanged.

Ironically, arch-enemy Donald Trump became the spiritus rector of a new theatrical element in the Chancellor’s media showcase. In Trump-style, Friedrich Merz announced on February 25 the climax of his China trip: the conclusion of a major order for the European aerospace giant Airbus. China will acquire 120 aircraft, models A320, A350—details to follow later—ordered from the company that has become the most successful “success child” of the European project.

The Chinese hosts are politely attentive: they don’t let the Chancellor return home empty-handed and grant him quick fame in the 2026 super-election year. Images, headlines, pathos—the stage is set. The Chancellor as doer, as promoter of German and European interests, as a foreign-policy acquirer in global competition—a German Donald Trump?

A sober look at the numbers puts the theatrics in perspective. Year after year, Chinese customers fill Airbus’s order books with hundreds of aircraft. Major orders from China are no exception; they are part of a long-established procurement rhythm. Demand is structural, not spontaneous—the production slots had long been planned and coincided with the Chancellor’s trip by chance.

A media storm in Trump-style, with the small but crucial difference that the U.S. president returns from foreign trips with real investments in his industry’s production capacity. Factories are built, sites expanded, capital flows measurably into American value creation. Whatever the magic formula—tariffs, deregulated economy, robust growth—America attracts real investments, binding capital and industrial substance domestically.

Friedrich Merz, by contrast, presents routine industrial orders as personal triumphs. He frames scheduled large orders as the result of his diplomatic prowess—a German deal-maker in action. But the crucial difference is that for career politician Merz, only media impact counts. One brings production capacity home; the other brings press releases.

Let’s credit Merz: his trip falls during a critical election phase. In such moments, images, gestures, and quickly digestible wins matter. Fleeting triumphs feed the narrative of the doer in the chancellery, regardless of catastrophic domestic performance.

It is also reassuring that Germany continues to receive the highest protocol honors in China and that Beijing evidently values German history more than the sad present. Reception in the Great Hall of the People by Premier Li Qiang, a personal audience with President Xi Jinping, evening dinner, military welcome at the airport. The choreography is flawless: flags, honor guards, carefully staged images. Protocol-wise, Germany still plays in the Champions League.

Geopolitically, however, the picture is different. Merz called China a “strategic partner” before the trip without defining what this means in the current world situation. Beijing firmly backs Moscow in the Ukraine war. How does the Chancellor think the EU’s 20 sanction packages against Russia affect relations with Beijing? Every new measure against Russia is not just a signal to the Kremlin but also a geopolitical marker toward China.

Merz could personally observe China’s perspective on Germany and the EU’s growing isolation in geopolitics. Protocol pomp does not reverse strategic erosion. From Beijing’s perspective, the question is simple: what offer should one make to a delegation from a country that has weakened its industrial base through self-inflicted dismantling while simultaneously complaining about trade disadvantages?

The consequences of European eco-socialism are immense. Germany has become a net importer of capital in trade with China. The trade balance increasingly tilts against it. In key industrial sectors, competitive advantages have eroded; energy-intensive value creation is under pressure.

Against this backdrop, sympathy for the Chancellor and his economic representatives is limited. The misery is homegrown. Every new regulation, levy, or transformation mandate tightens industry further, reducing Germany’s flexibility in global competition.

In China—a political dictatorship under a single party but economically largely guided by market efficiency—German-European moralizing meets maximum incomprehension. There, scale effects, productivity, market share, and technological sovereignty matter. Moral self-assurance does not replace industrial strength.

Merz lamented unfair Chinese trade practices given Germany’s deep trade deficit. Market access must be fair, disadvantages avoided. The words sound determined, aimed at reciprocity in global trade. And they sound naive.

Because isn’t it worth asking whether Europeans have long been world champions of hidden protectionism? Whether German and European policies repeatedly sparked the grotesque race toward emission-free economies via maximal repression? Regulatory hurdles, taxonomies, supply-chain laws, CO₂ border adjustments—all form a dense mesh of indirect market barriers.

It is by no means China’s fault that Germany’s economic propulsion—industry, engineering, machinery, automotive—has, under EU regulations and energy-transition fanaticism, disassembled at accelerated speed. Those who systematically eliminate their own cost advantages lose ground globally and geopolitically.

Merz exemplifies a European political class eager to blame external actors for structural weaknesses. He is living proof that Europe and Germany have a long way to go before a brutally honest assessment of problems.

Flattering China and the apparent alignment on population surveillance and censorship expansion makes Europe, at best, an unloved vassal of Beijing.

Europe, as a cultural entity, should seek salvation in alignment with Americans. In the bastion of free markets, deregulation, and rational energy policy—in the land of ICE and Christian-humanist cohesion—lies the most likely, only acceptable future for European policy.

China sees Europe as a dumping ground for surplus production—Europe as a decaying heir of the colonial era. European markets absorb domestic overcapacity. Structural dependency on resources like rare earths and energy grows. The leverage is not in Europe.

The era of European dominance is over. Moral self-assertion against factual dependence? Helpless. Puerile. Expensively paid.

Friedrich Merz’s visit to China was a campaign appearance for the CDU. He followed diplomatic protocols but was substantively unremarkable. The images were staged; strategic impact remains limited. Europe deserves better policy.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 02:00

Is The US Military Campaign Against Iran Part Of Trump's Grand Strategy Against China?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The goal is to obtain proxy control over Iran’s enormous oil and gas reserves so that they can be weaponized as leverage against China for coercing it into a lopsided trade deal that would derail its superpower rise and therefore restore US-led unipolarity.

Trump claimed that the US’ military campaign against Iran is to “defend the American people”, while many critics have alleged (whether in jest or not) that it’s to distract from the Epstein Files, but few observers realize that it’s actually all about China. It was explained here that Trump 2.0 “decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.”

To elaborate, “The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure on Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise.”

The resource dimension that’s relevant to Iran is a major part of the US’ “Strategy of Denial”.

That’s the brainchild of Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, and it was expanded on in this analysis here from early January.

As was written, “US influence over Venezuela’s and possibly soon Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China could be weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal”, which is to coerce China into indefinite junior partnership status vis-à-vis the US through a lopsided trade deal.

Most observers missed it, but the new National Security Strategy calls for ultimately “rebalance[ing] China’s economy toward household consumption”. This is a euphemism for radically re-engineering the global economy through the previously described means, namely curtailing China’s access to the markets and resources responsible for its superpower rise, so that it no longer remains “the world’s factory” and thus ends its era of being the US’ only systemic rival. US-led unipolarity would then be restored.

Circling back to Iran, “[it] represented about 13.4% of the total 10.27 MMbpd of oil [that China] imported by sea” last year per Kpler, hence why the US wants to control, curtail, or outright cut off this flow. ‘Plan A’ was to achieve this through diplomatic means for replicating the Venezuelan model that entered into effect after Maduro’s capture. Iran flirted with this but didn’t commit since it would entail the country’s strategic surrender, ergo why Trump authorized military action for achieving this instead.

In pursuit of this, Trump promised the IRGC in his video announcing his country’s military campaign against Iran that they’d have immunity if they laid down their arms. This reinforces the abovementioned claim that the US wants to replicate the Venezuelan model since it strongly suggests that he envisages newly US-aligned IRGC running Iran in the political interim before new elections just like the newly US-aligned Venezuelan security services run their own country during their own current political interim.

Such a scenario would avert Iran’s possible “Balkanization”, thus preserving the state so that it can then resume its prior role as one of the US’ top regional allies, which might then aid the Azeri-Turkish Axis’ efforts to project Western influence along Russia’s entire southern periphery. In that event, the US would simultaneously obtain unparalleled resource leverage over China via proxy control of Iran’s oil and gas industries while tightening its encirclement of Russia, which would deal a powerful blow to multipolarity.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 23:40

DOJ Charges 30 More People For Minnesota Church Invasion

Via Headline USA,

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced charges Friday against 30 more people who are accused of civil rights violations in a January protest inside a Minnesota church where a pastor works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Bondi said on social media that 25 people were in custody and more arrests would follow.

The new indictment comes a month after independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort and prominent local activist Nekima Levy Armstrong were charged for their alleged roles in the protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you,” Bondi wrote in the post.

“This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

In total, 39 people now face charges of conspiracy against religious freedom and interfering with the right of religious freedom.

The new defendants will have an initial court appearance and a magistrate judge will set conditions for their likely release. Lemon and Fort said they were at the church as journalists covering news. Levy Armstrong was the subject of a doctored photo posted by the White House showing her crying during her arrest. The three have pleaded not guilty.

Protesters descended on Cities Church on Jan. 18 after learning that one of the church’s pastors also serves as an ICE official. The protest drew swift condemnation from Trump administration officials and conservative leaders for disrupting a Sunday service.

The indictment says the “agitators” entered the church in a “coordinated takeover-style attack” and engaged in acts of intimidation and obstruction.

“Young children were left to wonder, as one child put it, if their parents were going to die,” the indictment says.

A lawyer for the church praised the Justice Department for charging more people.

“The First Amendment does not give anyone — regardless of profession, prominence, or politics — license to storm a church and intimidate, threaten, and terrorize families and children worshipping inside,” Doug Wardlow said in a statement.

The revised indictment adds new allegations when compared to the original filed in January.

It says two people “conducted reconnaissance” outside the church a day before the protest and recorded their visit on video, with one saying, “My thoughts are to be able to close up this whole alleyway right here.”

The court filing quotes one protester as chanting in the church, “This ain’t God’s house. This is the house of the devil.”

Separately, a woman who was at the church service has filed a lawsuit against some people who were charged, alleging emotional trauma and an inability to exercise her religion that day.

The protest came at a tense time in Minnesota, where the Trump administration sent thousands of federal officers for Operation Metro Surge after a series of public fraud cases where the majority of defendants had Somali roots. Officers frequently deployed tear gas for crowd control in neighborhood clashes with residents, often detaining them along with immigrants.

On Jan. 7, a federal officer fatally shot Renee Good, 37, in Minneapolis. In another fatal shooting a week after the church protest, a federal officer killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti.

Nationwide demonstrations erupted in response, followed by a change in Operation Metro Surge’s leadership and the eventual wind-down of the immigration enforcement operation. Roughly 400 ICE officers and Homeland Security agents were expected to remain in Minneapolis by early March, down from roughly 3,000 at the peak, according to a court filing.

Since then, the Twin Cities have grappled with the impact to communities and the local economy. The city of Minneapolis said it suffered an impact of $203.1 million due to the operation, with tens of thousands of residents in need of urgent relief assistance.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 16:20

Joe Biden Makes Insane Claim That He Reduced Illegal Immigration

It's time for a fact check.  Former President Joe Biden is back after a year largely absent from the public eye, and he's just as incoherent as ever.  Biden left the White House in disgrace after a dismal first term when his own party supplanted him as the primary candidate for the 2024 elections against Donald Trump. 

His cognitive decline became obvious after his debate performance and questions remain if he was actually aware of the majority of his own executive orders and pardons, or if these were signed illegally by one of his staff with an autopen.  Furthermore, he left the nation is a state of complete chaos, but in a recent speech at a South Carolina Democratic Party event in Columbia, he claims he actually did a bang-up job. 

Biden took to the podium, slurring and stuttering, but did manage to rewrite history when he argued that:

"Despite the fact that Covid drove migration to record levels all around the world, the day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered the office I inherited from Trump. That’s just a fact.”

Biden also asserted that he left Trump with the "strongest economy in the world" when he exited office.  Truly, a mind boggling version of events. 

It should be noted that it's highly unlikely that Joe wrote these statements himself or that he is fully aware of what he is saying (like most of his presidency).  However, if this is the DNC's fantastical historical revision then it needs to be addressed.

As soon as Joe Biden was "elected" in November of 2020, illegal immigration began to surge.  With Trump on the way out the signal had been sent to begin flooding the southern border.  Efforts among globalist NGOs and the UN to fund and equip migrant caravans started well in advance of the election.  Once in office, the Biden Administration oversaw the worst immigrant invasion in US history.

Apprehensions, catch and release, amnesty claims and unchecked crossings skyrocketed. 

Biden certainly did not leave office with less illegal immigration than when he entered.  His claim that crossings were in decline at the end of his term is technically true, but this was not because of any policy his administration enforced.  It was, in fact, the state of Texas and their "Operation Lone Star" designed to lock down their vast border. This project resulted in a 74% decline in crossings in 2024.

Measures included cargo containers and razor wire as deterrents to illegal migrants, as well as increased border patrols.  The Democrats consistently interfered in these efforts, using a temporary Supreme Court ruling to justify tearing down razor wire and actively allow migrants to pass in direct violation of the constitutional mandate to protect US states from foreign invasion.  

The argument that the pandemic triggered the border surge is nonsensical.  Covid restrictions under Trump that ended asylum claims (Title 42) initially slowed the already low crossing numbers to a crawl.  The explosion in crossings occurred after Biden's election.   

Almost immediately upon Biden's exit and Trump's return, a handful of policy changes resulted in a 95% drop in illegal border crossing.  Not only that, but migrant camps in Mexican towns just across the southern border disappeared.  Meaning, all the Democrat claims that these migrants were "fleeing poverty, war and persecution" were completely fabricated.  If that had been true, then the migrants would have stayed at the border because they would have had nowhere else to go.

The shut down of the Democrat's CBP One mobile application (which streamlined asylum claims) was the final nail in the coffin for their immigration agenda.  Illegal crossings are now at lows not seen since 1970, and a new border wall was not even necessary. 

Sadly, the US is still dealing with the aftermath of Democrat control and the migrant invasion. An estimated 10 million illegals entered the country on Biden's watch, adding to already high numbers of illegals over the course of the past 20 years.  Democrats continue to misrepresent the history of these events, just as they continue to obstruct any attempts to deport the foreigners they allowed in. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 15:45

The Trump Administration Ditches Another Rogue DOJ Official

Authored by Tudor Dixon via American Greatness,

The second Trump administration is very different from the first. As 45th president, Donald Trump was saddled with disloyal officials who constantly undermined his agenda. The Ukraine impeachment scandal, among other events, was the result of this internal subversion.

But the second term sets a new standard for loyalty.

The administration will no longer tolerate rogue officials making their own policy.

This was made clear last week when the administration pushed out Gail Slater, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief.

Slater made a name for herself by going against administration policy and insisting on her personal priorities. While some misguided conservatives praised Slater as a “MAGA patriot,” her record reveals a very different streak. She was weak on China, weak on defending free speech, and weak on combating woke corporations.

Her departure signals that the second Trump administration is serious about ensuring officials are committed to the president’s agenda.

Slater ran afoul of the administration in her incorrigible opposition to the HPE-Juniper merger. The merger was supported by national security experts in the administration as necessary to counter the growing menace of Chinese tech dominance. The merger would allow American companies to coalesce resources to take on Huawei on the world stage. 

One official told Axios last year that blocking the deal would have “hindered American companies and empowered” Chinese entities. But Slater was resolutely opposed to it, in spite of the national security claims raised. The administration overruled her objections and approved the deal anyway. “Competition is global, and a combined HPE-Juniper is a stronger bulwark against that, against Huawei,” a government source told Fortune on why the administration approved the merger. “It will be the only U.S.-based company that provides the entire technology stack that Huawei does.”

It should be noted that one of Slater’s deputies who oversaw this matter was a Chinese sympathizer. Roger Alford was one of Slater’s key allies in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division before he was forced out last year. He boasts a record of praising China since the early 2010s and once even criticized Trump to a Chinese audience over his desire to reform the trade imbalance between the two countries.

Slater has a dubious record on free speech. In 2020, she signed on as a member of a project dedicated to formulating a framework for “moderating speech online.” The report, in which her name appears as an endorsee, praised social media companies for suppressing “misinformation” about COVID-19 and “hate speech.” The study also urged governments to take a proactive stance on “moderating” online content to ensure that liberal standards are enforced.

While Slater and her allies like to proclaim her as a bold populist standing up against corporate power, she approved one of the more concerning business moves in recent history. Disney, which stands as one of the wokest companies in the country, was able to add important NFL media assets to its empire. The deal raised eyebrows for giving the NFL partial ownership of ESPN, which is supposed to be an independent body covering the league, as well as for allowing Disney to grow even larger in the market. Experts warned the deal could result in price hikes for consumers and violate the spirit of antitrust laws. But Slater seemed unmoved by these arguments and approved the deal before departing from the DOJ.

It’s unclear how it serves the nation to defend the interests of Huawei and Disney, but Slater made a point to do so in her role at the DOJ.

If we want to make America great again, Trump needs reliable team players to enact his agenda. Slater did not fit the bill. She had her own agenda that did not fit with the MAGA one. That’s why she’s out of office.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 15:10

Oil Soars Over 10% In OTC Trading, Whether That Sticks Depends On How Long The War Lasts

With war in the middle east raging, and the world's most important oil transit choke point - the Straits of Hormuz which accounts for 20% of daily global oil transit - "effectively" halted after at least three ships were attacked in the vicinity of the waterway - even as Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera TV his country has no intention to close the Strait of Hormuz and has kept it open so far, markets have just one question: where does oil open when futures resume trading in a few hours. 

Well, we can tell you: according to the IG Weekend Market, an OTC market that reflects prices across over the counter exchanges, oil is set to open more than 10% higher, with spot WTI trading around $75 and Brent set to rise over $80.

Source: IG

That's not the question: the question is where does oil trade in a week, a month, a year, and - tied to that - what happens to the oil price curve.

The price spike comes despite OPEC+’s announced modest supply hike. But for such gains will sustain, or extend, investors will need to decide that the conflict is going to drag on. Indeed, this new wave of war is bigger, broader and messier than last June’s fighting. The gap between attacks and retaliation has narrowed: In previous waves it took days, but now it’s hours.

As Bloomberg's Garfield Reynolds reminds us, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq by US-led forces, crude actually tumbled at the start of hostilities, on speculation the US would achieve a rapid victory. It ended up rebounding from an April trough to enter a long uptrend as it became clearer that there would be no straightforward resolution. 

The stakes are higher for oil this time. Iran’s output accounts for more than Iraq’s did in 2003, and Iraq had much less capacity to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has said it doesn’t plan to close the key shipping channel, but there have already been signs that the conflict is halting tanker traffic.

“Tankers are starting to build by the Strait of Hormuz, but nothing seems to be going through at the moment – tankers are definitely spooked,” said Matt Smith, oil analyst at energy consulting firm Kpler.

That means any lack of clarity on the endgame increases the potential for sustained advances in crude over the coming weeks. Any signs of a prolonged and drawn-out struggle boost the likelihood of crude reaching $80 a barrel and beyond, with Bloomberg Economics outlining a scenario that sees oil spiking above $100 in an extreme disruption scenario.

Sure enough, Middle East leaders have warned Washington that a war on Iran could lead to oil prices jumping to over $100 per barrel, said veteran OPEC analyst Helima Croft from RBC. Analysts from Barclays also said prices could rise to $100.

Other analysts see a more modest jump depending on how the conflict develops. Prices should rise by at least $3 to $5 per barrel when trading starts, said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. 

The worst-case scenario is an attack by Iran on Saudi oil infrastrucure followed by a complete closure of the Strait, Lipow said Sunday. Oil prices would jump by $10 to $20 in this scenario, the analyst said, which he put at a 33% likelihood. 

And so, while the world waits to see next steps, it's buying oil and asking questions later. The attacks already are much wider in scope than last June. Iran’s response already has gone beyond the retaliation it offered in the opening stages of June’s war.

For its part, Bloomberg's economists thing Iran’s response will continue to escalate. While it can’t match the US’ military superiority, Iran can impose significant costs and seek to bog the US down in the region. Iran’s targets already include US bases in the region and Israel. Tehran could expand to energy infrastructure and regional shipping routes, either directly or through its partners in the region. That includes the Houthis in Yemen, who’ve said they’ll resume their disruption of shipping in regional waters. The possible outcomes are laid out in the chart below.

Source: Bloomberg

The price of oil will ultimately be determined by where the war finds its equilibrium point. 

In a possible indication that the oil price spike will be brief, Trump said Sunday that Iran wants to talk and he has agreed to do so, leaving open the possibility that there might be a path to de-escalation that avoids a big, prolonged disruption.

“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” Trump told The Atlantic on Sunday. The president told CNBC that U.S. military operations in Iran are “ahead of schedule.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 14:31

Robert De Niro Could Face 5 Years In Prison Over Trump "Get Rid Of Him" Threats

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Bill O’Reilly has called for the Secret Service to haul in Robert De Niro for an “intensive interrogation” following the actor’s repeated threats against President Trump, warning that De Niro could face up to five years behind bars if convicted under federal law.

The demand comes amid growing scrutiny of De Niro’s unhinged anti-Trump rants, which have exposed the depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome among leftists desperate to undermine America First leadership.

O’Reilly zeroed in on De Niro’s recent MSNBC interview where the actor repeatedly declared “we got to get rid of him” in reference to Trump.

Bill O’Reilly says Robert De Niro should be pulled in by the Secret Service for an “intensive interrogation” after reportedly threatening President Trump.

If convicted, O’Reilly says De Niro could face 5 years in prison.

O’REILLY: “Now, he said the words, ‘we got to get rid of… pic.twitter.com/PtXZPkkf3d

— Overton (@overton_news) February 26, 2026

“Now, he said the words, ‘we got to get rid of him’ three times,” O’Reilly stated.

He slammed MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace for failing to challenge De Niro on the spot.

“Any interviewer other than Nicole Wallace would have said, ‘what do you mean by that? He’s elected. 77 million people voted for him,’” O’Reilly noted.

“What’s ‘we got to get rid of him?’ Are you talking about impeachment? What are you talking about?” he added.

O’Reilly then put himself in the shoes of the Secret Service director, emphasizing the gravity of such statements given the recent assassination attempts on Trump.

“So, I’m watching this and I’m the head of the Secret Service,” O’Reilly said.

“USC, US code 871, it is a crime to threaten not only the president of the United States but the vice president and everybody else in succession,” he added.

“And with Donald Trump and the assassination attempts, this goes WAY up,” the host stressed.

“Okay, so I’m the Secret Service director and I’m seeing this three times, ‘we got to get rid of him’ — I got agents pulling De Niro in for a Q&A and he better have a lawyer,” O’Reilly asserted.

He warned that De Niro’s responses during questioning could lead to charges, noting “Now, you could charge him based upon his answers to the interrogation.”

“If he takes the fifth, a refused answer on the grounds, right? You could charge him. And if he were convicted, he’d get 5 years in prison under this code,” O’Reilly urged.

As we previously reported, De Niro broke down in tears during that same MSNBC appearance, sobbing over Trump’s supposed “division” while claiming the President is “attempting to destroy this country.”

In the interview, De Niro spluttered, “You have to lift people up. You can’t divide people… this thing (Trump) they’re destroying, attempting to destroy this country and maybe not even understanding why. It’s up to us to protect the country.”

He also ranted about Trump refusing to leave the White House, stating, “We see it we see it we see it all the time, he will not want to leave.”

De Niro has previously labeled Trump advisor Stephen Miller a “Nazi,” adding, “He’s a Nazi. Yes, he is, and he’s Jewish and he should be ashamed of himself.”

“Everything, the point is we have to keep fighting and pushing until he is out, period. There’s no other way. He’s not going to want to leave the White House,” De Niro has insisted.

O’Reilly’s analysis highlights how Hollywood’s unchecked hatred is now crossing into potential legal territory, especially as Trump’s policies expose the failures of leftist agendas.

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 Sun, 03/01/2026 - 14:00

CNN Forced To Admit Dems Are Tanking On Immigration Despite Anti-ICE Propaganda

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Fresh analysis lays bare the Democrats’ crumbling position on immigration, with voters trusting Republicans more than ever to handle border security—even as radicals ramp up their attacks on ICE and deportations.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten highlighted the stark shift during a recent segment, noting that despite the barrage of anti-ICE rhetoric, Democrats are faring worse now than during Trump’s first term.

“Despite EVERYTHING that’s been going on, Democrats in a WORSE position than Trump’s 1st term!” Enten said.

? BREAKING: CNN was just forced to confirm that Democrats are PLUMMETING on the issue of immigration despite the relentless propaganda and smears on ICE

WOW, they are down -11 points from Trump's first term! ?

"Despite EVERYTHING that's been going on, Democrats in a WORSE… pic.twitter.com/9LV5DY3U4H

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 26, 2026

He pointed to polling data showing voters believe “They think Democrats will do a WORSE JOB on immigration than Republicans.”

On border security specifically, Enten added: “Border security? HELLO! 2018, Republicans up 13. The advantage is a little LARGER NOW, up 15 points!”

Dismissing any notion that Democrats could capitalize on the issue, he concluded: “The idea Democrats can take the ball and run away on it? Polling says NO, NO, NO.”

This comes amid a wider hardening of public attitudes toward immigration enforcement. Republicans now hold a five-point lead on who Americans trust more on immigration—a complete reversal from Democrats’ six-point edge in 2018.

The propaganda stemming from places like Minnesota against ICE has clearly failed, as Enten’s breakdown confirms.

These developments build on the groundswell of support for deportations. As detailed in our earlier report on overwhelming American demand for deporting illegals and full ICE cooperation, polls from outlets like Cygnal and Harvard Harris showed 73% agreeing illegal entry is a crime, 61% backing deportations, and 67% insisting on local officials working with federal authorities.

Multiple surveys reinforced this, with 55% to 64% favoring mass deportations across sources like the New York Times, Marquette, CBS News, and ABC News. Enten himself previously noted this “uniformity across four pollsters” as a “majority view,” with 63% supporting deporting recent arrivals and 87% for those with criminal records.

The leftist frenzy only amplifies this backlash. Incidents like this Minnesota woman stalking and abusing ICE agents tracking a child rapist murderer illegal, showcase the radicals’ dangerous obstruction. 

Her chilling admission that she “doesn’t care” about victims underscores the extremism driving voters away.

From high school assaults on pro-ICE students to AOC’s “teach-ins” on interfering with operations, these tactics are fueling everyday Americans to rally behind Trump’s crackdown.

DHS reports spikes in threats and assaults on agents, yet the public tide turns harder against open borders. With 55% now wanting decreased immigration levels—the highest since post-9/11—globalist policies are being rejected outright.

As Enten’s latest numbers prove, the Radical Left’s sabotage is collapsing under its own weight. Trump’s push to secure borders and empower ICE isn’t just popular; it’s the mandate restoring sovereignty and safety to American streets.

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 Sun, 03/01/2026 - 12:50

Convicted Child Sex Offender To Run For Office In California

You can already hear some liberals and left-leaning libertarians now:  "He paid for his crime, right?  So what's the problem? What about the politicians mentioned in the Epstein files...?"

But "whataboutism" is not a valid argument for rationalizing societal decay.  And if America isn't capable of applying the most basic standards at the lowest levels of government, then America is lost.

Rene Campos, a registered sex offender, is seeking elected office in California - launching a campaign for Fresno City Council amid fierce backlash and renewed questions about whether someone with his record should hold public office.

Campos was arrested in 2018 following a cyber tip to the Central California Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.  He was found in possession of child sex abuse material, according to court records. In 2021 he entered a no-contest plea to a single misdemeanor charge of possessing and controlling child pornography/child sex abuse material (likely under California Penal Code § 311.11).  He served only one month in prison and a two year probation period.

Campos describes himself as a gay man who is running for office on the platform of "reduced crime and rehabilitation."

  

Possession of child pornography is typically treated as a felony, even in a woke haven like California.  How the Fresno candidate was able to make a deal for a misdemeanor charge and spend only one month in prison is a mystery, but this does help to confirm ongoing suspicions that California's legal system is falling into steep decline. 

California is notoriously soft on child sex abusers.  Recently, a Sacramento parole board released Daniel Allen Funston, who was convicted in 1999 of sixteen counts of kidnapping and child molestation after a horrific crime spree in Sacramento County, during which he kidnapped, raped, and beat eight children ages 3 to 7. 

Funston was originally sentenced to three consecutive life terms plus 20 years, but was set free at age 64 due to a California elderly inmate program (maybe he'll run for office, too).  

Data from 2022 shows that the Golden State released over 7000 child sex offenders after less than one year of incarceration.  Interestingly, "digital blocks" were added to the Megan’s Law website that prevent more recent analysis. 

State Senator and LGBT activist Scott Weiner has supported multiple pieces of legislation that help to reduce punishments for sex offenders.  He authored a bill in 2017, signed into law, which created a three-tier sex offender registry system in California. It allows some "lower-risk" offenders (including those convicted of misdemeanor possession of child pornography) to petition for removal from the registry after 10-20 years (Tier 1 or 2), rather than lifetime registration. 

Perhaps the most disturbing factor is that in California a candidate like Campos actually has a good chance of winning.  He is a member of the LGBT community, a minority, and he appeals to the progressive desire to prove that laws are "artificial constructs" and that criminal convictions should not "define a person."  In other words, Campos could win the election simply because he gives leftists an opportunity to prove that even the worst criminals are merely downtrodden victims who were never given a chance to succeed.   

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 12:15

Germany's Pension Time Bomb: $2+ Billion In CRE Losses Expose Cracks In The Fiat Era

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe,

A shock for the insured members of the Versorgungswerk Zahnärzte Berlin-Brandenburg (VZB). According to a report this week by Bloomberg, losses at the private pension fund total €1.1 billion. Roughly 50 percent of its invested capital has effectively been wiped out—channeled into private loans to non-listed companies, including rPlanet Earth in California, a shrimp farm in northern Germany, and, repeatedly featured on the investment menus of German pension funds, U.S. commercial real estate.

The auditors, advisors, and executives involved now face what may become a legal marathon. Much suggests that VZB ventured well beyond the traditional risk framework that would normally be considered prudent for a professional pension institution.

A similar fate befell the Bayerische Versorgungskammer (BVK). Last year it recorded accounting losses of up to €853 million. Once again, U.S. commercial real estate exposures were at the center of the turbulence, including properties such as the Transamerica Building in San Francisco—an internationally recognized problem asset.

Unlike VZB, however, BVK has substantial financial reserves. The assets it manages still total around €170 billion. On this robust capital base, it secures retirement benefits for physicians, lawyers, and numerous other professional groups.

The Bloomberg report further lists additional pension schemes displaying a similar pattern: recurring write-downs in the U.S. commercial real estate segment. Among the affected institutions are the Kirchliche Zusatzversorgungskasse des Verbandes der Diözesen Deutschlands (KZVK), the BASF Pensionskasse, the Telekom Pensionskasse, and the Apotheker- und Zahnärztefonds Schleswig-Holstein.

Nationwide, at least 18 pension institutions have taken unscheduled write-downs totaling more than €2 billion on commercial real estate investments since 2020. The system is under pressure—but it is not yet tottering. German pension funds collectively manage around €300 billion in assets. Nevertheless, pressure on asset managers to recalibrate risk profiles to a changed interest-rate and market environment is likely to intensify in the coming years. But where can reliable returns still be found when the classic portfolio mix of safe sovereign bonds—upon which entire pension systems were built over decades—appears to belong to the past?

Few will be able to avoid adding equity risk going forward. Allocations to precious metals—and possibly to Bitcoin, the so-called digital gold—as assets without traditional third-party risk appear to be a logical option. Equity stakes in the energy sector are also likely to gain significantly in attractiveness. In particular, the economic superpowers U.S. and China are on the verge of a massive AI and nuclear power boom, developments that are likely to be reflected in capital markets.

Yet many portfolio managers have remained anchored to the old worldview: sovereign bonds and commercial real estate—precisely those segments that, against the backdrop of high public debt and negative demographic trends, are increasingly losing structural stability and thus implying growing downside risk—remain dominant building blocks of portfolio strategy.

This traditional portfolio approach promised stable income and attractive yields. What was overlooked, however, is that structural shifts have fundamentally altered the underlying data: the rise of remote work, sweeping restructuring within the American economy, and the accelerating deployment of artificial intelligence have significantly reduced demand for conventional office space. What was intended as yield-enhancing diversification has, in many cases, turned into concentrated risk—with substantial consequences for the stability of the affected pension institutions.

Mounting pressure under expansionary monetary policy led to a gradual shift away from the liquid, stable-yielding, long-term sovereign bonds that had proven themselves over decades, toward higher-yielding but significantly more illiquid asset classes. Many asset managers tilted portfolios toward private debt, real assets, and promissory note loans backed by real estate covenants—extending even into high-risk mezzanine financing for non-listed, speculative projects.

The sharp interest-rate hikes that followed years of monetary expansion in 2022 hit the real estate sector with full force. Insolvencies increased, default risks slipped beyond the effective control of auditors, while asset managers responded to monetary volatility and swelling public debt by assuming ever greater risks.

The combination of prolonged ultra-low rates followed by abrupt tightening has exposed the weaknesses of many investment strategies.

The deep cracks now visible in the financial architecture of German pension funds are systemic. Years of low-rate policy aimed at financing highly deficit-ridden state budgets, along with the economic damage inflicted by lockdowns during the Covid years, have dramatically increased pressure on both investors and pension portfolio managers. In essence, we have been living under this policy regime since the great debt crisis a decade and a half ago.

Pension liabilities require a minimum return on invested capital. The crisis in bond markets is pushing investor strategies further along the risk curve into asset classes that traditionally did not appear on the radar of these institutions’ portfolio managers. Put differently: high volatility and the selloff at the long end of top-rated sovereign bonds reflect a fundamental reassessment of inflation and debt risks currently underway in government bond markets. The fiat credit-money system is entering a particularly volatile phase.

How private pension funds and insurance systems will ultimately be financed and backstopped remains unclear. Will state guarantee funds step in if losses escalate into systemic risk and entire institutions begin to wobble?

Experience from the rescue practices during the great financial crisis suggests that governments may once again act in line with the protective umbrella strategy associated with former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That would mean placing large bond issues on the market, underwritten by the European Central Bank, to secure payment flows and obligations of affected institutions. Market distortion follows market distortion—an intervention spiral designed to stabilize the financial structure in the short term, yet failing to resolve underlying problems and sending fatal signals for further misallocation of capital.

For individual investors, it is crucial to recognize that many central banks have gradually reduced their bond holdings after years of large-scale asset purchases.

The fact that major central banks—such as China’s—are increasingly backing their balance sheets with structurally expanded gold reserves is a clear warning signal.

How stable is our banking system, really? How large are the third-party risks hidden in balance sheets? And how liquid will bond markets remain in the coming years if even formerly fiscally reliable states like Germany issue hundreds of billions of euros in new debt?

The fact that numerous states worldwide have begun expanding strategic energy and commodity reserves is another strong signal. It suggests that future currency systems may, sooner than expected, once again become more tightly linked to real scarcities—whether precious metals, energy, or broad commodity baskets.

The era of unbacked fiat credit money, at least in its current form, is gradually drawing to a close. German pension funds must incorporate this reality into their calculations—sooner rather than later.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 10:30

Amazon Warns Of "Degraded" AWS Service In UAE After "Power Issues" Amid Middle East Conflict

Iran's retaliatory attack ramped up on Sunday after the U.S.-Israeli Operation Epic Fury killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday morning. Follow-on strikes were reported in Israel, across multiple Gulf states, and maritime incidents affected commercial shipping lanes in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

One notable and unexpected point of disruption has emerged in the Middle East critical infrastructure on Sunday morning, with Amazon reporting that its Middle East (UAE) data center region has experienced a power issue that degraded internet connectivity and impaired cloud service availability.

AWS reported that its ME-CENTRAL-1 Region (mec1-az2), which refers to a specific cluster of AWS data-center infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, is experiencing operational issues due to a "localized power issue." AWS stated that the severity of the incident is "degraded."

"Other AWS Services are also experiencing error rates and latencies for some workflows. We have weighed away traffic for most services at this time. We recommend customers utilize one of the other Availability Zones in the ME-CENTRAL-1 Region at this time, as existing instances in other AZ's remain unaffected by this issue," AWS wrote on its status page, adding, "We are actively working to restore power and connectivity, at which time we will begin to work to recover affected resources. As of this time, we expect recovery is multiple hours away."

UAE Data Center Map 

Data Cables Map 

The AWS status report made no mention of whether the power disruptions were due to Iranian missile or drone strikes on UAE critical infrastructure, such as transmission lines or power generation facilities.

Earlier, the UAE Ministry of Defense announced that the "country was subjected today to a blatant attack by Iranian ballistic missiles, which was dealt with by the UAE air defenses with high efficiency, and a number of missiles were successfully intercepted."

BREAKING:

The air defense systems of the UAE are countering Iran’s air attack against the Emirates tonight pic.twitter.com/Hui0VESXFF

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 1, 2026

Beyond the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Israel have been subjected to Iranian retaliatory attacks - this is mostly because US military installations are in these countries.

Qatar's Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying: "The State of Qatar expresses its strong condemnation of the targeting of Qatari territory with Iranian ballistic missiles."

The UAE has confirmed a temporary closure of its airspace as an "exceptional precautionary measure."

One key question is whether the conflict is now spilling beyond military targets and into civilian critical infrastructure. If that line has already been crossed, U.S. hyperscalers expanding in the UAE, including Microsoft, whose commitment totals about $15.2 billion and includes significant AI and cloud datacenter spending, may need to be reassessed given the fiery geopolitical climate.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 10:15

Tens Of Thousands Stranded Amid Mass Airspace Closures At Mideast Hubs: "It's Chaos Here"

The US State Department is warning all American citizens to exercises extreme caution when traveling abroad amid the ongoing US-Israeli military operation against Iran, which has included two days of heavy bombing aimed at regime change - and which has already resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and some 40 top military leaders.

"Following the launch of U.S. combat operations in Iran, Americans worldwide and especially in the Middle East should follow the guidance in the latest security alerts issued by the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate," a fresh weekend US notification says. "They may experience travel disruptions due to periodic airspace closures. The Department of State advises Americans worldwide to exercise increased caution."

Explosions at Dubai International Airport following Iranian strike.

Not only is Israel's airspace closed, as Iranian retaliatory ballistic missiles rain down, but much of the Gulf nations have restrictions and airspace closures in place. This after at least two regional airports have been struck.

"One person has been killed and 11 injured at airports in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as Iran launched attacks across the Middle East in response to a massive and ongoing attack against it by the US and Israel," BBC reports.

Abu Dhabi authorities said a drone targeting Zayed International Airport (AUH) was intercepted, resulting in "falling debris" which killed one person and injuring seven.

Dubai International Airport, one of the busiest hubs in the world, has also been hit and suffered damage. So it's not just the skies over the region which are dangerous at this moment, but in some cases the very airport terminals, especially if located just across the Persian Gulf from Iran, amid its broader retaliation targeting US bases and those Arab states hosting them. The Iranians appear to be going straight after Gulf civic infrastructure, given the same is being done to Tehran.

"More than 3,400 flights were canceled Sunday across seven airports in the Mideast, according to flight tracker Flightradar24," AP notes. "Airports in Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar’s capital, Doha, and Manama in Bahrain were among those closed."

Evacuation starts at Dubai International Airport after it was struck by Iranian suicide drones. pic.twitter.com/gPoWCAWjy6

— Lapo Pontecorvi (@LapoPontecorvi) March 1, 2026

Thousands are stranded at regional airports, and many are likely seeking refuge and shelter elsewhere in these cities, as major civic infrastructure from Bahrain to UAE to Kuwait could come under potential attack. "It's chaos here" - some stranded British travelers have said:

Thousands of Britons have been left stranded in the Middle East after global airlines grounded hundreds of flights due to US and Israeli strikes against Iran.

Iran and Iraq’s airspaces were closed due to the escalating military action, which has seen blasts reported in multiple countries across the region, and Dubai International Airport, the biggest global aviation hub, suspended all flights on Saturday.

Mike Boreham, who had been on holiday in Dubai with his wife, was due to get the 1.10pm British Airways flight back to Heathrow when the captain told the passengers the airspace had been closed.

And it goes the other way too. People from the Mideast and Mediterranean region who are trying to get back home often cannot at this point:

Tens of thousands of Israelis found themselves unable to return to Israel on Saturday after Israel and the US launched a major joint military strike on Iran.

As Iran responded by firing missiles and drones, Israel closed its airspace until at least Monday, the Transportation Ministry said, making travel through Ben Gurion Airport and other flight hubs impossible.

Rescue flights are being planned for when Israel reopens its airspace, with El Al announcing it was putting a wide plan in place and saying that its own ticket holders will automatically be assigned seats.

Dubai authorities are shutting down the entire airport after an Iranian missile struck Terminal 3 at Dubai International Airport, source in the airport told me. pic.twitter.com/zibMPKHgJi

— Ihtisham Ul Haq (@iihtishamm) February 28, 2026

Meanwhile President Trump has called for full regime change in Iran, after the Iranians have already appointed an interim successor to the slain Ayatollah Khamenei. This means that US-Israeli military operations there could continue for days more, and possible weeks, or even longer. 

The Middle East's travel woes, and possibly by extension and domino effect - some European hubs - could soon grow much worse. Of course, this is the least of the region's problems as broader war breaks out.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 09:55

EU Imposes Drastic Tariffs on Chinese Goods: Is A Trade War Looming?

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Tensions in international trade policy are escalating on multiple fronts. After the U.S. Supreme Court initially declared the tariff regime implemented by President Donald Trump since April of last year unlawful, it appears the administration has explored new ways to stabilize its tariff policy going forward.

The signs on the international trade front continue to point toward turmoil. Not least, it is the ramped-up Chinese export machine that is increasingly in the crosshairs of U.S. protectionism and European defensive measures.

Beijing is using its massive export engine to offset deflationary pressures in its domestic economy—a result of state-induced capital misallocation and a shrinking population. Through export subsidies and other support measures, the government seeks to stabilize employment while boosting industrial production.

However, this comes at the expense of trade margins and production capacities in other countries, which increasingly fall behind in competition with China.

It was predictable that the still high-purchasing-power internal market of the European Union would attract attention, given the U.S.'s hardline approach. Europe risks becoming a de facto unloading hub for Chinese goods. The consequences are evident in the trade balance, which recorded a deficit of €305 billion for the EU economy last year.

Weakened by its own energy policy and the regulatory framework of the green transition, European manufacturers in nearly all industrial and consumer sectors face the global competitive arena with their backs to the wall. The ongoing deindustrialization has significantly contributed to many European business models losing ground in international competition.

Germany, in particular, appears as a sort of laboratory experiment: in trade with China, the country has now become a net importer of capital. The former know-how advantage of German engineering is no longer unassailable—it seems to be history.

European policymakers now appear determined to pursue a path of protectionism themselves.

On February 7, 2026, the European Commission adopted Regulation 2026/274, responding to the Chinese export surge with anti-dumping tariffs. The first targeted product group: ceramic and porcelain imports. Around 60% of the assortments in European e-commerce and physical retail come from Chinese production. Tariffs within this group were raised from 18–36% to a consolidated 79%.

The affected products include, among others, tableware and kitchen items made of ceramic, porcelain, and stoneware originating from China. This also includes items such as spice grinders, coffee mills, and pizza stones. The new tariff regime is set to last initially for five years.

The Commission acted without involving national parliaments—mirroring the approach frequently criticized when applied to U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly in trade matters. In precisely those instances where Brussels regularly demands transparency, multilateralism, and rule-based procedures, it now itself takes unilateral executive action. Viewed in this light, criticism of Trump’s unilateralism appears profoundly hypocritical.

The Commission’s executive action reflects a rather elastic interpretation of its mandate. Should it identify dumping practices by trade partners—as in this case—it may impose corresponding tariffs. Neither the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, nor national governments are involved in this process—a clear indication of growing concentration of power in Brussels.

The consequences of this tariff move—which is likely to expand to additional product groups—impact not only Chinese exporters but also European traders. They report liquidity shortfalls, rising insolvency risks, and significant challenges in compensating pre-financed transactions. The interests of European consumers evidently play no role in Brussels’ decisions.

Should further categories such as e-bikes, auto parts, or tires be added, as is currently rumored, this could have tangible effects on consumer prices across the EU. Moreover, the tariffs apply retroactively to ongoing shipments, further exacerbating the financial strain on European traders.

Brussels’ drastic response indicates that parts of European industry are under severe pressure from Chinese imports—and that the escalation in trade policy has now reached a new level.

So far, the Chinese leadership has not reacted to Brussels’ tariff measures. Chancellor Friedrich Merz may place trade issues at the forefront during his visit to China from February 24–26, where he is also expected to meet President Xi Jinping.

Recall that last year the dispute over the strategically critical export of rare earths—dominated by China—nearly escalated twice. Beijing is not hesitant to wield its geostrategic leverage in trade policy and defend its interests with a firm hand.

Fundamentally, a recalibration has occurred. In its strategy toward China, the EU is first raising the tariff wall, ignoring potential countermeasures from Beijing. Starting July 1, 2026, e-commerce imports from third countries with a value under €150 will face a €3 flat-rate fee per package. This aims not only to complicate invoicing by Chinese companies via third countries but also to exert targeted pressure on trade channeled primarily through platforms like Temu and Shein.

According to the EU, these measures aim to curb unfair competition and stabilize the internal market. Of course, such claims must be taken cum grano salis. Europeans are, after all, the undisputed masters of hidden trade protectionism. Their regulatory catalogs—particularly in climate policy—contain numerous non-tariff measures with deep protective effects.

Global trade is increasingly moving within geopolitical spheres of influence. Europeans would be wise to align with U.S. rules and integrate into the Western hemisphere. Yet Brussels appears intent on simultaneously confronting both major trade blocs.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 09:20

85% Of Babies In 2026 Will Be Born In Asia And Africa

In 2026, 85% of babies worldwide will be born in just two continents: Asia and Africa.

Where someone is born can shape everything from access to education and healthcare to long-term economic opportunity.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, shows how global births are distributed across continents, based on population projections from the United Nations.

Asia Accounts for Nearly Half of Global Births

Asia is expected to see about 64.9 million births in 2026, accounting for roughly 49% of all births worldwide. Despite declining fertility rates in countries like China, Japan, and South Korea, Asia’s sheer population size keeps it at the center of global demographics.

South and Southeast Asia, in particular, continue to contribute large numbers of births each year. As a result, nearly one in every two people born in 2026 will be born somewhere in Asia.

Africa Makes Up More Than One-Third of Global Births

Africa is projected to record 47.6 million births in 2026, representing 35.9% of the global total. This reflects the continent’s high fertility rates and young population structure.

Many African countries are still early in their demographic transitions, with limited declines in birth rates so far. As population growth accelerates, Africa’s share of global births has been rising steadily and is projected to increase further later this century.

Smaller Shares in the Rest of the World

All other continents account for a relatively small share of global births.

Latin America and the Caribbean are expected to see 9.3 million births, or 7% of the total, while Europe accounts for just 4.6%. North America’s share stands at 3%, reflecting lower fertility rates despite population growth driven by migration. Oceania contributes 0.5% of births, and Antarctica, with no permanent population, records no births at all.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Safest (and Least Safe) Countries on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 08:45

AI Boom And European Bond Markets: A Deep Dive

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The “credit pump” could rightfully claim its place as a symbolic flag of the European Union. With virtually unlimited access to the bond market, politics magically transforms an inexhaustible credit stream into political maneuvers and ideological wizardry. Through this manipulation of money, processes and institutions are transplanted into the real world that, under normal circumstances, could never have surpassed the fantasies and limits of political ideology.

Wind turbines in forests, fully electric cargo bikes in an industrial nation that destroys its own engines of prosperity in favor of an artificial green subsidy economy, plunging itself into trillions of euros in new debt – a historically unprecedented degrowth spectacle, which has not erupted into open revolt only because hundreds of thousands losing their jobs are somehow absorbed into the public sector or cushioned, if not sedated, by the largesse of the German welfare state.

The same applies to open-border policies. Here too, perpetual credit seems to lubricate a project designed to unlock new voter potential for the political left. This process becomes possible through the systematic destruction of monetary value. National debt is not merely a fiscal problem; it erodes the fragile economic fabric of society. Moreover, it sends the fatal signal that an overpowering actor like the state can override the limits of productivity, reason, and scarcity at the push of a button.

Thus, the so-called debt brake was a political paper tiger from the start: Germany abandoned the path of political seriousness long ago and joined the ranks of debt magicians. It has become a driving force in an ideologically overgrown swamp of debt, making the refinancing problems of heavily indebted Eurozone states increasingly visible year after year.

Leading the debt race this year is the magic duo Germany-France. Budget figures are falsified, accounting tricks like special funds have become the standard of self-deception. Both countries enter 2026 with new debt of roughly five percent each.

The overall refinancing requirement of the Eurozone stands at €1.5 trillion. These are the gross issuances of government bonds necessary to roll existing debt forward and finance newly incurred deficits. 

This means around €100 billion more must be funneled into public coffers via the bond market. Will the legal framework be adjusted? Will major capital pools, banks, and pension funds be further coerced into the fiat credit system? Will the ECB once again step in massively as a buyer to dampen rising interest rates amid higher debt loads?

But how long can such a process sustain itself like a perpetuum mobile? When will the seemingly inexhaustible sources of the bond market run dry? The political camouflage will end when only the European Central Bank, as lender of last resort, keeps new debt liquid through massive market interventions. With each intervention, the money supply grows, along with doubts about the currency’s stability. Trust erodes, and the truth about the manipulation of interest rates, time preferences, and real costs – including the financial dimension of green transformation and migration into European social systems – can no longer be concealed.

This would be the moment of truth, the instant the house of cards of permanent debt starts to wobble. The crucial question is: which forces or developments could accelerate this process? Real resources for financing investments in the capital stock are limited. The state competes for credit to fund its social, climate, and military ambitions. It systematically displaces productive capital and lures scarce resources into unproductive channels with promises of returns, incentives, and subsidies. Growth dies; the nation’s prosperity diminishes.

If this is insufficient, additional credit is mobilized – if necessary, through central bank bond purchases. Meanwhile, pressure on the bond market intensifies: investors increasingly turn away from long-term government securities, while in the United States, the AI-driven economic miracle is heating up capital markets.

US tech corporations alone plan bond issuances of up to $360 billion this year to finance additional data centers and expand energy capacities. The European market is also under the sights of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and others. Bonds worth €120–170 billion are expected to be placed on the Euro market, a growth of over ten percent compared to last year. The US economy is mobilizing all sources to anchor domestic growth with capital.

A tough competitor for sovereign issuers, as the private sector lures with dynamic business projects and generally higher returns. 

How much additional capital will flow from Europe to the United States? How large is the negative effect triggered by this American capital vacuum in the EU, which must mobilize resources to fund growing welfare states?

Clearly, interest rates will gradually rise, making refinancing and debt service in Europe more expensive. Budgetary room will shrink further.

And it becomes obvious what no one talks about: the massive downward movement of the US dollar against the euro is now a trap. Every investment from a European perspective in the United States, with a prospectively rising USD, becomes more profitable and yield-bearing. The strong euro acts as a second tariff barrier and intensifies the suction effect of investment capital into the US.

The Eurozone, and thus the economically closely interlinked EU member states, are coming under growing pressure. Geopolitically dependent on their energy suppliers, they remain rigid toward the energy and resource giant Russia. Europe walks a narrow line between dependence and self-interest.

Europe is strong when it relies on its regional competencies and strengthens intra-continental competition. Only this way can business models, engineering skill, and ideas emerge to meet the strong competition from China and the US on equal footing and maneuver into a better strategic position relative to competitors.

Ideologically, patriotic-conservative forces are called upon to end the climate-socialist madness, stabilize budgets, and put an end to the disastrous open-border policies – time is pressing for fiscal consolidation and state downsizing, even if Brussels and Berlin see it differently.

State downsizing and consolidation may sound like political fairy tales, yet Europe should never be written off. The continent has repeatedly emerged from severe crises and self-inflicted civilizational ruptures renewed and reinvented.

Capital and cultural foundations exist. Perhaps the American capital vacuum will help bounce Europe’s cultural decay – financed by the debt printer – off the wall of truth in the bond market.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 08:10

Germany To Scrap Subsidy For Rooftop Solar

Germany is planning to abolish fixed feed-in tariffs for small rooftop solar installations as of 2027, saying that falling costs have made the technology economically sound without subsidies (narrator: "it isn't"), Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing a draft proposal for reforms it has seen.

At present, rooftop solar installations of any kind are eligible for guaranteed tariffs. But this could change in a few months, if the government approves the proposal of the German economy ministry to have subsidies abolished for projects of less than 25 kilowatts, according to OilPrice.

The ministry argues that the small rooftop solar are now often viable on their own without incentives, thanks to the lower costs.

“To strengthen the cost efficiency of solar expansion, a stronger focus will in future be placed on cost-effective solar parks,” the ministry’s proposal reads, as carried by Bloomberg.

The plans for a reform of the subsidies was first leaked by German media outlets.

“If the leaked draft is genuine, it would be yet another attack on renewable energy, following the grid package proposal,” said Ursula Heinen-Esser, president of Germany’s renewable energy association BEE.

Abolishing support for rooftop solar would have “disastrous consequences” for the sector and would deprive homeowners from participating in the energy transition, Heinen-Esser added.

The German Solar Association, BSW-Solar, also deplored the leaked draft proposal as “a frontal attack on Germany’s energy transition.”

Germany plans to boost onshore wind capacity to 115 gigawatts and solar capacity to 215 gigawatts by the end of the decade—targets which it will keep in the proposal for reforms. Europe’s biggest economy has a target to have renewables account for 80% of its electricity generation in 2030.

In solar, Germany is halfway through reaching its 2030 solar power targets, BSW-Solar said in June last year.

Germany saw the highest number of onshore wind turbines commissioned in the first half of 2025 for eight years, but the rebound in installations is still off track to reach the official targets, the German wind energy association, Bundesverband WindEnergie (BWE), said in the middle of 2025.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/01/2026 - 07:35