US Lawmakers Push $2.5B Plan To Break China’s Grip On Critical Minerals

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed creating a new $2.5 billion agency to accelerate U.S. production of rare earths and other critical minerals, according to AP and MSN. 

The effort comes as the Trump administration has already taken aggressive steps to weaken China’s control over materials vital to high-tech products, electric vehicles, and advanced weapons systems.

While it remains unclear how the legislation would align with White House policy, pressure is growing to cut U.S. dependence on China after Beijing used its dominance in the critical minerals market during the trade war. Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping agreed last October to a one-year truce under which China would continue exports while the U.S. eased some technology restrictions.

The Pentagon has spent nearly $5 billion over the past year to secure access to these materials, highlighting how reliant the U.S. remains on China, which processes more than 90% of the world’s critical minerals. To counter that dominance, Washington has begun taking equity stakes in mining companies and, in some cases, guaranteeing prices—an approach more commonly associated with China’s industrial policy.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Todd Young of Indiana, would establish an independent agency to build mineral stockpiles, stabilize prices, and encourage production in the U.S. and allied countries to support both national defense and the broader economy.

Shaheen called the legislation “a historic investment” to strengthen the U.S. economy against China’s leverage, while Young said the proposal is “a much-needed, aggressive step to protect our national and economic security.” Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia introduced a companion bill in the House.

The AP report says that the urgency escalated after China imposed export restrictions last spring in response to U.S. tariffs, forcing Washington to seek a truce. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon has recently “deployed over $4.5 billion in capital commitments” to close deals that will “help free the United States from market manipulation.”

Those efforts include investments in domestic alumina, gallium, and rare earth production, as well as partnerships to strengthen the supply chain for rare earth magnets. Trump reinforced the strategy this week, declaring the U.S. is “too reliant” on foreign critical minerals and ordering negotiations for stronger supply terms.

“Reshoring manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security is a top priority for the Trump administration,” a White House spokesperson said.

Some analysts view the strategy as a shift toward state-backed industrial policy. “Despite the dangers of political interference, the strategic logic is compelling,” wrote Elly Rostoum, adding that it could be “a prudent way for the U.S. to ensure strategic autonomy and industrial sovereignty.”

Industry leaders have largely welcomed the approach. “He is playing three-dimensional chess on critical minerals like no previous president has done. It's about time too, given the military and strategic vulnerability we face,” said Jim Sims of NioCorp.

Alongside domestic investment, the administration is also working with allies, including major mining agreements with Australia and coordinated discussions among G7 finance ministers on supply chain resilience.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 04:15

Despite Rapes And Violence, Netherlands To Keep Migrant-Student Integration Project Alive

Via Remix News,

Despite sparking global news coverage documenting violence, sexual assaults, and drug-related crimes in the shared living integration project “Stek Oost,” the city of Amsterdam refuses to shut the project down.

According to public broadcaster BNNVARA, the municipality has rejected calls to shutter the facility early and plans to run the project until its scheduled end in April 2028.

The project, which launched in 2018, was the subject of a recent NPO 2 report where residents detailed an environment of frequent violence. Records indicate that the housing association responsible for the site, Stadgenoot, had requested an intervention plan from police and city officials as early as 2019 to address sexual abuse.

The news report highlighted serious cases and interviewed the victims in some instances, which has been translated by Remix News.

A Syrian resident was linked to a rape in 2019, but the case was initially closed due to insufficient evidence. However, the individual remained at the dormitory until March 2022, when a second sexual offense led to his expulsion and a subsequent prison sentence.

The former resident said that a Syrian raped her after she went to his room to watch a film and he would not let her leave.

He then raped her.

The woman, Amanda, said: “He wanted to learn Dutch, to get an education. I wanted to help him.”

In addition, students living in the shared spaces reported being threatened with kitchen knives. One student described a 20-centimeter-long blade.

Stadgenoot reportedly considered pulling out of the project in 2023 after its own employees faced threats.

“Stek Oost” was designed to foster social cohesion by housing asylum seekers and Dutch students together.

Initially, the 250 apartments were split in half between the two groups, so 125 places for each group. However, the ratio of asylum seekers was later reduced to 30 percent.

A “buddy system” was implemented to connect the groups and promote integration.

Despite the controversies, the City of Amsterdam has blocked attempts to close the project. District President Carolien de Heer (PvdA) defended the decision to the broadcaster, stating that “250 people could not be put on the streets at once.”

However, what he does not note is that the refugees could simply be removed to another facility, which would not total 250 people.

The project has long been a source of political friction. In 2022, Green Mayor Femke Halsema acknowledged she was aware of the ongoing problems. By 2024, parties including the VVD and JA21 called for the project’s termination.

A scheduled debate on the facility was recently removed from the Municipal Council’s agenda, despite a request for discussion from Anton van Schijndel of the nationalist FvD party (Forum for Democracy).

Now, there are potential political implications to closing the project early, which could be seen as a failure of integration, even when forced and facilitated by the state in a controlled environment.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 03:30

Tesla Cuts Berlin Gigafactory Workforce By 1,700 Employees

Tesla’s workforce at its Gigafactory near Berlin has fallen by about 1,700 employees, according to a report by Germany’s Handelsblatt.

An internal document cited by the paper shows the Gruenheide site—Tesla’s only European production hub—now employs 10,703 people, a decline of roughly 14% from staffing levels disclosed ahead of works council elections in 2024. The company did not immediately comment, according to Handelsblatt.

The reduction follows CEO Elon Musk’s April 2024 announcement that Tesla would cut more than 10% of its global workforce to curb costs and boost productivity.

The move also fits a broader pattern in early 2026, as manufacturers and technology firms continue to streamline operations amid slower demand growth, tighter financing conditions, and a push to protect margins after several years of aggressive expansion.

In 2025, Tesla spent much of the year shifting from rapid expansion to consolidation. Management emphasized cost control, factory efficiency, and cash preservation as aggressive price cuts and softer demand compressed automotive margins.

Even as its traditional auto operations lost momentum, Tesla’s stock has been relatively resilient. Investors have increasingly focused on the company’s longer-term ambitions in robotaxi services, autonomous driving software, and artificial intelligence, viewing these as potential high-margin growth engines.

That optimism has helped support the share price despite slowing vehicle sales and a wider backdrop of job cuts across manufacturing and technology in 2026, as companies adjust to weaker growth and higher financing costs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 02:45

Should India Be Concerned About Poland's Close Ties With Pakistan

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Pakistan’s reported indirect arming of Ukraine through Poland might expand into direct military cooperation between them that could then also elicit concern from Russia...

Top Indian diplomat Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said during a press conference with his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski that he wants to discuss the latter’s “recent travels to the region” in an allusion to his trip to Pakistan last fall after spring’s Indo-Pak clashes.

He also said that “Poland should display zero tolerance for terrorism and not help fuel the terrorist infrastructure in our neighbourhood.”

Sikorski later abruptly ended an interview when asked about Pakistani terrorism against India.

India has good reason to be concerned about Poland’s close ties with Pakistan, not just due to Sikorski’s suspicious behavior during the aforesaid interview which hinted at a seemingly inexplicable fear of offending that country, but because of reports that Poland aids Pakistan’s indirect arming of Ukraine.

Although the Russian Ambassador to Pakistan dismissed them as lacking evidence, perhaps in order to not derail their big-ticket energy and infrastructure talks, it’s likely that India believes them.

After all, it wasn’t only Indian media that reported on Pakistan’s indirect arming of Ukraine, but also French media and The Intercept.

The second’s report alleged that “U.S. Helped Pakistan Get IMF Bailout With Secret Arms Deal For Ukraine, Leaked Documents Reveal”, which is believable given Pakistan’s financial problems and the US’ former interest in arming Ukraine to the teeth against Russia.

Pakistan also has a sizeable defense industry and is a “Major Non-NATO Ally” so this alleged deal is reasonable.

Lending credence to this claim was Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar declaring after last fall’s talks with Sikorski that “We agreed to expand bilateral cooperation in trade, energy, infrastructure, defence, counter-terrorism, science and technology and education.”

Their defense cooperation might eventually expand beyond Pakistan indirectly arming Ukraine to it directly arming Poland given the latter’s unprecedented military buildup that’s sold to the public on the pretext of defending against Russia.

The lion’s share of its military-technical equipment comes from the US and South Korea due to how embarrassingly underdeveloped its domestic military-industrial complex is, but it would make sense for Poland to pragmatically diversify suppliers by exploring related options with Pakistan.

This is especially so if they’ve already been cooperating on indirectly arming Ukraine and Pakistan took the opportunity to market its other military-technical equipment to Poland. Any such deal would bother Russia and India.

Russia would dislike Pakistan arming Poland amidst their talks on big-ticket deals, which arguably require the US’ approval that Trump might not provide in order for US companies to take advantage of these opportunities instead, while India would object to Poland financing its rival through weapons deals.

Pakistan and Poland are also nowadays the US’ top partners in their home regions so each might lobby their shared US patron in support of the other’s interests as a goodwill gesture for bolstering their ties.

It’s therefore not just India which has good reason to be concerned about Poland’s close ties with Pakistan but also Russia, whose associated concerns could be exacerbated if India shares any intelligence with Russia that it might have obtained about their planned defense cooperation.

In that scenario, Russia would still be unlikely to end its energy and infrastructure talks with Pakistan since that’s not its diplomatic style, but it might become reluctant to further expand bilateral ties in other spheres.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 02:00

No White Men Need Apply

Authored by Judge Glock & Christopher F. Rufo via City Journal,

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to end federal spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Yet the government has continued to award contracts based on race and sex. Despite rampant fraud and multiple court rulings against the practice, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has used “disadvantage” essays from business owners to skirt the rules and continue discriminatory programs that dole out billions in government contracts.

For decades, the federal government has awarded certain special contracts exclusively to so-called disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses. Until 2023, SBA presumed that racial minorities were “disadvantaged.” The resulting discrimination was absolute: according to an analysis conducted between 2020 and 2023, these programs made not a single award to white men.

Though the second Trump administration has taken steps to limit these contracts, the largest disadvantaged-business initiative—the SBA’s 8(a) program—is thriving. The program “is still one of the most lucrative and sought after” SBA certificates, one contracting lawyer said in November. In fact, fiscal year 2025 saw the largest 8(a) spending on record, totaling $26 billion.

President Trump signed an executive order forbidding federal DEI discrimination, and a federal district court struck down the SBA’s presumption that minorities are disadvantaged. How, then, has 8(a) survived?

Much as colleges have used personal essays to evade affirmative-action bans, the Small Business Administration has asked companies to submit “social disadvantage narratives” to qualify for the 8(a) program. These allow business owners to establish minority status through descriptions of racial taunts or alleged discrimination. Applicants might not check a racial box, but the implication is clear: no white men need apply.

The SBA’s “Guide for Demonstrating Social Disadvantage” reveals how the shell game works. The guide teaches applicants how to play the system, featuring examples of potential “disadvantage.” It gives minorities and women the magic words: “I believe my application [for a bank loan] was denied due to bias toward my race” and “I believe my request [to declare a business major] was denied based on sex bias.” Once the agency approves the application, the contracts can start flowing—no real evidence required.

Are these applicants always disadvantaged? No. Consider Earl Stafford Jr., a black contractor who wrote an essay to apply for the 8(a) program. The Washington Business Journal reported on Stafford’s “painstaking” ordeal of writing the essay, in which he described unspecified acts of discrimination that made him think that he did not have “what it took to be in business.” Yet his father, Earl Stafford Sr., founded a successful defense firm and started his own private foundation—hardly the background of a disadvantaged person.

As with any racialized initiative, the 8(a) program is ripe for fraud. White business owners can find a minority front man or a woman to head a nominally disadvantaged or woman-owned firm, which the white man continues to run behind the scenes. Another option is for minority-owned firms to receive the government contract but act as “pass through,” taking a cut off the top and paying another firm to do the contracted work. The Supreme Court ruled last year against a “disadvantaged” company that provided none of the required paint for a Philadelphia bridge and train station and passed the work to other firms.

Out-and-out dishonesty is also common. In 2023, Margarita Howard and her companies HX5 and HX5 Sierra were forced to pay the government almost $8 million for lying about Howard’s assets in order to participate in 8(a). At the time she claimed to be disadvantaged, Howard was living in a 14,000-square-foot waterside Florida mansion featured on HGTV’s Extreme Homes, the complaint against her alleges. Howard is still the CEO of HX5 (a “woman-owned small business”) and applies for federal money. The Trump administration awarded her company millions last year.

Other aspiring federal contractors have pretended to be Native American or embezzled funds intended for Natives. ProPublica recently highlighted the case of Charles Dawson, a contractor whose companies won hundreds of millions of dollars on a promise to use his profits to help “Native Hawaiians.” He funneled some of the money into private jets, Porsches, and polo. Even after a federal raid on Dawson’s house, the companies continued to win federal support.

Everyone within the system knows such fraud is rampant. A 2018 government audit reviewed 25 8(a) recipient firms which together received more than $100 million. Of these, 20 “should have been removed from the . . . program” due to ineligibility.

The Trump administration has taken important steps to address these problems. Late Friday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced he was ordering a “line by line” investigation of 8(a) contracts. President Biden’s SBA sought to award 15 percent of all federal contracts to disadvantaged firms. Trump SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler has reduced the goal to the law’s actual standard of 5 percent. Her administration has also demanded financial records from 8(a) businesses to weed out fraud.

But the core problem with these programs is not fraud. It is that they systematically discriminate against one group: white men.

Instead of trying to reform 8(a), the Trump administration should abolish it. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the administration would be within its rights to stop all contracting based on race and sex, even if such contracting were justified under the fig leaf of a “disadvantage” essay. The White House could also support Senator Joni Ernst’s “Stop 8(a) Contracting Fraud Act,” which would pause 8(a) contracting until a thorough audit is completed, or call on Congress to end the program altogether.

When the administration says, “no DEI,” it should mean it. In federal contracting, that’s also what the Constitution requires.

Judge Glock is director of research at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Dead Pledge: The Origins of the Mortgage Market and Federal Bailouts, 1913–1939. Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 23:25

How Canada's Only Leverage Over America Disappeared In An Instant

Authored by E.J. Antoni via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

I’d like to talk today about the recent events in Venezuela, specifically from an economic point of view, and who are the real winners and losers.

An aerial photo shows the Nave Photon crude oil tanker, carrying a shipment of Venezuelan oil, docked in Freeport, Texas, on Jan. 16, 2026. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

Let’s start with the obvious. The Venezuela operation is a win for America and the Venezuelan people. American consumers and businesses will benefit from lower prices while oil companies have a chance for bigger profits.

Venezuelans will benefit from increased investment, jobs, and profits in their country as well. This is why their stock market jumped 50, 60, 70, 80 percent after the U.S. takeover.

And if we recall that economic security is national security, then the new order in South America also simultaneously supports U.S. national security while undermining our greatest rival, China. In war, dependable access to oil is as important as dependable access to kinetic arms.

Access to ample, reliable flows of oil represents a key strategic interest. Removing one such flow from the Chinese sphere of influence and bringing it into our own is tremendous progress toward this goal. But the biggest loser of all isn’t China or Russia, it’s Canada.

Western Canada sends over four million barrels a day of heavy crude to American refiners that are equipped to handle this type of oil. But now, with access to the massive flows of Venezuelan crude, which is similar to the Canadian flavor, the United States no longer needs to rely on Canada to keep the refineries on the Gulf of America running at full capacity.

Instead, the oil shipments that previously went to China are already being redirected to American refiners—tens of millions of barrels worth just days after Maduro’s capture. And while the United States is paying full market price for that oil, don’t be surprised if oil prices start coming down because of this redirection.

After all, increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. As American investment rebuilds Venezuela’s severely neglected oil infrastructure, we can expect production and exports to the United States to only increase, simultaneously benefiting the American and Venezuelan people.

That’s why this is such a massive economic win for American families and businesses who will benefit from lower prices, courtesy of more energy supplies. And since energy affects the price of everything else in an economy, lower prices for products like gasoline will put downward pressure on countless other prices, providing relief after four years of inflation under the Biden administration.

Consider when you go to a grocery store how much of the price of food you’re buying is dependent on energy prices. First off, farmers and ranchers are fueling their tractors and other vehicles with diesel and gas. They’re also using synthetic fertilizers created with natural gas.

But how did the gallon of milk, the carton of eggs, or the bag of bread get to grocery store in the first place? It got there on a trunk. Fueled by oil. What I’m getting at here is that we seriously underestimate just how much the price of energy affects everything we do and everything we buy.

Bring down energy prices, and you put downward pressure on prices throughout the economy. That’s a win for American consumers and businesses alike.

And U.S. control of Venezuela is also a second chance for jilted American oil companies to again profit from nearly one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.

Years ago, those American companies poured investment into Venezuela to essentially modernize the entire industry there. For their troubles, these oil firms had their physical property confiscated and their intellectual property copied as the communists “nationalized” Venezuelan oil.

Of course, communist rule there was a disaster, as it has been everywhere, and the oil industry languished as infrastructure decayed, investment lagged, and production fell well below its potential. Venezuela pumps much less oil today than they did a quarter century ago. But this is poised to reverse.

Venezuela will now assuredly receive billions of dollars of investment from American oil companies, many of whom are champing at the bit to regain access to the largest reserves in the world. That will mean a windfall of jobs and income for the Venezuelan people, all of which could have been Canada’s, bringing us back to the story of the biggest economic loser here.

It didn’t have to be this way for the fifty-first state. But instead of welcoming oil and gas investment from the United States and building valuable infrastructure like pipelines, Canada has preferred to prioritize far-Left causes and an anti-energy agenda.

After recent events, not only is Canada losing its biggest crude customer, but it’s also losing its only real leverage in trade talks with the United States. This is an economic reality that few professional pundits seem to have grasped.

To be clear, the flood of cheap Venezuelan crude will not arrive in the United States overnight. It will take time, years in fact, to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and really ramp up production to replace most Canadian crude imports. But the writing is on the wall.

The United States, for a change, is firmly in the driver’s seat and master of its own destiny—and hemisphere.

The economic story here also goes well beyond oil too, although that’s what has gotten most of the attention. Venezuela is a veritable goldmine of other natural resources like rare earth minerals, lumber, bauxite (the primary source of aluminum), natural gas, and more. Canada just lost not only its leverage with oil, but just about every other one of its exports too.

Since the Canadian economy is much more dependent on exports than the U.S. economy is, and since nearly all Canadian exports come to the United States while relative few of ours go to Canada, the slowdown in trade between our two countries has very unequal effects.

In short, this has been very harmful to Canada and will be devastating in the long run. But it’s little more than a speedbump here in America.

President Donald Trump has effectively barred the door on Canada, and the latter will have few alternatives to completely opening every one of its markets to free and fair competition.

Of course, Canada can always choose to fall further into irrelevance and economic impoverishment by stubbornly continuing to snub American manufacturers, farmers, and workers.

Let me close by saying that if the Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans to stay out of the Western Hemisphere and the Roosevelt corollary established American intervention therein, then the Trump corollary has put a finer, and more economic, point on the matter that’s best summed up in two words: America first.

Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ZeroHedge. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:35

Iran Vows Prolonged All-Out War If Attacked As Trump Still Seeks 'Options'

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday warning the United States that Tehran will be "firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack" - following President Trump reiterating threats against the Islamic Republic.

"Our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack," he wrote in reference to the 12-day war of last June.

AFP/Getty Images: Iran is prepared for war but ready to negotiate, Iran's FM has made clear.

The top Iranian diplomat stated that this was not a "threat" but a "reality I feel I need to convey explicitly, because as a diplomat and a veteran, I abhor war."

Araghchi said his country is ready for all-out war, describing that "an all-out confrontation will certainly be ferocious and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House. It will certainly engulf the wider region and have an impact on ordinary people around the globe."

What's more is he described the most violent part of protests in Iran, which were met with vehement denunciations and warnings by Trump, in reality the result of an anti-Tehran conspiracy and effort by externally supported groups to sow chaos, destabilization, and to begin an insurgency:

As black-clad groups of masked terrorists used rifles and handguns to infiltrate protests and mow down innocent demonstrators on our streets, reports emerged in various media claiming that big cities in Iran had “fallen.” Other reports alleged the continuation of widespread armed violence. In reality, the violent phase of the unrest lasted less than 72 hours.

By many accounts, the ballistic and even hypersonic missiles which fell on Israel last June did significant damage, and put fear into Israeli leadership given just how many among the hundreds of projectiles sent, including drones, were able to evade Israel's anti-air defenses.

Iran's foreign ministry is issuing such forceful warnings given the crisis between Tehran and Washington doesn't appear fully over, at a moment a US carrier group and additional military assets are headed to the Middle East region. WSJ notes that 'options' are still being weighed by the administration:

After pulling back from strikes on Iran last week, President Trump is still pressing aides for what he terms “decisive” military options, U.S. officials said, as Iran appears to have tightened its control of the country and targets protesters through a crackdown that has killed thousands.

Meanwhile the WSJ, along with others among the mainstream media, is questioning where Trump the hawk is and why he's exercised restrained on the Iran question - in the typical fashion of the warmongering media. WSJ's editorial board wrote:

Araghchi’s not-so-implicit threat of war if President Trump orders help for the protesters... This is a threat against Americans, an attempt to intimidate the Trump Administration. We wonder how President Trump sees this threat, especially since the regime so clearly crossed his “red line” against shooting protesters.

Regardless, the American public won't stomach yet another drawn out forever war in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein is among the most deeply unpopular US military actions in history.

The dust has barely settled on 20+ year fruitless and deadly occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the severe limitations of US empire were confirmed (also as the Taliban remains in Kabul, and Shia pro-Iran governance is stronger than ever in Baghdad), and yet already the armchair interventionist chickenhawks in the media are eyeing another regime change war.

WOW. Strategic advisor to Iran's Parliament Speaker, Mahdi Mohammadi:

"We know that we are facing a regime-change war in which the only way to achieve victory is to make credible the threat that, during the 12-day war, although it was ready, did not get the opportunity to be…

— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) January 19, 2026

Probably (or rather, hopefully) Trump senses this, and is seeking de-escalation, also perhaps knowing there will be other future Iran protests and 'opportunities' to pull the trigger against Tehran. But it won't be some kind of easy in, easy out Venezuela scenario - and American troops might die.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:10

Somalia And The High Cost Of Low Trust

Authored by Mitzi Perdue via RealClearPolitics,

When news broke of the massive child nutrition fraud in Minnesota, many Americans reacted with disbelief. During the pandemic, roughly $250 million intended to feed hungry children was siphoned off, prosecutors say, and spent on luxury cars, real estate, and other indulgences. To most people, it appeared to be a shocking betrayal of public trust.

To me, it felt unsettlingly familiar.

Decades ago, long before Minnesota became synonymous with one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history, I had an experience in Somalia that permanently altered my perspective on aid, trust, and good intentions. It is why I read the indictments differently, not with surprise so much as recognition.

What struck me most about the Minnesota case was not only the scale of the theft but the silence surrounding it. The fraud appears to have operated in plain sight within tightly knit circles, yet few people spoke out.  

More than 40 years ago, when I was a rice farmer in California, American rice growers learned of famine conditions in Somalia. Competitors set aside their rivalry and donated an entire shipload of rice for humanitarian relief. I later traveled to Somalia, expecting to see that food had reached people on the brink of starvation.

It had not.

A powerful clan had taken control of the shipment. Once its own members’ needs were met, the remaining rice did not go to feed other Somalis. Instead, it was used to feed animals, while those outside the clan continued to go hungry.

At the time, I tried to explain what I had seen by blaming corruption, weak oversight, or a few bad actors. None of those explanations captured the deeper pattern. The behavior made sense only when I began to understand how differently trust and obligation were organized.

That realization came rushing back as I read about the Minnesota fraud.

According to federal indictments, the stolen money flowed through networks bound by kinship and loyalty. The theft was large, coordinated, and sustained. What stood out was not only who took the money, but who stayed silent. In societies with strong civic norms, whistleblowing is often praised, or at least protected. In tightly bound clan systems, speaking out can mean punishment.

Over time, I found language for what I had observed: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept from game theory that explains how cooperation and trust either compound or collapse. When two parties cooperate, both benefit and trust grows. When one cheats while the other cooperates, the cheater prospers and the cooperator becomes the loser. When both are defective, everyone loses.

High-trust societies solve this dilemma by extending cooperation beyond family and tribe. Laws, institutions, and norms reinforce the idea that cheating ultimately harms everyone, including oneself. Low-trust societies work differently. Trust is reserved for kin. Outsiders are assumed to cheat. In that environment, cheating is not necessarily immoral. It is often rational, expected, and even applauded.

Seen through this lens, both my experience in Somalia and the Minnesota scandal follow the same pattern. Institutions cooperated in good faith. Clan-based networks exploited that trust. Children and taxpayers paid the price.

Somalia represents the most destructive version of this equilibrium. When trust does not extend beyond blood ties, cooperation cannot scale. Investment dries up. Contracts mean little without enforcement beyond kinship. When everyone expects everyone else to cheat, no one can afford to cooperate.

In that context, Somalia’s ranking of 213th out of 215 countries in per-capita income is not shocking. It is almost inevitable. This is not an indictment of individual Somalis. We know that many, many Somalis live honest, productive lives, raise families, and contribute positively wherever they reside. Individuals can transcend the cultures they are born into. Social systems, however, change slowly and are likely to shape behavior.

Somalia sits at the end of a continuum, but the underlying dynamic is not unique to it. Whenever loyalty to the group eclipses loyalty to shared rules, corruption flourishes. The Minnesota scandal was not an aberration so much as a warning: When institutions assume trust without enforcing it, low-trust behavior fills the vacuum. Somalia shows what happens when that low-trust approach is entrenched.

Mitzi Perdue is a fellow at the Institute of World Politics and the co-founder of Mental Help Global, a philanthropy that uses AI to support mental health.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:45

Alberta Sees Large Turnout For Petition To Separate From Canada

Crowds of Canadian citizens stood in long lines across Alberta for hours this week to sign a petition for a referendum on leaving Canada - officially titled "A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence."  The petition requires at least 177,000 signatures in order to trigger the referendum, which would ultimately decide if the province will separate.

Petitions have 120 days to collect the signatures needed.  Pro-separation groups say they could get as many as 1 million signatures, which would be a clear indication that Alberta will leave Canada.  Alberta's population is currently 5 million people.

Some petition locations reported as many as 10,000 signatures in a day and the public response is described as "concerning" by critics who want to remain part of Canada's "constitutional monarchy."  Alberta is widely considered the most conservative province in the country and has been at odds with the far-left Canadian government (ruled by Ontario progressives). 

The referendum would mean a simply Yes/No question for voters on separation.  A majority (51% or more) would then lead to a legal process overseen by the Canadian federal government.  Come polls indicate that 60% of Albertan citizens are still opposed to the measure, however, the recent turnout for the petition suggests the tide is turning.  Recent conflicts with progressive elites in the Canadian government have driven Albertans to question their relationship. 

Alberta fought against the leftist government's pandemic lockdowns, church and business closures and draconian vaccination requirements.  They remain in opposition to Canada's new gun laws which are incrementally removing all firearms from private hands.  They have also been at odds with the federal government over resource development, energy policy, carbon taxation and economic marginalization. 

Essentially, Alberta is a different nation when compared to the Canadian norm.  It is also a commodity treasure trove that Canada exploits to feed its coffers while rarely giving anything back to provincial citizens. 

Wow, an absolute insane lineup of people - that goes entire city blocks - of people in Calgary waiting to sign a petition to make Alberta an independent sovereign nation. pic.twitter.com/HqB1xaJRs8

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 11, 2026

Canadian courts initially blocked a referendum question on separation, asserting that the implications of the question were too vague and did not align with constitutional requirements.  Instead of appealing the decision, Alberta turned to the legislature. Within days, the legislature passed Bill 14, amending the Referendum Act to remove the requirement that referendum questions align with the Constitution.  Separatists quickly got a revised referendum question approved, and the petition process resumed

Another obstacle to the separation is a lawsuit brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation goes far beyond provincial politics. The First Nation is seeking an urgent injunction to stop Alberta’s petition process.  They say a separation would be in violation of their original treaty with the Crown.  The claim sets up a possible loophole allowing the federal government to deny separation, but the notion that a Native treaty supersedes provincial law is rather thin.  Alberta's separation would simply mean that the Cree would have to negotiate a new treaty.

Arguments against the referendum say that Alberta is "landlocked", which would make its separation economically disastrous.  This is not entirely true.  Their shared border with the US and newfound sovereignty would allow the province to establish more significant oil pipelines (pipelines which the Canadian government has consistently blocked in the past).  This development along with greater resource exploration and an alliance with American interests would make Alberta one of the wealthiest regions in the western hemisphere.

Furthermore, Alberta stretches within 700 miles of the arctic, an area of the world which is quickly becoming central to geopolitics.  Early warning systems and NORAD bases in Alberta are integral to US security.  These bases could be shut down in the event that conflicts between Canada and the US escalate.  A free Alberta could become vital to US defense.

The debate over US ownership of Greenland is only one element of a larger global shift to the North.  Alberta's exit from Canada and potential alliance with the US could have vast implications for international relations.       

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:20

Under The Bus You Go, Kurds

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With the fighting continue to rage and north and northeast Syria between central government forces and the nation’s Kurdish minority, the US government appears to have decided that they are backing the former, and that US military support for the Syrian Kurds is over.

US envoy Tom Barrack declared the Kurds to have a "great opportunity" to be taken over by the Islamist central government of Syria, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He assured that the Kurds would definitely be offered "equal rights" under the law in this scenario.

AFP/Getty Images

In many ways, Barrack's comments were less about why they are no longer backing the Kurds than why they did in the past, saying at one point in the fight against ISIS, the US didn't consider the Assad government a "viable partner" so they backed the Kurds instead. Now, with the US seeing the HTS as aligned with their interest, that’s no longer the case, so they'll be backing the HTS instead.

Syrian Kurdish officials and locals have expressed disappointment with this turn of events, saying that after more than a decade of being aligned with the US they are being effectively "abandoned" at the exact moment the HTS has begun launching military offensives against Kurdish-controlled territory that the US helped the Kurds gain in the first place.

Though the US has broadly supported the Kurds through the Syrian proxy war and after, it has not been uniform. In 2019, Turkey launched an offensive against the Syrian Kurds and the Trump Administration at the time similarly (and controversially) withdrew backing for the Kurds, with President Trump famously claiming it was because he had just learned that the Kurds were not present at the Normandy Invasion during WW2.

This move may similarly be controversial, even if Normandy isn’t invoked as a justification this time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) had warned the HTS against continuing attacks on the Kurds and had warned that the US might reimpose sanctions against Syria if the attacks continued.

That position may have some support in the Senate, though it plainly does not within the White House, as President Trump has been loudly enamored with HTS leader and former al-Qaeda in Iraq figure Ahmed al-Sharaa, praising him as "young, attractive tough guy." When push came to shove, it was perhaps unsurprising that the administration chose Sharaa over the Kurds when the two sides were at odds.

The US has been expressing annoyance with the Kurds for not quietly submitting to Sharaa’s rule for months now, with Barrack, as the representative of the US Federal Government, declaring that they had learned "federalism doesn’t work" and that the Kurds should abandon any hope of autonomy within Syria.

Sharaa, for his part, has given the Kurds a four-day ultimatum to accept his terms for integration into the Syrian state. Since Sharaa had previously denied the Kurds a single spot in his cabinet and postponed parliamentary elections in Kurdish parts of the country, what if any representation that will actually entail remains unclear.

I am sorry to say I can confirm this https://t.co/1dP0yp2C1O

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

Whatever it is, however, the US clearly views it as sufficient.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:55

Justice Jackson Cites Racist 'Black Codes' As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” - a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms - could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026

Justice Jackson has never distinguished herself on the bench for her bright legal mind, but it was frankly remarkable to see her treating some of the most overtly racist laws in American history as potentially valid reference points for modern gun control. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:30

New Jersey Governor Orders State To Accelerate Solar, Storage And Virtual Power Plants

By Robert Walton of Utility Dive

On her first day in office Tuesday, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed executive orders seeking to freeze electricity cost increases, issue ratepayer relief in the form of bill credits, and increase distributed energy resources, including utility-scale solar and battery storage.

One order directed the state’s Board of Public Utilities to ensure bill credits by July 1 and to “consider pursuing a pause, abeyance, or modification of the schedule governing any proceedings in which electric distribution utilities seek approvals for rate increases or cost recoveries.” It also ordered the board to publish a study within 180 days of how to “modernize” the traditional electric utility business model, including opportunities to make utility revenue models “less dependent on capital spending.”

Another order focused on growing the state’s electricity supply and increasing efficiency. It directed regulators to initiate solicitations for solar and transmission-scale battery storage and to begin development of a virtual power plant program to be administered by electric distribution utilities and third-party suppliers in the state.

Sherrill, who made affordability and rising energy prices a focus of her campaign, said in her inaugural speech that the orders “will deliver relief to consumers and stop rate hikes.” 

“This will also create the conditions to massively expand New Jersey’s power generation, because more power in-state will help lower costs,” she said. 

Electric rates were a key issue in the governor’s race, particularly after bills spiked as much as 20% last year. Another increase is slated to go into effect this summer. The increases are a result of higher capacity prices in PJM’s recent auctions, which are held several years in advance and reflect both current and projected power demand. 

Residential bill credits will rely on the same or similar funding sources used in August 2025 to provide credits, according to Sherrill’s first executive order. Last year, the BPU said all 3.9 million New Jersey residential ratepayers of Public Service Electric and Gas, Atlantic City Electric, Jersey Central Power and Light, and Rockland Electric would receive $100 in direct bill assistance.

PSE&G emailed a statement responding to Sherrill’s orders, saying “steps must be taken to safeguard long-term energy reliability and cost effectiveness for residents as New Jersey relies on imported electricity for more than 40% of its power.”

“We are confident that open dialogue and information sharing will lead to workable solutions,” the utility said.

Grid advocates hailed the governor’s focus on developing new sources of energy.

“These executive orders are tackling peak demand, unlocking customer-sited resources, and speeding deployment of solar and storage,” Katie Mettle, New Jersey state lead at Advanced Energy United, said in a statement.

According to the second executive order, the BPU has 45 days to initiate a solicitation “for qualifying solar facilities or solar facilities in combination with storage” under the state’s Competitive Solar Incentive program. Within the same timeframe, the BPU must also open 3 GW of capacity for registration under New Jersey’s Community Solar Energy Program, “endeavoring to expedite the registration process by any necessary and appropriate means.”

Regulators must also accelerate the development of grid-scale storage through the Garden State Energy Storage Program by holding a solicitation within 45 days, launching Phase 2 of the program within 90 days, and “thereafter establishing a specific tranche of capacity for electric distribution utilities to develop to support interconnection of distributed energy resources and grid stability.”

And, within 180 days, the BPU must begin development of a virtual power plant program that aims “to drive down peak demand by aggregating behind-the-meter distributed energy resources.”

“Virtual power plants are a proven, cost-effective way to lower peak demand, improve reliability, and put downward pressure on energy bills,” AEU’s Mettle said.

Allison McLeod, interim executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, said the group was “particularly encouraged” by the actions aimed at solar and battery storage development.

“These are two of the fastest, most affordable tools we have to bring energy online and stabilize our grid,” McLeod said in a statement. “While taking some pragmatic steps to lower emissions and increase efficiencies in the near term with our existing fleet, New Jersey is continuing to lay the groundwork for a truly clean energy future.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:05

Second Biggest Australian Pension Fund Trimming US Dollar Exposure

It's not just the Danes who are virtue signaling their adherence to a dying globalist world order by loudly liquidating their tiny allocation of US Treasuries, which as Scott Bessent correctly pointed out they were already selling anyway and amount to a rounding error in terms of total US holdings...

When U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked how concerned he is about European investors pulling out of treasuries, Bessent said at a press conference at the World Economic Forum: “Denmark’s investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”… pic.twitter.com/CP7ULKtzps

— CNBC (@CNBC) January 21, 2026

... overnight Australia's second-biggest ​pension fund also said it is reducing its exposure to the US dollar through currency ‌hedging as falling interest rates and ongoing global volatility have investors around the world reassessing their U.S. allocations.

Andrew Fisher, Australian Retirement Trust's (ART) general manager of total portfolio management and resilience, told Reuters that the prospect of US rate cuts while some other major economies were expected to lift rates would weaken the dollar this ‌year. Financial markets have already priced in 50 basis points worth of interest rate ​by the Fed in 2026, whereas rates are expected to rise in Japan and Australia and remain steady in Europe.

ART has A$353 billion ($237.39 billion) of funds under management and is the second-largest fund in Australia's ‍A$4.5 trillion pension system, known as superannuation.

Fisher said while ART was not reducing its U.S stock holdings, it was increasing its currency hedging position to reduce exposure to a forecast weakening greenback.

"The U.S. dollar seems to be the ⁠one place where I think the U.S. administration is going to get what it wants, which ‍is a weaker dollar," Fisher told Reuters in an interview on Monday.

"They made it clear they want the dollar ‌to ‌weaken. It's hurting US competitiveness, and I think they're going to succeed."

Previously, almost all pension fund investors in U.S. equities would have very little currency hedging because the dollar was expected to rise on negative shocks.

A low-hedging strategy would insulate a fund because if the value of its U.S. stocks ⁠fell, it would be cushioned ⁠by the dollar also ​going down. ART holds about A$53 billion of U.S. stocks, according to the fund's figures.

"We're not going to change our allocation to U.S. equities, we're just going hedge more of the U.S. equities and unhedge more of the ‍other equities," Fisher said.

"Our Japanese exposure might be fully unhedged and our U.S. exposure might be much more hedged than it has been in the past to try and get that balance right," he said.

While the dollar traded ​near a six-week high last week, the currency has eased ‍this week against the safe-haven yen and Swiss franc after US President Donald Trump threatened additional tariffs on goods imported from European nations ​that oppose his planned takeover of Greenland.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:40

Waste Of The Day: Texas Southern Univ. Spending, Inventory In Shambles

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Texas Southern University has no idea where most of its inventory is located, ignored safeguards meant to prevent overspending, and reported inaccurate information to the Texas Comptroller, according to a state audit released Dec. 31. 

Key facts: University policy requires inventory to be physically counted every year, but a count has not happened since 2019, according to the audit.

Auditors randomly selected 60 pieces of property owned by TSU, and university employees were unable to locate 50 of them. 

Every piece of property must have a “custodian” responsible for its care. Half of the university’s property either had no custodian or had a custodian who no longer worked for TSU.

The university’s purchasing system was equally disastrous. Employees need signed approval before making purchases to ensure the school does not spend more than its budget allows. But auditors reviewed 60 random purchases and found that not a single one had approval.

Purchases over $25,000 must include a written contract, but 77% of a random sample of purchases had no contract. When contracts did exist, they could often only be located after “extensive research,” and 97% of them had incorrect information.

The school’s reported expenses were “significantly inflated” because school employees recorded many purchases twice in the university’s accounting software.

The university’s financial statements from 2023 and 2024 were completed months after the state deadline and contained “significant errors,” including misstating how much the school spent paying back bond debt.

In a written response, TSU President J.W. Crawford III agreed with all of the audit’s findings. 

Background: TSU is one of the nation’s largest public, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs. It received $111 million in state funding and $130 million in federal grants and contracts in fiscal year 2025. 

TSU had not been audited since 2006, according to Crawford.

Both the auditors and Crawford blamed some of the issues on staffing vacancies in warehouses and the Information Technology department.

Financial records support that claim. Payroll data obtained by Open the Books and university financial statements both show the school’s payroll expense decreased between 2019 and 2024 — a rarity for any college or public entity.  The nearby University of Texas at Austin, for example, increased its payroll by more than $500 million in the same timeframe.

Open the Books has not yet obtained Crawford’s salary. His predecessor, Lesia Crumpton-Young, made up to $434,000 in a single year.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Critical quote: “The results of the State Auditor’s report released today on Texas Southern University are beyond disturbing,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “The Governor, Speaker, and I have already taken action by putting a stop to any spending on any contracts other than ongoing university expenses to keep the school open. 

“It is my hope, for the sake of the students at the university, that TSU can continue. However, to do so, dramatic and permanent changes must occur immediately to comply with state standards.”

Patrick also directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate any potential criminal wrongdoing at TSU.

Summary: Any entity receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding should be able to track how the money is being spent.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:15

Operation Of Australia's Largest Coal Power Station Extended To 2029

Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The 2,880-megawatt Eraring coal-fired power station will continue to operate until 2029, operator Origin Energy has announced.

Eraring coal-fired power station, the largest in Australia, on the shores of Lake Macquarie southeast of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia. Nick Pitsas/CSIRO

The facility is the country’s largest power station by output and is situated on the banks of Lake Macquarie, north of Sydney in New South Wales (NSW).

In an announcement to the ASX (pdf), Origin said the move would reduce risks to system security, highlighted by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in its recent Transition Plan for System Security.

That report warned that, in NSW alternative energy assets required to “maintain system security are not currently scheduled to be operational before the announced retirement date of Eraring Power Station.”

“We’ve taken the decision to extend Eraring’s operations after assessing a range of factors, including the needs of our customers, market conditions and the important role the plant plays in the NSW energy system,” Origin CEO Frank Calabria said.

“Good progress has been made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure, including major transmission works and projects like our large-scale battery at Eraring, but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support [a] secure and stable power supply.”

The decision is aimed at providing more time for the delivery of renewables, storage, and transmission projects, he said. It also reflected uncertainty about the reliability of Australia’s ageing coal and gas fleet.

The company originally planned to close it in 2025, then extended it to August 2027 after the NSW Labor government struck a $450 million risk-sharing deal for the ageing facility, which committed the state to covering a percentage of losses up to $225 million per year if given advance notice by Origin.

About half of Australia’s national electricity grid is powered by black coal-fired power stations such as Eraring.

Government Welcomes Extension

The state’s Minister for Energy Penny Sharpe welcomed the announcement in a statement.

“My number one job is keeping the lights on and putting downward pressure on power prices. NSW is making real progress in replacing ageing coal-fired power stations. Since the election, we have increased the amount of renewable energy capacity in operation by almost 70 percent. That’s equivalent to Eraring’s capacity,” Sharpe said.

“Current energy security projections show NSW is expected to have sufficient energy supply when Eraring closes in 2029, thanks to new renewable generation and storage coming online.

“The agreement reached with Origin in 2024 gets the balance right and has so far not cost NSW taxpayers a single dollar.”

The guarantee is due to expire in August 2027.

Extending Eraring’s life is not expected to affect Origin’s 2030 emissions reduction targets or its long-term ambition to achieve net zero by 2050, the company said.

Beyond 2029, Eraring will remain a part of the National Electricity Market thanks to its battery, the first stage of which commenced commercial operation in 2025, with the final stages expected to come online in the first quarter of 2027. Once all stages are complete, the battery will deliver 700MW, providing an average storage capacity of 4.5 hours.

The power station first started operating in 1984, and Origin paid $75 million to take it over when it was privatised in 2013.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:25

Oklo Upgraded At BofA On Meta Deal

Bank of America upgraded Oklo from Neutral to Buy following Meta’s recent, massive nuclear deal. According to the BofA report (available to pro subs), Meta's agreement with the hyperscaler provides investors with “tangible evidence advanced nuclear is moving from concept to execution.”

Meta prepaid $25 million for Phase 1 of Oklo‘s nuclear campus construction in Ohio for approximately 150 MW of energy. The funding is expected to be used for fuel procurement, site preparation, and early development ahead of final PPAs.

With 16 reactors expected to come online between 2030 and 2036, this drives BofA’s 2036 targets to $5.9 billion in revenue (vs. $5.5 billion prior), 117 units (vs. 111 prior), and 6.7 GW deployed (vs. 6.3 GW prior), leading to a price target of $127, up from $111 prior.

BofA analyst Dimple Gosai, who covers US cleantech at the bank, highlights the sequencing of a ramp to 1.2 GW thanks to the Meta deal, which moves “Oklo‘s opportunity set from ‘conceptual’ to ‘actively financed’ development.”

The bank also expects longer-dated cashflow thanks to continued progress on fuel supply and licensing. Specifically for the Ohio nuclear campus, Phase 1 is projected at 150 MW from two reactors online in 2030/31, Phase 2 adding two more reactors in 2032/33, Phase 3 adding four reactors in 2033/34, and finally Phase 4 adding eight reactors in 2035/36.

BofA has yet to take into account any of the fuel recycling potential with regards to the mega-project announced for Tennessee. The campus in Tennessee is expected to include recycling and reprocessing facilities to convert used nuclear fuel from traditional reactors into fuel for Oklo‘s fast-spectrum Aurora reactors, as well as process plutonium for use in their Pluto reactor design. Pluto reactors are expected to be deployed at the recycling site in Tennessee as well.

Oklo also has multiple other projects, including the Air Force has in Alaska and likely many other hyperscaler deals on the horizon.

Not long ago, OpenAI boss Sam Altman left Oklo's board to preclude any conflicts of interest, hinting at a possible deal on the horizon with OpenAI.

The positive news still need to be counterbalanced with potential construction and operation headaches of these novel reactor designs. While it is not the first time the US has constructed sodium reactors, the time it takes to achieve operational proficiency and maintain availability greater than 90%, similar to the current commercial fleet, could take years or even decades.

More in the full note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:00

Fraud Is 'Fundamental' Part Of Child Transgender Medical Field

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

One of the architects of the Health and Human Services (HHS) review of medical interventions for pediatric gender dysphoria said in a recent interview that fraud is an integral part of the transgender medical field.

​Nearly a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to protect “children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” Leor Sapir, who assembled a team of experts to produce the HHS review, emphasized that doctors relying on unproven gender-affirming guidelines are misleading patients.

​Sapir, an HHS report author and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Epoch Times there is no solid evidence that puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery benefit children who reject their sexual identity, but that evidence exists that these procedures can cause harm.

​The 409-page HHS report states that psychotherapy, rather than unproven medical interventions, has greater benefits for children with gender dysphoria, reinforcing the need for evidence-based approaches.

​“Fraud is not just a feature, or, I should say, it’s not just something that happens in this field. It’s almost fundamental to the field itself,” Sapir said during an interview with American Thought Leader host Jan Jekielek that aired Jan. 15.

​Sapir said that doctors and organizations often rely on guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which he describes as an activist group that presents itself as a medical organization. The group is key in influencing current practice.

​WPATH doesn’t advocate for mental health assessments and helps make sure that the procedures are covered by insurance, he said.

​An Alabama lawsuit involving WPATH disclosed internal documents indicating that WPATH withheld negative findings about treatments for transitioning children, he added.

​Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, WPATH, and The Endocrine Society cite one another’s guidelines as evidence that the treatments are safe, he said.

​In part, support for medically transitioning children came about because it was framed as a civil rights matter, according to the report. Additionally, this led many in the medical community to neglect the evidence against it and to curtail debate.

​Medical organizations often formed specialized committees to recommend protocols for treating gender dysphoric children. For example, some committees focused on LGBT issues and, according to the report, members’ careers depend on supporting pediatric transitioning.

​The HHS report, titled “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” was originally released in May 2025. While it received many positive peer reviews in November 2025, it also received backlash from those supporting medical intervention for gender dysphoria.

​Sapir noted that the HHS review is unique because it is the first to address the ethics of medically transitioning children and to critique the language that inaccurately describes the procedures.

​“It seems so intuitively obvious that this is ultimately an ethical debate,” he said.

​Ethical considerations include an examination of the risks and benefits of treatment and the idea of patient autonomy, which allows the patient to choose whether to have a procedure.

​The report situates medical ethics within a historical context, referencing the Hippocratic Oath and the principle of “do no harm.”

​One potential harm is that children with gender dysphoria often later identify as gay, so they are disproportionately impacted by transitioning.

“We know, based on research, that a significant portion of these kids, if not socially and medically transitioned, will actually come out to be gay later on in life,” Sapir said.

Medical ethics has shifted toward informed consent, strengthening protections for patients against unwanted medical interventions. But the doctor still has an obligation to protect and promote patient health, especially when it comes to children, according to the HHS report.

​“Patients don’t get to demand treatments from doctors. Doctors have a professional, ethical obligation to only prescribe things that are more likely than not to benefit their patients and not likely to harm them,” Sapir said. ​“But in the context of gender medicine, the principle of autonomy has been reinterpreted to mean the doctors have to give patients what they want.”

​The very idea that children, some as young as 8 or 9, are mature enough to understand the consequences of puberty blockers and medical transition is called into question in the report. Medical providers “often fail” to inform patients that there’s no strong evidence that the procedures benefit those with gender dysphoria.

The report noted that language has “distorted the clinical picture” in pediatric gender medicine. Therefore, doctors should use language that is accurate and not misleading.

​Terms such as “gender-affirming care” were also called into question by the report. The procedure of removing breasts in physically healthy females is referred to in euphemisms such as “gender-affirming chest surgery” or “top surgery” rather than a mastectomy.

Likewise, phrases such as “sex assigned at birth” used in the industry imply that sex is determined subjectively rather than biologically.

“The American Psychological Association style guide, for example, classifies ‘birth sex’ and ‘natal sex’ as ‘disparaging terms’” because they imply that sex cannot be changed, according to the report.

​The test used to determine if a child is transgender is to ask the child, the report says. Children know who they are, according to advocates of the gender-affirmation model.

​“There is a conscious, deliberate, systemic effort in the field of pediatric gender medicine to treat children, even children who are not even in puberty, as if they’re mature adults,” Sapir said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:40

Trump Right About Arctic Security, NATO's Rutte Says

In what could have been the starting gun of Trump's de-escalation, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the US President was right about security in the Arctic.

“When it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right. Other leaders in NATO are right. We need to defend the Arctic,” the former Dutch prime minister said. “We know that the sea lanes are opening up.”

Rutte said that China and Russia were becoming increasingly active in the Arctic Circle, and acknowledged that this posed a problem for the alliance.

“There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are members of NATO. That’s Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, and the U.S.,” Rutte said.

“And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, and that’s Russia. And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right, we have to do more there, we have to protect the Arctic.”

Furthermore, as Guy Birchall reports for The Epoch Times, Rutte also praised Trump for upping the contributions from many NATO member states to the alliance’s budget.

“Do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain, Italy, and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2 percent in 2025 when they were only on 1.5 percent at the beginning of the year?” Rutte said.

“No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2 percent now.”

NATO's Rutte:

I know many of you criticize Trump. But do you really think that, without Trump, eight big economies in Europe—including Spain, Italy, and Belgium—and Canada would have reached the two-percent defense spending target in 2025?

At the beginning of the year, they… pic.twitter.com/KVmv0J6hXO

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 21, 2026

Rutte’s comments about NATO’s presence in the Arctic come as Trump’s stated ambition of annexing Greenland has driven a wedge between Washington and European allies.

Before departing for the summit, Trump expressed confidence that NATO and the United States would reach a deal on the Arctic island that benefits all parties.

“I think that we will work something out where NATO is going to be very happy and where we’re going to be very happy,” Trump said during a Jan. 20 White House press conference.

“We need it for national security and even world security. It’s very important.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance tour the U.S. military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on March 28, 2025. Jim Watson/AP

During his speech in Davos, the president ruled out taking the island by force but remained forthright in his insistence that the United States must acquire the territory.

“People thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said.

“We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. They have a choice: They can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.”

Trump also said that Denmark promised to spend “over $200 million to strengthen Greenland’s defenses” and that it has “spent less than 1 percent of that.”

He was referring to a 2019 commitment from the Danish government, made during his first presidency, when the idea of the United States taking control of the territory was first raised.

Copenhagen has not disputed that the implementation of that commitment has been slow.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:20

Source: Visual Capitalist

The post Countries With the Best Reputations in 2025 appeared first on The Big Picture.

Twice Bitten, Thrice Shy: What Oil Majors Want Before Betting On Venezuela A Third Time

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has encouraged American oil companies to reinvest $100 billion in Venezuela to spur energy production and to rescue Venezuelans from desperate poverty.

Oil companies, however, are taking stock of the decrepit state of Venezuela’s energy infrastructure after decades of communism, and seeing a number of critical impediments.

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure,” Trump stated in a Jan. 11 press conference following a meeting with top oil executives.

Venezuela has the world’s largest known oil reserves, estimated by rating agency S&P at 300 billion barrels, which are located in a region along the Orinoco River called the Orinoco Belt. At its peak—and with investment and expertise from oil majors including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Total, and Norway’s Statoil—Venezuela produced more than 3 million barrels per day and was America’s largest foreign supplier.

America’s gulf coast refineries were built to process the heavy sour crude from Venezuela, and they can refine it much more efficiently than the light crude produced from fracking. But trade with Venezuela slowed to a trickle after then-president Hugo Chavez seized the assets of western oil companies in 2007, leading to the imposition of U.S. sanctions. Since Venezuela’s wells and other equipment were nationalized, output collapsed by about 70 percent and is currently less than 1 million barrels per day, according to statistics website Worldometer.

Venezuela thus presents a massive opportunity for Western oil companies to rebuild what had once been a top global oil producer. But daunting problems remain.

“Commercially, the upside is long-life reserves, portfolio diversification, and service and infrastructure opportunities if the country becomes investable again,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told The Epoch Times.

“But the investment case only works if companies can actually control operations, get paid, and move barrels transparently—otherwise the ‘gain’ is trapped capital and political risk.”

Venezuela Currently ‘Uninvestable’

On Jan. 9, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods expressed little enthusiasm for an immediate return to Venezuela, stating in a meeting hosted by Trump at the White House that the country, in its current state, is “uninvestable.”

“We’ve had our assets seized there twice,” Woods said. “And so, you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen here and what is currently the state.”

In an aerial view, the Exxon Mobil Baytown Refinery is seen in Baytown, Texas, on Jan. 13, 2026. President Donald Trump has threatened to sideline Exxon Mobil from Venezuela's energy market after expressing that he "didn't like Exxon's response," while making a push for oil companies to begin investing there. Exxon remains interested and is prepared to send a team to assess the existing oil infrastructure. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Patrick Pouyanne, CEO of Total, likewise said that he would consider investing in Venezuela again at some point, but it is “not high on my agenda.”

Venezuela first expropriated the assets of western oil companies in the 1970s and again in 2007. By contrast to many governments in the Middle East and Africa that had done the same, Venezuela refused to compensate oil companies for their losses, leading the companies to sue and win in U.S. and international courts, claiming damages of around $60 billion.

Oil companies will likely want these claims to be paid before putting new money into Venezuela, but the country has little means to do so. Oil production has dwindled to less than 1 million barrels per day and, even at that level, still comprise about two-thirds of the government’s entire budget. China has replaced the United States as the top importer of Venezuelan oil, currently buying an estimated 80 percent of it, but at a discount.

And while Venezuela faces tens of billions of dollars in claims from western oil companies, it is now indebted to China as well. According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Chinese banks have at least $10 billion in outstanding loans to Venezuela.

Venezuelan Crude Expensive to Extract

Beyond these factors, there are also technical problems. Venezuela’s oil reserves, though abundant, are a particularly dense and sulfur-rich form of crude oil that requires a level of investment and expertise to extract and process that only the world’s largest companies can provide, experts say.

“Venezuela has very large reserves, but when we’re talking about the actual production of them, they’re very difficult to produce and very expensive to produce,” Kenny Stein, a policy expert at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Epoch Times.

Another issue for America’s oil companies is that the full extent of the damage to Venezuela’s infrastructure has yet to be assessed, and the cost of rebuilding it could go well beyond the $100 billion figure that has been estimated.

“The total investment required is not immediately clear, given the lack of transparency under the Chavez and Maduro regimes, but it is likely to be substantial and exceed initial estimates,” Ryan Yonk, senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times. “Rebuilding the oil infrastructure is likely to be a long-term project spanning multiple years and potentially decades, rather than the short-term expectations some hold for rapid development and immediate effect.”

Experts say that equipment located in Venezuela has not only been neglected but pilfered as well.

“The infrastructure, the wells, the pipelines, the entire oil industry in Venezuela has been really stripped down to the bone and is barely functional,” Stein said. In addition to theft by government officials, he said, “employees of the state oil company have been stealing copper from their facilities to sell to feed their families.”

Oil companies will likely want government co-investment in some form to help pay for the reconstruction, Yonk said.

Another issue when deciding whether to invest in Venezuela is that Western oil companies must weigh it against the alternatives.

“They could go to Brazil or Guyana, or places in the United States, that are all less expensive to produce,” Stein said. “There would be faster production, they’re not as volatile, and you’re not as much at risk of losing everything.”

Aerial view of an oil well in eastern Monagas, in Maturin, Venezuela, on Feb. 13, 1998. Bertrand Parres/AFP via Getty Images

What It Will Take

For all these reasons, it will take significant changes for Venezuela to attract capital again, experts say.

“U.S. companies will not commit serious capital to Venezuela without a credible reset on rule of law,” Isaac said. “That means binding contract protections, enforceable dispute resolution, and a settlement framework for legacy expropriation and unpaid joint-venture debts.”

Oil companies will likely seek guarantees from the U.S. government that oil sanctions will not be reimposed, that whatever agreements they enter into will be honored, and that they can operate safely and repatriate whatever profits they may earn, he said.

“Without those conditions, any U.S. presence will stay limited to short-cycle, low-exposure activity,” Isaac said.

Exxon Mobil’s CEO stated that he is willing to take initial steps to help with Venezuela’s reconstruction “while these longer‑term issues are being worked.”

“We haven’t been in the country for almost 20 years,” Woods stated. “We think it’s absolutely critical in the short term that we get a technical team in place to assess the current state of the industry and the assets to understand what would be involved to help the people of Venezuela get production back on the market.”

If Exxon is invited by the Venezuelan regime and has security guarantees from the Trump administration, Woods said he is “ready to put a team on the ground.”

Chevron is the only U.S. oil major currently operating Venezuela, producing about 240,000 barrels per day in a joint venture with PDVSA, the country’s state-owned oil monopoly, though experts say much of that effort is simply to preserve the assets they already have in the Orinoco Belt.

“Chevron’s has continued to operate there, but basically doing the bare minimum to keep their wells from being ‘bricked,’” Stein said. “Because of the thickness and tar-like state of the oil, if you don’t keep it continually maintained and flowing at a minimum level, the well will be destroyed.”

Nonetheless, Chevron’s vice chairman Mark Nelson told Trump on Jan. 9 that he believed they could double their output in Venezuela immediately.

An incremental increase in Venezuela’s oil production is more likely than a rapid return to pre-Chavez levels, Isaac said, predicting that the country could reach approximately 1.3 million barrels per day within a couple years, and perhaps 2 million barrels per day within a decade.

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on Jan. 9, 2026. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Strategic and Economic Goals

Despite the hesitancy of oil majors to commit significant capital to Venezuela at this point, the Trump administration has stated its strategic interest in preventing China and other U.S. adversaries from stepping into the void.

During an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Venezuela had become “a crossroads for the activities of all of our adversaries around the world.”

For Venezuelans, however, the riches of oil have been both a blessing and a curse.

Calling Venezuela “a case study in the perils of becoming a petrostate,” a 2018 study by the Council on Foreign Relations stated that “since it was discovered in the country in the 1920s, oil has taken Venezuela on an exhilarating but dangerous boom-and-bust ride that offers lessons for other resource-rich states.”

In what has been called “Dutch disease,” developing countries that suddenly get rich from the discovery of natural resources develop a singular dependence on those resources, leaving other sectors of the economy to languish while government corruption and theft proliferate, with little of the wealth ultimately going to benefit the citizens at large.

For this reason, some analysts say that the best solution for Venezuela is to establish a system of free markets, democratic traditions, stability, and the rule of law, similar to what Poland and Chile have done since emerging from authoritarian regimes. Key elements of Poland’s reforms included a legal system that protected property rights, political stability under a democratic system, privatization of state-owned companies, a stable currency, and a tax regime that allowed investors to earn a decent return.

“Under the ‘warm embrace of communism,’ [Poland] was an economic basket case,” the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a nonprofit founded by free-market economists Arthur Laffer and Steve Moore, stated in an op-ed.

Having embraced democracy and free markets, Poland recently achieved GDP growth rates of about 4 percent per year, and is predicted to overtake the UK in GDP-per-capita by the end of this decade, they said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 17:00