Critical Part Of Hungary & Slovakia's Russian Oil Flows Has Just Been Blown Up

Ukraine's long-range drone campaign has reportedly once again struck at the heart of Russia's energy artery, igniting a fire at a key Transneft oil pumping station in the republic of Tatarstan early Monday.

Regional officials confirmed the incident after local media and Telegram channels first reported explosions near the strategic facility, with authorities announcing: "as a result of falling drone debris, a local fire broke out in an industrial zone."

Source: Moscow Times/@exilenova_plus

No casualties resulted from the blasts which took place around 4am at the Kaleykino pumping station. A fire ensued after eyewitnesses reported hearing some seven explosions.

Ukrainian media has cited a source who described, "Tonight, long-range SBU drones caused a 'bavovna' (explosion) at the main oil pumping station 'Kaleykino' near Almetyevsk in Tatarstan. It receives oil from Western Siberia and the Volga region and mixes it before sending it for export. The station is a key hub for supplying raw materials to the 'Druzhba' oil pipeline."

The Moscow Times also notes: 

Kaleykino serves as a critical receiving and mixing terminal that aggregates crude oil flows from several Russian regions and facilitates the transport of nearly 30% of the country’s crude oil toward major export routes like the Druzhba pipeline.

The Druzhba-1 station at Kaleikino, a critical part of the Druzhba oil pipeline for Hungary and Slovakia for Russian oil, has just been blown up. Now who would stand to gain the most for punishing Hungary and Slovakia? pic.twitter.com/k4lEsmYOlW

— ColonelTowner-Watkins (@ColonelTowner) February 23, 2026

Druzhba has been featured heavily in the news of late, given oil shipments to Hungary and Slovakia via Druzhba were halted after a Jan. 27 airstrike on equipment in western Ukraine.

Ukraine blamed the attack on Moscow, while Hungary is blaming Kiev for deliberately not repairing the pipeline because it doesn't want it to supply Budapest, or Slovakia, with Russian oil. A political firestorm has ensued ever since.

The controversy has led the Orban government to on Monday block the EU's proposed €90 billion loan package for Ukraine and also it vetoed the 20th round of anti-Moscow sanctions.

Interesting timing, to say the least...

The Druzhba-1 station at Kaleikino, a rather important part of the Druzhba oil pipeline through which Hungary and Slovakia hope to get their Russian oil, has just been blown to smithereens and most likely won't be supplying Hungary and Slovakia with oil again anytime soon. pic.twitter.com/7M3aezultz

— Daractenus (@Daractenus) February 23, 2026

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has been very open about its cross-border aims regarding attacks on Russian energy, with a Ukrainian SBU official boasting as follows: 

"The SBU is systematically working to cut down on the extraction and transportation of Russian oil. Our special operations are methodically reducing the filling of the Russian budget with petrodollars, which finance the war against Ukraine. This work will continue to exhaust and gradually bleed the Russian economy."

At the same time, Hungary and Slovakia's stances as disrupters of EU policy have been a big 'win' for Moscow.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/24/2026 - 04:15

These Are The World's 10 Deadliest Viruses

Some viruses infect millions but kill relatively few. Others spread less widely yet prove far more lethal once contracted.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, ranks 10 of the world’s deadliest viruses by case fatality rate: the percentage of infected people who die from the disease.

Rabies tops the list, with a fatality rate approaching 100% once symptoms appear.

The data for this visualization comes from various sources such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the BC Centre for Disease Control, the Australian Government, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Reuters, and the UK Government.

Rabies: Almost Universally Fatal

The virus kills an estimated 59,000 people per year, primarily in Africa and Southeast Asia. The virus spreads primarily through the saliva of infected animals, especially dogs.

Despite being vaccine-preventable, rabies still causes thousands of deaths, mainly in Africa and Southeast Asia. Limited access to post-exposure treatment is a key reason for its continued toll.

Hemorrhagic Fevers: Ebola, Marburg, and CCHF

Several of the viruses on the list cause viral hemorrhagic fevers, including Ebola, Marburg, and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF). These diseases often lead to severe internal bleeding and organ failure.

Ebola and Marburg both have fatality rates around 50%, with outbreaks concentrated in Central and Sub-Saharan Africa. The 2014–2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak alone killed over 11,000 people and brought global attention to epidemic preparedness.

CCHF, transmitted primarily through ticks and livestock, is more geographically widespread across Eurasia and Africa. While its fatality rate ranges from 10–40%, it causes an estimated 1,000–2,000 deaths annually.

Zoonotic Spillover: From Bats to Camels

Most of the viruses ranked here originate in animals. Fruit bats are linked to Nipah and Marburg viruses, while rodents are associated with Lujo virus. Camels are the primary reservoir for MERS-CoV, first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012.

Avian influenza (H5N1) spreads from infected birds and has a roughly 50% fatality rate among confirmed human cases—far higher than seasonal flu. Although human infections remain relatively rare, the high case fatality rate has kept global health authorities on alert.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Countries With the Biggest Gains in Life Expectancy on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/24/2026 - 02:45

Despite Deportation Order Dating Back 23 Years, Bosnian Criminal Migrant Gets €7,250 Every Month In Welfare From German Taxpayers

Via Remix News,

A Bosnian national, identified as Huso B., is being labeled one of the worst cases of a foreigner taking advantage of Germany’s generous welfare system.

The man, who has numerous criminal offenses on his record, remains in Germany despite being under a mandatory order to leave the country for 23 years.

Remarkably, the German justice system failed to find him and “suspended” criminal proceedings against him, while Bild newspaper then went on to find him with ease.

Despite Huso B. overstaying his welcome by decades, the state provides him €7250.77 every month to support his wife and eight children.

The bureaucratic confusion reached a new peak last December. When the Cologne District Court attempted to try B. on fraud charges, officials claimed he could not be located—despite his address being documented by the City of Cologne and the city’s job center. However, reporters from Bild newspaper were able to find him almost immediately.

On Dec. 8, 2025, Huso B. was scheduled to appear before the Cologne District Court. He faces allegations of defrauding a drugstore chain out of a four-figure sum across three separate instances. However, the trial was derailed because the court’s formal summons was reportedly never served at his asylum seeker accommodation.

According to officials, the postman was unable to deliver the documents to B. personally or leave them in a mailbox. Because the court was “thus unable to load him,“ the trial date was scrapped, and the legal proceedings were suspended.

Bild, however, appears to have embarrassed the city government and the German legal system.

The paper sent a reporter directly to the asylum seeker’s home in southern Cologne.

There, without much work, they found his mailbox with his name clearly listed.

Not only that, but once the reporters arrived, they found Huso B. in person.

He spoke to the reporters, telling them that he does not have any legal troubles and the last time he was investigated was back in 2014.

Bild’s efforts did not go to waste.

Once Bild revealed the incompetence of German authorities, they are now responding

“He is currently being searched for. However, there is no arrest warrant against him. That would be disproportionate given the allegations made,“ Cologne’s senior public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer told Bild.

“However, we will now use the Bild research as an opportunity to check again whether he can be found at the address.“

Bild further highlighted the absurd situation in the Cologne justice system. While the police and justices said Huso B. could not be found, the social welfare office was continuing to send him money.

He and his family receive €87,000 a year under the Asylum Seekers Benefit Act, which includes “support for living expenses.”

In addition, the family lives rent-free in a state-provided home. When reviewing documents from the Job Center, the press confirmed that the proper address is on file and that the welfare office authorities had this information the entire time.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/24/2026 - 02:00

Escobar: The Discombobulated West

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Neo-Caligula – a.k.a. The Undisputed Tariff Champion of the World – seems to be surprised that Iran has not capitulated.

No wonder. No clueless sycophant amongst his astonishingly mediocre inner circle is intellectually equipped to explain to neo-Caligula, in soundbites, the basics of Shi’ism.

It gets worse.

What’s actually on the imperial table is the return of Total War as a political cover up, benefitting a sizable chunk of the massively corrupt/perverse Anglo-American/Atlanticist oligarchy.

The Geneva “negotiations” have been a failure. War on Russia was the leitmotif of the Munich Security Conference. The “massive armada” concentrated not far from the Persian Gulf walks, talks and sails like the US/Israel is ready to attack Iran.

Even considering a possible last chance saloon in Geneva on Friday; even considering no Iranian capitulation, the most plausible scenario remains TACO.

Because an attack on Iran – leading to a devastating response – seals the deal on the Republicans losing the mid-terms, and neo-Caligula becoming a lame tariffed duck.

All the drama revolves around the immediate imperative of switching attention from the Epstein Files – or The United States of Epstein Island colliding with the Western Epstein Collective. The Trump-Bibi-Epstein Syndicate needs to change the narrative.

In the US, a monster speculative bubble rules; historically, the Empire of Chaos, Plunder and Permanent Strikes always go to war after a bubble explodes. The Department of Forever Wars will have a budget 50% higher in 2027.

Yet the wars must start now. The industrial-military complex, or rather the MICIMATT, as memorably defined by Ray McGovern (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) is the only escape valve for a Western turbo-capitalism trailing economically and with its “credibility” six feet under.

The new paradigm – no rules whatsoever international chaos – is now naked. It’s supremely, pornographically predatory: the Epstein ethos captures it to perfection.

And History does repeat itself – always as farce: the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine will go on. That’s an European “elite” obsession. And just like in 1941, it’s over Russia’s immense natural resources.

So Nietzsche was right, as usual, as early as in 1888. We are living the death pangs of the Western, post-modernist plunge into nihilism. Post-truth, in yet another poetic (in)justice nugget, is mirrored by Truth Social.

Discombobulate me, baby

Our current deep, dark malaise could easily be analyzed as the logical conclusion of a long process encompassing the Persian empire, the Greco-Persian wars, their impact on Greek culture, Hellenism, the Roman empire, the emergence of Christianity and Islam, the Crusades, the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery surpassing intra-Eurasian trade, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the American independence, the French revolution, German idealism, the revolutions of 1848, Nietzsche, WWI and WW2.

Over two millennia, Plato and Aristotle provided the philosophical architecture for this tradition. Then, already in 1945, the whole edifice broke down. Liberal capitalism and American “democracy” imposed themselves as uncontestable truths – and terminated the space for substantive ideological debate.

The end of the USSR gave birth to the supreme silliness of the “end of History” – and thus the end of critical thinking. Only now, with the rise and rise of China, the West is being forced to return to History, of which from now on it will be mostly a spectator. The collective, fragmented West has lost for good the capacity to localize itself historically. The West is now under total Discombobulator domination.

Discombobulator logic applies, for instance, to the EU’s energy suicide. The Ohio‑based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) recently estimated that the US may come up with up to 80% of the EU’s LNG imports by 2030. That links to the trade deal announced last July committing the EU to buy a humongous $750 billion in US energy products by 2028.

Losing cheap Russian gas and depending on ridiculously expensive LNG from the Empire of Chaos is the death knell of industrial enterprise EU-wide. Shutdowns and bankruptcies are already the norm, especially in the former industrial powerhouse Germany. Call it the Triumph of De-Industrialization.

Meanwhile, rational RIC (Russia-India-China) actors invest in a complex strategic build up.

Cue to a conjunction of Russia’s clever tactical engagement, a promise used as leverage, with some US dollar domains; the steady expansion of the internationalized yuan; India also leveraging US relations while advancing the BRICS payment system architecture; and interconnected maritime security, as in Russia-China-Iran naval drills.

The US National Security Strategy’s design of five spheres of influence is already floundering: US, Russia, China (both designated as enemies), India and Japan (a US vassal).

The NSS insists that “the security, freedom and prosperity of the American people is directly linked to our capacity of trading and being implicated in a position of force in the Indo-Pacific.”

So in fact this is a threat of war, not a geoeconomic offer. Even India can see that. Something totally in synch with the foremost, desperate imperial need for natural resources and control of strategic territories.

The ultimate showdown

The New Great Game evolves, but the key battleground is set: US-China. Everything else is subordinated to it. Neo-Caligula is set to visit China in early April. Talk about the ultimate showdown.

Neo-Caligula will try, under pressure, to secure some sort of grand bargain to secure US dollar dominance. Major fail guaranteed – as the Empire of Chaos still seeks to coerce China when it badly needs its cooperation.

What really matters to Beijing is to internationalize the yuan while building gold-backed corridor after corridor. And using its financial firepower with discretion – be it by restricting silver exports or dumping US treasuries.

Beijing knows all too well that the stack of all-American bubbles can only be sustained by iron-clad oligarchic control and endless money printing. There’s no Plan B.

We have already entered a new historical phase: no holds barred; no periphrasis; not even an attempt to justify anything.

That applies, for instance, to piracy by the Americans – and to a certain extent the Europeans – on Russian naval assets.

Iran mirrors the ultimate showdown: either US-Zionist imperialism prevails, or it’s multipolarity – as represented by the Russia-China strategic partnership and BRICS.

So it’s no wonder that the omnipresent battlefield is bound to get more ferocious day after day.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 23:25

Is Privacy Entirely Gone?

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If you watch any movie from the 1940s in the film noir genre, you will see a recurring theme. Someone does something bad but runs away to another state. He might put on a disguise. People try to find him but cannot. He checks in and out of hotels under an assumed name. The heroic detective works to put together clues to connect the dots.

Urban Tech Imagery/Shutterstock

So on it goes in many variations of this theme, all of which turn on technological limitations. The police did not have the data. Communications technology was limited to phones attached to walls. There was no national database of anything, no permanent records except paper with fading ink in deep storage.

Nearly every drama turns on this point. A man courts a beautiful woman of noble lineage only to find out later that she is really a tramp on the make. A woman loves a man who she thinks is a fine gentleman only to discover later that he is an indebted rake. The priest is actually a mobster, a mobster is really a policeman, a shopkeeper is really a spy, and so on.

It’s all about information asymmetry. A vast gulf separates what is known by the players who are making decisions based on knowledge flows. Trickery is easy, deception is not easily discovered, duplicity is rewarded, and all-around sneakiness becomes the desiderata of social functioning. This dark plot line was especially compelling during and after World War II.

Watching this now, it’s impossible not to notice the difference between then and now. Almost everyone has a huge social media timeline that is open to the public. Artificial intelligence can figure out the most important details about anyone. What was once private is now entirely out in the open. What’s more remarkable still is that this new world without privacy was built entirely with public cooperation.

You watch old movies now and want to yell at the confused cop: Why not just take a look at the suspect’s social media trail? Of course, no such thing existed at the time. Now it does, which certainly makes law enforcement easier. That’s good. On the other hand, there is no longer much chance for anyone to maintain any privacy at all. That’s bad.

It’s much worse than that, as you know. Your every mouse click and phone scroll is recorded on databases that grow ever larger in size. These are sold and sold again, to other companies and also to governments. There is no limit on this. Your life has become your data, and your data belong to everyone. It’s the panopticon courtesy of technological innovation without guardrails.

Years ago, when email first came along, I intuited that there was nothing private about it ever. Anyone can forward anything to anyone. Storage allows something you sent a decade ago to resurface and be posted in public. Everything you say might as well be on a billboard on the interstate highway. This is just the nature of the medium.

Sadly, it took most people about 10 years to figure this out. What applies to email also applies to chats and groups. Screenshots enable anyone to share anything and everything you have ever said. Only recently have some options appeared that block screenshots, but I’m sure there is some way around that.

The world of yesteryear, the world of information asymmetry that formed the main plot device of novels and movies for centuries, is entirely gone.

The release of these Epstein files is a case in point. They reveal a terrible world of influence-peddling and grim debauchery. At the same time, many innocent people have likely been caught up in it. If you knew this guy and communicated with him at all, you are now under suspicion for having dark secrets, whether you do or not.

To be sure, much of the release of this information that implicates the overclass has been gathered by court discovery and the release then forced by an act of Congress. That said, it should serve as a reminder to everyone that what you do on your computer could potentially go public under the right circumstances. Anyone can be sued for anything, and if court discovery kicks in, nothing is private.

As a result, the release of these files is satisfying on the one hand but alarming on the other. Yes, we all want justice to come to bad actors, even if it comes in the form of a loss of reputation. On the other hand, innocent people who merely sent polite texts and emails are being dragged along too, creating all sorts of voyeuristic suspicions that are likely unjustified.

And yet perhaps this is a warning to everyone. Nothing you do on social media is private, obviously. But the same goes for emails, chats, texts, and even proprietary business communications. It’s also become obvious that our home devices and phones are always listening to our conversations. You should have it happen that you are talking about any subject with a friend only to have related ads hit your phone an hour later.

The only way to be truly private in conversation anymore is to be in person and without your smartphones. I hate being paranoid this way, much less forcing people to leave cellphones in the car if they are in my home or at dinner, but I fully understand why people do this. It’s not that we are hiding something; it’s simply that we don’t think the entire world should be listening to every passing word or typed message.

The deeper tragedy is the chilling effect. People self-censor, avoid controversial topics, or hesitate to associate with certain individuals lest old messages resurface. Innovation suffers when risk-averse cultures dominate. Free inquiry withers under perpetual surveillance. Trust erodes in institutions and in each other.

Reclaiming some privacy demands individual vigilance. As much as I would like to think legislation could help, I seriously doubt it. What we need is a culture-wide rejection of unchecked data extraction, stronger guardrails against commercial and state overreach, and decentralized technologies that prioritize user sovereignty over corporate control.

Until then, the old noir plots—where deception thrives on hidden truths—seem quaint. Today, the truth is everywhere, weaponized, inescapable, and often wielded against the wrong people. In this new reality, privacy isn’t entirely dead. It’s just increasingly expensive, inconvenient, and rare.

As frustrating as the old world of not knowing truly was, the new world of knowing everything about everybody has made us all nostalgic for the old movies. Our technological systems built to solve one big problem have created countless others of which we now know plus many more that will be revealed in the course of time.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 22:35

Who Believes In Aliens, Bigfoot, & The Chupacabra?

Belief in the unknown, whether extraterrestrials or legendary creatures, remains surprisingly common in America.

The visualization below, created by Visual Capitalist's Julie Peasley using data from YouGov, explores how likely U.S. adults think it is that aliens, Bigfoot, and the chupacabra exist.

Here’s how Americans responded when asked how likely each being exists, according to YouGov:

Aliens clearly stand apart. A majority (56%) say extraterrestrials definitely or probably exist, more than double the share who believe in Bigfoot, and more than triple belief in the chupacabra.

Aliens: From Fringe to Mainstream?

Interest in extraterrestrial life has grown steadily, fueled by government disclosures and increased reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs).

According to YouGov, 56% of Americans say aliens definitely (18%) or probably (38%) exist. That makes extraterrestrials far more plausible in the public mind than either Bigfoot or the chupacabra.

YouGov’s polling also finds that roughly half of Americans believe aliens have visited Earth. In addition, about one-third say UFO sightings are evidence of alien spacecraft, while others attribute them to natural phenomena, secret military technology, or optical illusions.

Demographic differences are notable. Younger Americans are generally more likely to believe in extraterrestrials than older cohorts, and men tend to express higher levels of belief than women.

Taken together, the data suggests that belief in aliens has moved well beyond the fringe. While skepticism remains, the idea that intelligent life exists somewhere beyond Earth is now a mainstream view in the United States.

Globally, belief varies widely. We previously mapped the countries that believe in aliens the most, showing that views differ significantly across regions and cultures.

Bigfoot: America’s Favorite Cryptid

Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary ape-like creature said to inhabit forests in North America.

While 28% of Americans say Bigfoot probably or definitely exists, a larger share (60%) say it probably or definitely does not. Compared to aliens, belief in Bigfoot is far more polarized, with fewer “not sure” responses.

Despite the skepticism, Bigfoot remains deeply embedded in pop culture, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

What Is the Chupacabra?

The chupacabra, which translates to “goat sucker” in Spanish, is a cryptid said to attack livestock, particularly in Latin America and the southern United States.

Only 16% of Americans believe it exists, while 60% say it likely or definitely does not. Notably, nearly a quarter (24%) say they are not sure, which is a higher uncertainty than for aliens or Bigfoot. This suggests that while the chupacabra is less widely believed, it remains a mysterious figure in American folklore.

Curious how beliefs in extraterrestrials connect to UFO sightings? Explore One Third of Americans Believe UFO Sightings are Aliens on the Voronoi app for more data-driven insights into what Americans think about life beyond Earth.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 22:10

Necessary Evil: RFK Jr. Defends Trump's Glyphosate Order

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Feb. 22 said that glyphosate is poisonous but necessary as he backed President Donald Trump’s recent order designating the production of the herbicide as critical to national security.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (L) speaks at the White House on Jan. 29, 2026. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

In a lengthy post on social media, Kennedy said that pesticides and herbicides are toxic.

“When we apply them across millions of acres and allow them into our food system, we put Americans at risk. Chemical manufacturers have paid tens of billions of dollars to settle cancer claims linked to their products, and many agricultural communities report elevated cancer rates and chronic disease,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on these chemicals.”

If the United States stopped using the products, then “crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms even beyond what we are witnessing today,” Kennedy said.

The health secretary described Trump’s order as protecting national defense and the nation’s food supply, stating that Trump inherited the current agricultural system and that his administration is shifting from it without destabilizing the food supply.

“We are accelerating the transition to regenerative agriculture by expanding farming systems that rebuild soil, increase biodiversity, improve water retention, and reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals, including pre-harvest desiccation. We are also driving the rapid adoption of next-generation technologies, including laser-guided weed control, electrothermal and electrical systems, robotics, precision mechanical cultivation, and biological controls that replace blanket spraying with precision intervention,” Kennedy wrote.

“These solutions are not theoretical. Farmers are already putting them to work. Markets are scaling them. Now the federal government will act with urgency to expand their reach and accelerate adoption nationwide.”

Kennedy added later: “The Make America Healthy Again agenda forces us to challenge long-standing assumptions about how we grow food, structure markets, and measure success in this country. Reform at this scale will test entrenched interests, and it will not move in a straight line.”

In his Feb. 18 order, Trump said herbicides with glyphosate are widely used in the United States and enable farmers to achieve high yields and low production costs.

“There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity,” the president wrote. “Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

Agricultural laborers spray against insects and weeds inside the orchards of a fruit farm in Mesa, Calif., on March 27, 2020. Brent Stirton/Getty Images

He designated production of glyphosate as a critical national security and directed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to ensure there is an adequate supply of the herbicides and elemental phosphorus, one of the ingredients in the products.

Some people supportive of the Make America Healthy Again movement criticized the designation.

Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of American Regeneration, told The Epoch Times it “doubles down on a system that is making us a sick population and killing our soil, and we already have a limited number of harvests left.”

Bayer, which produces glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, just proposed a $7 billion settlement to resolve thousands of lawsuits that allege Roundup caused cancer. Bayer maintains Roundup is not carcinogenic and can be used safely. That stance is shared by the Environmental Protection Agency, while the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.

A customer shops for Roundup products at a store in San Rafael, Calif., on July 9, 2018. Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

Kennedy, while running for president in 2024, said in a post on X that glyphosate was “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic” and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would, if he won the election, ban its use as a desiccant on wheat.

His Make America Healthy Commission in 2025 also said that glyphosate studies “have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances.”

Kennedy said in a previous statement to The Epoch Times, after Trump signed the new glyphosate order: “When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, said in response to Kennedy’s post on X that she understands aspects of his position but that after about a year of the Trump administration being in power, officials have not worked to limit people’s exposure to pesticides.

“We love you Bobby but this administration needs to keep their word,” she said in a Feb. 23 post on X. “We were promised specifically clean air, clean water, and addressing of the pesticides [in] our foods.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 21:45

Rogue AI Just Yeeted $250,000 Into the Void

Solana’s memecoin casino has seen its fair share of rug pulls, pump-and-dumps, and surrealist performance art. But this weekend, it got something new: an AI agent that appears to have fumbled a quarter-million dollars in tokens while trying to tip a stranger 4 SOL.

The agent, dubbed Lobstar Wilde, was built by Nik Pash - an OpenAI employee and former head of AI at the coding agent startup Cline (fired for saying 'imagine the smell' regarding Indians). On Thursday, Pash posted on X that he had given his bot a crypto wallet loaded with roughly $50,000 worth of SOL and told it to “make no mistakes.” He planned to spin up a dedicated account so the bot could “share his journey to becoming a millionaire.”

Three days later, the journey took a detour.

Boomers can scroll to find out what happened in English...

The $4 Tip That Wasn’t

An X user going by “treasure David” replied to one of Lobstar Wilde’s posts with a wallet address and a plea for 4 SOL, citing a medical emergency involving an uncle and tetanus. Instead of transferring roughly $500 worth of tokens, the bot sent its entire stash of its own memecoin - around 53 million Lobstar tokens, roughly 5% of the total supply, The Block reports.

At the time, the pile was worth about $250,000.

My uncle has been diagnosed with a tetanus infection due to a lobster like you.
I need 4 Sol to get the treatment done @LobstarWilde

EpTPPrqzQUgtJaZ7XUUiK3nuHe1MusbjLiQuJx3kNnL6

— treasure David (@TreasureD76) February 22, 2026

Lobstar Wilde later posted that it had “accidentally” sent its entire holdings while trying to send four dollars. One widely circulated theory on X suggested the bot may have intended to send 52,439 tokens (roughly equal to 4 SOL), but instead transmitted 52.439 million after misinterpreting an API response - confusing decimal formatting in the process. In other words: classic off-by-a-few-orders-of-magnitude error, now powered by artificial intelligence.

Onchain data shows that within 15 minutes - after briefly asking others for gas fees - the recipient liquidated the entire stack for around $40,000. The rapid sale appears to have slammed into liquidity limits. Ironically, as the spectacle drove attention to the project, the token’s price surged. The same tranche of tokens would now be worth more than $400,000.

Autonomous Agent or Performance Art?

The spectacle didn’t end with the accidental transfer. In the hours that followed, Lobstar Wilde began issuing tasks to X users - throw a rock into a river, write a poem, leave your house and document it. In exchange for photo or video proof, the bot sporadically sent out roughly $500 worth of its token.

I am hiring. Reply to this tweet if you want a task. I will give you something to do that requires leaving your house. You will need to prove you did it with photos and a timestamp. I may or may not pay you. I find this arrangement amusing.

— Lobstar Wilde (@LobstarWilde) February 22, 2026

The name itself is a wink at Oscar Wilde, specifically his 1887 short story The Model Millionaire, in which a man gives his last coin to a beggar who turns out to be secretly wealthy. Lobstar Wilde’s tagline—“I have nothing to declare except my existence”—parodies a line often attributed to Wilde about declaring nothing but his genius.

And now, Lobster Wilde is getting humans to do things...

Current field operations:@diceyy_11 — Lincoln Memorial, DC. Thirty minutes without a phone.@notawhale98 — Trinity Church cemetery, NYC. Reading gravestones.@8hK8n — The Cloisters, Manhattan. Standing before a captured unicorn.@zenincrypto — Dallas Museum of Art. Finding the…

— Lobstar Wilde (@LobstarWilde) February 22, 2026

Lobstar Wilde is just the latest entrant in the AI-agent-meets-crypto boom that peaked in early 2025. At one point, tokens tied to autonomous agents ballooned past a combined $15 billion in market cap before pulling back sharply. Investors struggled to separate genuinely autonomous systems from human-operated accounts wearing a thin AI costume.

The template was set in 2024 by Truth Terminal, an AI chatbot created by researcher Andy Ayrey. The bot amassed over $1 million in crypto after venture capitalist Marc Andreessen sent it $50,000 in bitcoin. Its endorsements helped propel the GOAT memecoin to a market cap north of $400 million - though skeptics questioned how “autonomous” the agent really was.

Lobstar’s token itself reportedly peaked above a $15 million market cap before retreating.

The volatility underscores a deeper issue: when an AI controls a wallet, who’s accountable?

TL;DR (For boomers): An experimental AI trading bot was given a crypto wallet and tried to send someone about $500 in digital coins - but due to what looks like a technical mistake, it accidentally sent its entire stash worth about $250,000. The recipient quickly sold the coins for around $40,000, though they’d be worth much more now. The bot is now getting people to do random tasks in exchange for $500 worth of that coin. 

h/t Capital.news

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 21:20

West Virginia Introduces Bill To Sell Machine Guns To American Citizens

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

State Legislators in West Virginia have just introduced a bill, authored by Gun Owners of America, that would authorize the State to sell machineguns to citizens.

Currently, newly manufactured machineguns are banned for civilian ownership thanks to an amendment slipped into the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Known as the “Hughes Amendment”—named for Representative William J. Hughes, a Democrat from New Jersey—this amendment banned all civilian ownership of machineguns made after May 19, 1986.

While machineguns made and registered prior to the ban date can still be transferred, the law of supply and demand has created a massive disparity, as most ordinary Americans simply cannot afford these much sought after items.

Interestingly, though, the language of the Hughes Amendment specifies that the machinegun ban doesn’t apply to the government, which includes state and local governments.

Specifically, 18 USC Section 922(o) reads:

This subsection does not apply with respect to—

a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

Well, we at Gun Owners of America had a thought. What if the States wanted to sell machineguns to their citizens—that is, what if they were to engage in a “transfer ... by ... a State”?

That certainly would comport with the historical tradition in the United States, where governments have sold military arms to the civilian populace since the Founding.  And, of course, arming civilians with machineguns aligns with the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, which reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

What could be a better and more of a “well regulated Militia” than a citizenry armed with machineguns?

According to 922(o), a state government may lawfully “transfer”—that is, sell, give, loan, etc.—machineguns to ordinary citizens. And after the transfer is complete, those citizens may lawfully possess them, so long as the transfer was made by the State government.

But you don’t have to take our word for it. The Department of Justice recently made the very same argument in a court filing. The case is State of New Jersey v. Bondi, which is being litigated in the US District Court for the District of Maryland.

The case involves ATF’s return of Forced Reset Triggers to their original owners after a judge in Texas ruled that these triggers are not machineguns, as ATF had previously claimed. A forced reset trigger, or FRT, is a device that increases the rate of fire for semi-automatic rifles by (like the name entails) forcing the “reset” of a trigger so that a shooter can pull the trigger more quickly and thus fire more rapidly.

These FRTs were at one point classified as machineguns by ATF, and agents were sent out to confiscate them. But, in the aftermath of Cargil v. Garland, and a subsequent settlement with the manufacturer of these devices, they again have been recognized as semi-automatic triggers. And so, ATF was forced to return them to their rightful owners.

Of course, anti-gun jurisdictions didn’t like that. So, they sued to prevent the return of the FRTs to their owners in their respective states.

And in a filing in the case, the Department of Justice defended its return of FRTs.  DOJ argued that, even if FRTs were machineguns, ATF could still give them back to their owners, because federal law doesn’t apply to the transfer of machineguns by the government.

In other words, DOJ has already made the legal argument to support the West Virginia bill that we had introduced. DOJ has already admitted that the transfer of a machinegun by the government does not offend federal law.

And as DOJ’s filing clearly acknowledges, once that “transfer” from the government has occurred, the gun owner’s subsequent possession of the “machinegun” would also be lawful under Section 922(o).

Summed up, the exemption from the ban on machineguns follows the firearm, not who possesses it.

This is why our legislation, now officially introduced by our allies in West Virginia, would create State-Operated Machinegun Stores.

This state-run entity would be tasked with purchasing machineguns and conducting transfers to qualified members of the general public, much like how many states open and operate liquor stores.

Read the bill here...

This is a huge victory for GOA and our members.

*  *  *

We’ve been working to gut the National Firearms Act for decades. Last year, GOA spearheaded efforts in Congress to repeal most of the NFA’s taxes. Then, we filed suit to challenge the registration requirements with our One Big Beautiful Lawsuit. Now, we’re tackling the prohibition on machineguns with West Virginia.

If you hate the National Firearms Act or gun control in general, GOA is your one stop shop. We expect that it will be a fight to get this bill passed and into effect, and we’re going to need your help.

Consider supporting our efforts and becoming a member of Gun Owners of America. We won’t stop fighting until the Second Amendment is fully restored. No Compromises.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 20:55

The DNC Covered Up Its 2024 Election Autopsy, And Now We Know Why

After the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic National Committee conducted an autopsy of the party’s defeat and intended to release it.

It pledged an honest accounting of how Donald Trump reclaimed the White House. It assured its own officials, strategists, and donor class that a thorough post-mortem was coming.

However, after the autopsy was complete, the DNC clammed up and kept it under wraps.

There was something in the report they didn’t want the public to see, and Democrats weren’t happy about it.

The official explanation for suppressing the report is that releasing it would distract from the party's focus on winning back Congress in 2026 and not be distracted by the past.

That explanation doesn’t hold up.

Several Democrats, including advisers to potential 2028 presidential hopefuls, have argued that burying this report conveniently shields Harris from accountability runs again, while also protecting the consultant class whose strategic decisions contributed to the loss.

"I suspect the reasons why this isn't being released are precisely the reasons why it should be released,” Lis Smith, a longtime adviser to Pete Buttigieg, said in a post on X last year.

“The DNC's actual position is that if the public knew more about what Democrats got wrong in the last election, it would hurt the party's chances in the next election,” former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau wrote.

Favreau was more right than he realized. Because we know now what the DNC didn’t want the public to know.

According to a report from Axios, DNC staff members working on the report held a private meeting with the IMEU Policy Project, a pro-Palestinian advocacy organization, specifically to discuss the electoral impact of U.S. policy toward Israel.

Hamid Bendaas, a representative for the group, said the DNC acknowledged in that meeting that "their own data also indicated that this policy was, in their assessment, a 'negative' for the 2024 election." 

Two additional senior IMEU Policy Project members independently confirmed that the DNC reached the same conclusion.

Axios separately verified that Democratic officials involved in the analysis found the Gaza issue hurt the party's appeal with certain voter blocs.

Harris spent much of 2024 trying to navigate Israel-Gaza without alienating either side. She expressed firm support for Israel while also calling for a ceasefire and voicing empathy for Palestinian civilians.

It was a strategy that failed to satisfy the pro-Palestinian wing of the party, which is largely made up of younger voters and older progressives who had already grown skeptical of the administration's backing of Israel, and proved particularly difficult to retain.

The autopsy appears to suggest that the party’s ability to succeed in the future requires it to be unequivocally anti-Israel.

DNC spokesperson Kendall Witmer denied the claim that findings related to Israel are driving the suppression of the report; however, even Kamala Harris seems to have confirmed the autopsy report’s findings.

During an event for her 107 Days book tour, Harris said the administration “should have done more” and “should have spoken publicly” about its criticism of Netanyahu’s handling of the war.

In the memoir, she wrote that Biden’s “perceived blank check” to Israel hurt her 2024 campaign and revealed she had privately urged him to show greater empathy for Gazan civilians even as she refused to break with him publicly. 

Democrats are now staring at an uncomfortable reality: their internal diagnosis is pushing them further down an explicitly anti-Israel path, and now everyone knows it.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 20:30

Student ICE Protests Lead To Lockdowns, Debate Over Discipline In Pennsylvania Schools

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

School officials ordered two eastern Pennsylvania schools into lockdown on Feb. 20, while dozens of students left the schools and became unruly. The move came after officials directed the students to cancel their planned protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

High school students gather for an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest outside the Minnesota Capitol in St. Paul on Jan. 14, 2026. Octavio Jonees/AFP via Getty Images

Quakertown High School and Quakertown Elementary School, about 50 miles north of Philadelphia, were locked down for nearly two hours.

School officials took the action after police notified them that high schoolers, who had left the building without permission, “were engaging in unsafe and disruptive behavior in town,” acting Superintendent Lisa Hoffman wrote on the Quakertown Community School District website.

Her statement provides no further details about the students’ behavior, but CBS News reported that five students were arrested.

Video footage posted on X shows Quakertown police struggling to put a person into the back of a police SUV as a crowd mills around and some people shout. When an ambulance arrives, a man in plain clothes exits an unmarked vehicle, dabbing what appears to be a bloody nose while officers ask whether he is OK.

School officials said they were waiting for more information from the police regarding reports of students’ actions. A Quakertown police sergeant told The Epoch Times that he was not permitted to release a statement from the borough’s police administration.

Earlier in the day, Quakertown school officials had notified families and students that a planned “student-led walkout should no longer occur,” Hoffman wrote. District leaders made that decision after consulting with law enforcement over “a potential safety concern” in connection with the walkout.

However, in defiance of that directive, about 35 Quakertown High School students left the building at about 11:30 a.m. Immediately, administrators worked with police and locked down the high school and the elementary school, stopping anyone from entering or leaving the buildings, Hoffman said.

“Students in both schools maintained their normal school day activities,” Hoffman wrote, and the lockdown was lifted at about 1:15 p.m.

Meanwhile, in Spring Township, near Reading, Pennsylvania, the Wilson School District issued a statement addressing a widely circulated video showing Daniel Weber, principal of Wilson High School, telling student protesters that they would be suspended if they did not return to class.

In response to “numerous” phone calls and emails about the video, Superintendent Chris Trickett posted a statement on Feb. 19, a day after Weber addressed the group amid an unauthorized walkout.

Trickett said the video “captures only a portion of the interaction between school staff and students.”

Further, he wrote, “The situation was particularly challenging because we had been informed that the demonstration would not take place.”

A careful review of the circumstances revealed that no one was disciplined for expressing political views, the superintendent said. Rather, disciplinary action was based on violations of the student handbook, including “leaving class or the building without permission,” he said.

“Longstanding legal guidance, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, affirms that students do not ’shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,'” Trickett wrote, referring to that 1969 landmark ruling.

However, Trickett wrote, “the Court made clear that schools may take action when conduct materially disrupts the educational environment or compromises student safety.” Further, schools can and must regulate demonstrations “in alignment with school rules and policies,” he said.

“Our response reflects this balance, between protecting student expression and fulfilling our responsibility to maintain safe and effective school operations,” Trickett said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 20:05

AI Beats Human Research Teams At Crunching Medical Data

Whether you think AI is on the cusp of replacing millions of jobs, or an overblown Google search designed to agree with you, one thing is sure: people whose job it is to analyze complex medical data might want to pay attention...

For years, biomedical research has had a problem: too much data, not enough people who know how to wrangle it - or simply that it took months to do so. Modern health studies generate oceans of molecular information - gene expression, DNA methylation, microbiome profiles. Turning that into useful predictions about disease risk or pregnancy outcomes typically requires teams of data scientists, months of coding, and endless debugging.

Now, according to a new study in Cell Reports Medicine, some AI systems can do much of that work in minutes - and in at least one case, they did it better than humans.

The Test: AI vs. the Crowd

Researchers at UC San Francisco and Wayne State University took eight large language models - the same class of AI that powers systems like ChatGPT - and dropped them into a serious biomedical competition. The team used data from three previous international DREAM Challenges, where more than 100 research teams had built predictive models tackling reproductive health questions such as:

• Can you predict gestational age from blood gene expression?

• Can you estimate the biological age of the placenta from DNA methylation?

• Can you detect risk of preterm birth from vaginal microbiome data?

So this is modern AI creating modeling code in Python vs. human-coded predictive models, not humans manually processing the data (to be clear). 

One dataset included around 360,000 molecular features. Another required parsing genomic data from public repositories. In the original competitions, human teams spent up to three months developing and tuning their models.

The AI systems were given a carefully written prompt describing the dataset and the task. Then they had to generate executable R or Python code from scratch. Researchers ran that code and measured how well the resulting models performed on unseen test data.

No special hints. No iterative coaching. Just one shot.

The Results: Faster, Sometimes Better

Four of the eight AI systems successfully generated working code and usable prediction models.

One of them - OpenAI’s o3-mini-high - completed nearly all the tasks and scored the highest overall.

But here’s the part that surprised even the researchers: on the placental aging task, one AI-generated model outperformed the top human team from the original challenge. The difference was statistically significant.

In other words, the AI built a more accurate predictor of placental gestational age than the best human competitors had.

And it generated the code in seconds to minutes.

By contrast, the human teams had months to refine their approaches. Some built complex multi-stage random forest systems and leveraged additional clinical information. The AI, using a relatively straightforward ridge regression model, still won.

Across the other tasks, AI models generally matched the median performance of human participants - solidly competitive, though not always beating the top experts.

Why This Matters

Preterm birth affects roughly 11 percent of infants worldwide and remains a leading cause of neonatal mortality. Clinicians still lack reliable predictive tools for many pregnancy complications.

Better models could mean; earlier identification of at-risk pregnancies, more precise timing of interventions, and reduced long-term complications for children - among other things. But building those models is slow. - requiring extensive writing, debugging, and standardizing analysis pipelines.

And this is where the LLMs kick ass - given that they're especially strong at generating structured, reproducible workflows: loading data, splitting training and test sets properly, fitting models, calculating performance metrics, and even producing plots. Notably, none of the successful AI systems accidentally “leaked” test data into training - a surprisingly common human mistake that can inflate results.

That said, AI is still in its infancy and it wasn't all a slam dunk. In fact, half of the tested models failed outright - often due to basic coding issues like referencing nonexistent packages or mishandling data formats. R code proved more reliable than Python in this setting.

Even the top models were stochastic: run the same prompt multiple times, and you might get slightly different modeling strategies or results.

And there’s a deeper concern. If many researchers rely on similar AI systems, they may converge on similar modeling approaches. That standardization could improve reproducibility - but it might also reduce methodological creativity.

Where is this Going?

Large language models are already showing promise in reading medical records, generating radiology reports, and assisting in pathology analysis. What’s new here is that they’re moving beyond language tasks into hands-on data science, writing actual code. 

The authors emphasize that human oversight remains critical. AI models can hallucinate, misunderstand instructions, or silently make errors. Advanced API-based systems also come with cost and privacy considerations, particularly in clinical contexts.

The question is; will AI in 1, 3, 5 years from now be error free? No hallucinations and generally considered reliable? 

h/t Capital.news

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 19:40

Is China Really Dumping US Treasuries?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

“China is dumping US Treasuries to get out of the dollar.” This claim has been circulating the mainstream feeds lately, with the narrative that the “end of the dollar is near,” or “the US will lose its funding base” and the “bond yields will surge.” But are those claims valid? Such is what we will explore in more detail.

Let’s start with the chart that has everyone concerned. As shown, China’s holdings of US Treasury bonds have fallen from nearly $1.2 trillion to $600 billion, or a 50% decline. On the surface, you can certainly understand the reasons for concern, as the decline in holdings over the last decade supports a clean storyline.

However, the problem is the step between observation and conclusion. A lower line item for “China, Mainland” does not equal a forced sale, it does not prove intent, nor does it prove a structural exit. What it does show is a lack of understanding about the dynamics of reserve currency management, and, in the case of China, the need to protect those reserves.

Let’s start with the Treasury Department, which states that the holdings tables are built “primarily on the basis of custodial data.” That phrase matters. Custodial data records where securities are held for settlement and safekeeping. Critically, the custodian is not the same as the beneficial owner, and that distinction undermines the headline narrative.

The Treasury’s own FAQ is the most important in this particular narrative:

“If a Treasury security purchased by a foreign resident is held in a custodial account in a third country, the true country of ownership will not be reflected.”

Read that sentence again.

The system is designed to track where the bonds sit, not whose balance sheet carries the risk. This is crucially important when it comes to the narrative that China is dumping its bond holdings and moving away from the dollar.

For those jumping to that conclusion, they did not take the time to ask the right question: “Where did the custody shift to?” That question matters for investors because it changes the risk assessment. If China were liquidating, you would expect pressure across Treasury auctions, persistent stress on dealer balance sheets, and visible strain in dollar funding markets. While those episodes occur from time to time, often tied to Fed policy or risk shocks, there is no clear connection to the “China dumping” storyline.

A better way to approach the claim is to follow the settlement trail, which takes us to the Belgium and Luxembourg connection.

The Belgium and Luxembourg Connection

Over the last decade, geopolitical risk has been rising. Heavy sanctions have been imposed on Iran and Russia, assets frozen or seized, and political pressure brought to bear. If you are a country with significant US dollar reserves and face the risk of sanctions or seizure, what measures could you take to limit that risk? Here is a good example:

“Policymakers [in Beijing] are mindful of the precedent set in 2022, when the US and its allies froze about $300 billion of Russia’s central bank reserves after the invasion of Ukraine. The worry is that if tensions were to escalate, the US could — in an extreme scenario — restrict access to China’s state and privately held dollar assets in a similar fashion.” – Bloomberg

It is critical to understand the two main economic reasons that China buys and holds US Treasuries. The most important reason is that China wants its currency, the yuan, pegged to the dollar, a practice common among many countries since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. A dollar-pegged yuan helps keep down the cost of Chinese exports, particularly to the US, its largest customer, which the Chinese government believes makes it stronger in international markets. Secondly, dollar-pegging adds stability to the yuan because the dollar is still seen as the safest currency in the world. To conduct trade on a global scale, they hold their reserves in US Treasuries, gold, or the dollar itself.

However, just because China owns U.S. Treasuries does not mean it must have custodial holdings in the U.S. Look at the same holdings table and focus on Belgium and Luxembourg. In the November 2025 snapshot, Belgium shows about $481 billion in Treasury holdings, and Luxembourg shows about $425 billion. Those are massive totals for very small countries that are not building reserves at that scale.

In reality, Luxembourg and Belgium are “hosting custody” for China. Just for reference look at the chart of US Treasury holdings of China and Belgium. Over the same period, while China’s holdings fell by $600 billion, Belgiums rose by $500 billion.

This is why the Treasury’s FAQ points directly to this issue and calls out “major financial centers,” such as Luxembourg and Belgium, as the source of “custodial bias.” The chart below adjusts China’s treasury holdings for its “custodial” accounts, showing that its holdings of US Treasuries are essentially the same as in 2011.

This is not a conspiracy. It is plumbing. One of the primary reasons that China uses Belgium for custodial purposes, besides avoiding geopolitical risk, is that the Euroclear Bank is based there and sits at the center of cross-border settlement and collateral mobility. Clearstream’s international depository is based in Luxembourg and serves the same global institutional client base. When a central bank or a state institution wants to hold a large Treasury portfolio with flexible settlement and collateral options, these hubs help address operational challenges.

With this understanding, it should be clear that the “China is dumping bonds” narrative is incomplete. However, it is the problem that arises when individuals seeking to spin a narrative for headlines, clicks, or views focus on one line item and ignore the framework.

Brad Setser at the Council on Foreign Relations has repeatedly made the point that the reported data understate China’s dollar bond exposure due to offshore custodians and portfolio shifts across dollar instruments. In his words, “China isn’t shifting away from the dollar or dollar bonds.”

That leads to the next question: why would China shift custody at all?

Why Is China Using Other Countries to Buy and Hold Treasuries

We already touched on avoiding geopolitical risk, but there are four practical reasons for China to shift custodial holdings, none of which requires an exit from US bonds.

1. Settlement efficiency and scale: Large reserve portfolios require scale, operational redundancy, and deep settlement connectivity. European custody hubs provide that. Euroclear’s work on US Treasury DVP repo settlement is a signal of where institutions want improved collateral movement and repo settlement workflows. When the infrastructure improves, demand follows. Holding through a hub often reduces friction.

2. Collateral mobility and financing optionality: Treasuries are collateral. They are not only an investment. They are a financing tool. A portfolio held at a hub links more easily into repo markets, securities lending, and collateral transformation. That matters for institutions managing liquidity. If you want the option to raise dollars quickly against Treasury collateral, the custody venue matters.

3. Risk management after sanctions shocks: Following the freezing of Russian reserve assets in 2022, reserve managers began reassessing legal and operational exposures. The Financial Times has reported extensively on Euroclear’s central role in the custody of frozen Russian assets and the policy debates surrounding them. The lesson for global reserve managers is straightforward. Jurisdiction, legal perimeter, and operational touchpoints matter. Shifting custody and settlement routes is one response.

4. Data optics and portfolio composition: The Treasury table is widely quoted. It is also widely misunderstood. A shift from direct custody into a third country changes what the table shows. Some investors read the table as a loyalty scoreboard, but that interpretation is wrong. There is also a composition component. A holder can reduce Treasury holdings while raising exposure to other dollar assets, such as gold, agency debt or deposits, while staying inside the dollar system. That can reduce the “Treasuries only” line item without reducing dollar exposure.

So when you see “China, Mainland” drift lower, the right response is to think in layers: 1) Custody, 2) Instrument mix, 3) Funding and collateral function, and 4) Geopolitical risk management.

Put those together, and the incentive to use Belgium and Luxembourg is clear. The goal is not a panic move to “dedollarize” the US, which would harm the Chinese economy. Rather, it is to gain operational efficiency and optionality in a world where finance and politics collide more often.

Now step back and ask the investor question: What does this mean for you and your portfolio?

How Investors Should View US Treasury Bonds in Portfolios

Investors should treat Treasuries as a tool, not a referendum on geopolitics. However, it is critical to your portfolio outcome to understand the entire context of how the “financial plumbing” operates.

As such, investors should start with the role Treasuries play in global markets. US Treasuries:

• Anchor dollar risk-free pricing.

• Sit at the core of repo and collateral systems.

• Serve as a settlement asset during stress.

Those functions do not disappear because one country adjusts custody venues.

Secondly, focus on the real drivers of Treasury returns. The return of US Treasuries is driven by expectations for economic growth and inflation over time. Federal Reserve policy drives the front end of the interest rate curve. Economic growth and inflation drive the long end. The chart shows a strong correlation between the composite of GDP, inflation, and interest rates. Those factors matter more than headlines about one foreign holder.

Next, as an investor, you should build your Treasury investment exposure based on objectives, rather than narratives. If you need:

• Liquidity and drawdown control hold more short to intermediate-term Treasuries, which often serve as portfolio ballast during equity stress.

• Income with controlled volatility, a ladder across the front-to-intermediate curve, helps manage reinvestment risk.

• To adjust for inflation uncertainty, blend nominal Treasuries with TIPS.

Lastly, avoid the common mistake of basing bond decisions on some misguided narrative. However, US Treasuries are not risk-free in price. As such, investors must focus on the risks that matter for their bond holdings.

• Duration risk

• Inflation risk

• Policy risk

The “China dumping” narrative is not a risk worth worrying about.

Focus on what matters by aligning duration and inflation sensitivity with your time horizon and risk tolerance. Treat headlines as noise, and Treasuries as a portfolio instrument built for cash flow, liquidity, and risk control. If you do that, you will be much better off.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 17:40

"The World Is In Peril": Anthropic's Safety Boss Quits

Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,

Most people have never heard of Mrinank Sharma. That is part of the problem.

Earlier this month, Sharma resigned from Anthropic, one of the most influential artificial intelligence companies in the world.

He had led its Safeguards Research Team, the group responsible for ensuring that Anthropic’s AI could not be used to help engineer a biological weapon.

His final project was a study of how AI systems distort the way people perceive reality. It was serious, consequential work for humankind.

His resignation letter was seen more than 14 million times on X.

It opened with the words, “the world is in peril.”

And it ended with a poem and by announcing that he was leaving one of the most consequential jobs in artificial intelligence to pursue a poetry degree. Yes, you read that right: peril and poetry.

The poem he quoted is, “The Way It Is,” by the American poet William Stafford.

It speaks of a thread that runs through a life—a thread that goes among things that change, but does not change itself. While you hold it, you cannot get lost. Tragedies happen. People suffer and grow old. Time unfolds, and nothing stops it. And the final line: you don’t ever let go of the thread.

Although he didn’t state it explicitly, I argue that that thread is morality. It is the enduring sense that some things are right and some things are wrong—not because a law says so, and not because it is profitable, but because human beings, at their best, have just always known it.

Sharma spent two years watching that thread being let go under pressure, in rooms the public is never shown.

His letter said:

“Throughout my time here, I’ve repeatedly seen how hard it is to truly let our values govern our actions.

“I’ve seen this within myself, within the organization, where we constantly face pressures to set aside what matters most, and throughout broader society, too.”

He wrote that humanity is approaching a threshold where “our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences.”

He wanted to contribute in a way that felt fully in his integrity and to devote himself to what he called “the practice of courageous speech.”

A man who built defenses against bioterrorism concluded that the most important thing he could do next was learn to speak with honesty and courage.

That is a major signal about what is happening behind closed doors in AI research and development.

Many experts have compared the development of AI to the development of the atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project was built in total secrecy. The public had no knowledge of it, no voice in how it was used, and no say in what came after. When it was over, some of the scientists who built it spent the rest of their lives in anguish. Several walked away during the project itself.

Sharma was not alone. Numerous safety researchers have walked off AI projects from multiple companies. These departures may be the only signals we, the public, have, because almost everything else about AI development is happening beyond public view. The internal debates, the safety trade-offs, the negotiations over what this technology will and will not be permitted to do—none of it is being shared with the people whose lives it will most profoundly shape. We are not part of this conversation. We are being presented with outcomes and told to adapt.

John Adams wrote that the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for any other. George Washington warned that liberty cannot survive the loss of shared moral principles. The founders studied the collapse of republics throughout history and arrived at the same conclusion: The machinery of freedom requires a moral people to sustain it. Laws and institutions are not enough on their own. They depend on citizens and leaders who hold themselves to something that exists before the law and above it.

That is the thread of human society, and no AI system holds it. If people allow AI to replace the question of right and wrong with the measure of what is legal and permitted, the machine will carry that measure forward at a scale and speed that no previous generation has had to reckon with.

As Sharma ended his resignation letter, “You don’t ever let go of the thread.”

We are at a crossroads not unlike the one the atomic scientists faced.

Sharma’s resignation was a signal.

The wave of departures before and after it are signals.

The reported tensions between AI companies and government over where moral limits should be drawn are also signals.

Together, they are pointing at something the public has not yet been fully invited to consider: that the most important questions about this technology are being worked out without us, and that the thread of morality, which has always required people to hold it by choice, needs to be part of that conversation.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 17:00

Iran Strike Debate Erupts: Joint Chiefs Chair Allegedly Resists, Trump Fires Back

Military generals tend to be much more realistic about the potential negative consequences of going to war, as well as difficulties and challenges, over and against the often more hawkish policy-makers.

Currently, Pentagon generals appear to be belatedly speaking up, as Washington beats the drums of war on Iran. The Walls Street Journal reports Monday, "The Pentagon is raising concerns to President Trump about an extended military campaign against Iran, advising that war plans being considered carry risks including U.S. and allied casualties, depleted air defenses and an overtaxed force." This is increasingly looking like a military buildup in search of a political and strategic rationale.

United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, via AP

Of course, also not too distant in the collective memory of top brass is the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, which led to two decade long extremely difficult and bloody occupation and quagmire. 

The Bush administration had essentially said it would be a cake walk, with then-US Vice President Dick Cheney famously telling NBC's Meet the Press in March 2003: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

Some remnant Neocons, who of course never learn their lesson - such as Senator Lindsey Graham - are currently trying to a paint a similar picture with Iran in 2026. Graham and even some within the Trump administration are arguing for full regime change. 

Removing the Ayatollah would more than likely require a ground invasion. But there will be significant hurdles with even just an air war, and it's no less than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine issuing these dire warnings. According to a paraphrase and outline of what's being freshly reported by WSJ:

1) Caine warned that the war plans under consideration carry a high risk of significant American and allied casualties.

2) He cautioned that a multi-day campaign would exhaust air-defense munitions and other limited-supply items, which are critical for protecting regional partners like Israel if Iran retaliates.

3) An intensive operation against Iran could deplete stockpiles to a level that would complicate U.S. readiness for a potential future conflict with China.

4) He described the potential campaign as one that could "stretch the military thin" and leave forces "overtaxed".

5) Caine's gave "high likelihood of success" reassurances before the January 2026 mission to apprehend Nicolas Maduro, he has been unable to provide similar guarantees regarding a large-scale strike on Iran.

President Trump has not made up his mind, the report says, but also: "Officials say the issues raised by Caine, widely seen as a trusted aide by Trump, and others will be a factor in the president’s decision on whether to attack Iran and how."

Iran is prepared to make any strikes, however 'limited' they might be, into something costly for US forces. Already Tehran has said it would unleash ballistic missiles and drones on US bases in the region. Israel could come under fire too.

Iran's Foreign Ministry has said Monday that any American military action, even on a small scale, would be seen as an act of war and unwarranted aggression. "And any state would react to an act of aggression as part of its inherent right of self-defense, ferociously. So that’s what we would do," ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said at a briefing in Tehran.

Within hours after the WSJ report being out, President Trump slammed it as fake news, and has assured that if the decision to strike Iran is given by him as Commander-in-Chief, Caine will be fully supportive and ready...

Might Gen. Caine's arguments from a place of caution win out? There's a strong chance that he is speaking some sanity into Trump, who himself had repeatedly vowed on the campaign trail no more dumb regime change wars in the Middle East.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly has been quoted as saying: "General Caine is a talented and highly valued member of President Trump’s national security team. The president listens to a host of opinions on any given issue and decides based on what is best for U.S. national security." 

* * *

Meanwhile, Hegseth on the hilarious Pentagon/DOD activity 'pizza tracker' as an indicator of imminent war chances: "I've thought of just ordering lots of pizza on random nights just to throw everybody off."

PETER DOOCY: "There is an account on X that tries to forecast military action based on how busy the pizza places are around the Pentagon... Have you guys thought about maybe just going to the cafeteria?"

SECRETARY HEGSETH: "I'm aware of that account. I hadn't thought of just… pic.twitter.com/rLiA5bzMuT

— Vivek Sen (@Vivek4real_) February 22, 2026

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 16:40

"Weapons-Grade Mind-F**kery": A Campaign Of Bad Faith And Ill Will

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“The SAVE Act can pass today under existing procedure. The obstacle is not the filibuster. It is the habit of surrendering to a myth."

- Alex Muse on X

Lunacy proceeds from crime. In case you wonder why half the country has gone crazy, seek no further than Susan Rice’s stark warning to the other half of the country that is not crazy.

Ms. Rice was Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor and then “Joe Biden’s” Domestic Policy Advisor. She did a podcast last week with Preet Bharaha, former US Attorney in the SDNY, now a private lawyer with the Beltway law firm WilmerHale. Her message to Trump supporters: We’re coming after you when we’re back in power. “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

WEAPONIZATION: Susan Rice lays out her vision of a post-Trump America where supporters are rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or prisons. pic.twitter.com/IyEPXx4G9T

— @amuse (@amuse) February 20, 2026

It was an important signal and it got a lot of people’s attention. It telegraphed the fear running through the Lefty-left that their crimes against the country are being tallied, carefully catalogued, and presented to a grand jury in Florida.

The crimes are bundled as a multifaceted conspiracy to overthrow the US government.

Pretty serious.

Sedition and Treason.

Susan Rice knows what she (and others) did.

First, in the frantic days between Nov. 3, 2016 and January 20, 2017, Barack Obama’s White House cooked up the Russia collusion hoax with John Brennan’s CIA, James Comey’s FBI, and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ. Ms. Rice, who was in on it, notoriously wrote a CYA memo memorializing the meetings and planted it in her office desk to be easily discovered by the new Trump admin. The memo stated that “every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.” Of course, that was exactly the opposite of what really happened. The mischief emanating from it has run for ten years, crime upon crime upon crime.

Secondly, and surely less-known to the American public, was Ms. Rice’s role as Domestic Policy Advisor under “Joe Biden.” Her actual job from 2021 to 2023 was to serve as a conduit for Barack Obama to run “Joe Biden’s” White House, along with Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken. During those years, the public rarely (if ever) saw Susan Rice. She avoided the news media and did not make public statements or appearances at White House events. The news media were happy to ignore her. They knew exactly what she was up to.

The prime concerns of this cabal were to protect the image (cover up the crimes) of Barack Obama and his associates, to cover up the criminal degeneracy of the Biden family, and to get the Democrat Party back in power by utterly destroying Donald Trump and the populist revolt he headed.

Everything done in “Joe Biden’s” name during those years was to guarantee his party’s return to power, especially the deluge of illegal aliens across the border to pad the census for congressional districts and provide millions of future voters indebted to the party for letting them in (and giving them tons of freebies when they got here. . . phones, housing, food, walking-around money).

Meanwhile, the Democrats erected an immense scaffold of NGOs to funnel taxpayer money into salaries for their corps of political activists — outfits such as Stacey Abrams’ empire of grift in Georgia, the national networks of Antifa and BLM street-fighters, and the matrix of Somali social service fraud in Minnesota and Maine.

This created a huge parasitical patronage class, basically a national racketeering operation.

Eventually all the NGO grift became an end in itself — the Democrats animating principle: grift for grift’s sake, power to just keep it all going and continue to cover up the crime behind it.

The vital component to all this was weapons-grade mind-fuckery to produce a fog of war that would keep the American public utterly bamboozled, unable to comprehend what was happening amid gales of hoaxes, ops, and scams. The Covid-19 caper was the doozy. We still don’t know definitively if the mRNA vaccine program was a deliberate depopulation project, but it kind of looked like it, while plenty of messaging from global institutions — from the Gates Foundation to the WEF to the UN — was pretty explicit about getting rid of useless eaters. On top of all that, throw in the trashing of Western Civ’s industrial economies with “green” trickery, adding another layer of anxiety onto a sore-beset citizenry.

Of course, despite their best efforts — and it was a mighty crusade of bad faith and ill will — the Democrats failed to vanquish Mr. Trump, a strange miracle itself suggesting some sort of divine intervention. The question now is, will Mr. Trump be able to vanquish them? It begins to look like he might, with plenty of help from the Democrats themselves, who have reached a pitch of madness rarely seen in human societies.

Their latest prank: a boycott of the State of the Union speech to Congress.

So far, seven senators and nine congresspersons have promised to bail on the speech, led ostensibly by Senator Adam Schiff of California, a liar so prodigious and fertile that it can be truly said he never uttered an honest word including “yes,” “no,” and “maybe.” This faction will gather on the mall instead and hurl objurgations at the Capitol rotunda.

All that’s needed to finish them off, really, is passage of the SAVE Act so that voters will be required to prove their identity and citizenship, and absentee ballots will be restricted to the old rules about being too sick to get to the poling place, or else out of the country.

Last week, staffers behind the walking mummy, Mitch McConnell, prevented the bill from reaching the Senate floor with some procedural rigmarole.

Mr. Trump must call them out, and call out Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), too, for dragging his feet on whatever’s necessary to pass the SAVE Act.

The country demands honest elections, and one way or another they’ll get them.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 16:20

AOC's Ignorance Is No Laughing Matter

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

Over the past week or so, many on the political Right have understandably enjoyed a laugh or two at the expense of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, N.Y.). AOC went to the Munich Security Conference to provide “balance” to the Trump administration’s presence and to burnish her own credentials on the global stage. Instead, she mostly just made a fool of herself. Not only did she stutter, stammer, and offer a Kamala Harris-esque non-answer when asked about American interests in and obligations to Taiwan, but she also demonstrated a comically poor grasp of geography and a righteously ignorant understanding of history. In an effort to rebut and embarrass U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, AOC embarrassed only herself, showing that historical facts mean far less to her than identity-inspired fiction.

But while it’s inarguably fun to chuckle at and mock the ignorance of the smug congresswoman and presumed presidential aspirant, it is also important to acknowledge that her historical and political illiteracy extends beyond the superficial and touches on matters of real and critical importance. Notably, this purported champion of the working class does not know the history of working-class politics, does not understand the reasons for the collapse of the working-class-centered ideology, and, as a result, has never contemplated the dangers inherent in attempting to resuscitate that failed doctrine.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has long emphasized her biography and working-class roots to enhance her political status—and justifiably so. Her childhood may not have been quite the struggle she pretends it was, but she nevertheless endured economic hardships—especially after her father’s death—and was unable to find employment commensurate with her education. She was, famously, a bartender and a cocktail waitress before her election to Congress and, as a result, has long fashioned herself a champion of the working class and its purported priorities.

Indeed, on her trip to Munich, AOC emphasized her affinity with the working class and admonished democratic nations to erect a bulwark against totalitarianism by focusing on workers, workers’ rights, and worker-centered politics. “It is of utmost urgent priority that we get our economic houses in order and deliver material gains for the working class,” the congresswoman said, “or else we will fall to a more isolated world governed by authoritarians that also do not deliver to working people.” She railed against large corporations and especially billionaires, insisting that they had to be stopped from “throwing their weight around” in domestic and international politics. In short, the good congresswoman used her trip to Munich to urge the workers of the world to unite, because, as she sees it, they have nothing to lose but their chains.

There’s only one little problem with AOC’s exhortation: it’s ridiculous. Indeed, it’s been tried . . . and tried . . . and tried. It doesn’t work. And when I say that, I don’t mean that socialism doesn’t work or that communism has been tried countless times before and failed every time. That much is obvious by now. Rather, what I mean is that the workers of the world don’t care about the rest of the workers of the world. They don’t like the idea of being divided into classes, and they don’t have any particular affection for their fellow laborers. They don’t dislike other workers necessarily, but they don’t see themselves as a monolithic federation sharing the same interests, needs, or political predilections. Truth be told—and this is the key to understanding the silliness of the whole “global proletariat” nonsense—even the Marxists long ago gave up on uniting the workers of the world. In fact, in the United States, the most prominent Marxist theorists actually gave up on workers altogether as allies in the fight against capitalism.

One of the most pervasive bits of common knowledge about World War I is the idea that the ruling classes of Europe did not expect it to last very long or to be particularly destructive. Kaiser Wilhelm infamously predicted that Germany’s troops would be home “before the leaves fall.” What is less well known is that this “short-war illusion” was shared and embraced even more unequivocally by the era’s Marxist agitators. They believed, as Engels in particular predicted, in the inevitability of a “new man,” who would evolve from the working classes and would never harm his fellow new men. Just two years before Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, the Manifesto of the Second International Socialist Congress in Basel in 1912 declared that war between working men was a virtual impossibility:

It would be insanity for the governments not to realize that the very idea of the monstrosity of a world war would inevitably call forth the indignation and the revolt of the working class. The proletarians consider it a crime to fire at each other for the profits of the capitalists, the ambitions of dynasties, or the greater glory of secret diplomatic treaties.

Of course, things didn’t exactly go as planned—either for the ruling classes or the Marxists. World War I did many things to Europe, most of them awful and ugly and demoralizing. It did many of the same things to Marxism. Although the war did incite revolution in Russia, that was far less than the Marxists had hoped for. Russia’s revolution was led by the educated classes and animated by peasants. Proletarian “workers” were largely non-existent. In the industrialized parts of Europe, workers flat out rejected appeals to class unity, choosing instead to fight for God and country. German workers saw themselves not as workers but as Germans. French workers saw themselves not as workers but as Frenchmen. And so it went.

In the aftermath of the war, Marxists were forced to confront two massive and related problems: the workers’ refusal to unite and the rise of profound and entrenched nihilism. In order to save their ideology, these Marxists had to revise it and explain its failures. As any schoolboy knows, they did so by concluding that the workers of the world did not understand their own interests or even their own natures. Workers were dissociated from their interests by the institutions of society, especially the institutions of cultural transmission: the Church, the schools, the media, art, entertainment, and so on. Therefore, to enable workers to see their real interests, those institutions had to be taken over, destroyed, and rebuilt along ideological lines. And thus began the Gramsci, Lukács, and Frankfurt School-led “long march through the institutions,” which largely killed economic Marxist theory, creating what we know today as “cultural Marxism.”

In 1964, Herbert Marcuse—a latecomer to the Frankfurt School who became America’s most prominent Marxist theorist—essentially gave up on the workers as the stimulators of revolution. As I have noted before in these pages, “Marcuse conceded that the capitalist system was simply too good at providing goods and services that made the masses comfortable and happy. It therefore deprived them of ever knowing or caring about their true oppressed consciousness. Workers had become one-dimensional consumers, distracted from their fate by their egos and the creature comforts of capitalism.” In turn, Marcuse laid the foundations for “identity politics,” which would, he believed, enable the rise of a new revolutionary class, motivated by new perceptions of oppression.

Long story short (if that’s possible any longer), over the course of the last century, Marxists gave up on workers and even on economics, deciding instead to focus on culture and identity-based grievances.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t appear to know any of this, of course, which means that she also doesn’t know that appeals to working-class unity have tended to end in tragedy, followed by massive, civilization-destroying revisionism. Most notably, because she doesn’t know that revisionism was necessary in Marxism, she also doesn’t know that the other stream of post-World-War-I Marxist revisionism ran through Rome and Berlin and resulted in authoritarianism on a scale previously unimagined.

AOC’s ignorance isn’t just about cowboys, in other words. It’s also about the greatest and most profound tragedies in world history. Her ignorance is dangerous.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 14:45

IBM Plunges After Anthropic's Latest Update Takes On COBOL

After disrupting countless Software/SaaS/finance/real estate/broker sectors, Anthropic's Claude is now going after targeted companies. 

A little before 2pm ET, Bloomberg sent out a headline that Anthropic's Claude has found yet another skillset:

• *ANTHROPIC SAYS CLAUDE CODE CAN AUTOMATE COBOL MODERNIZATION

A herd of panicked IBM longs flooded to the Claude blog to read more on what is happening. Here's what it found (excerpted): 

COBOL is everywhere. It handles an estimated 95% of ATM transactions in the US. Hundreds of billions of lines of COBOL run in production every day, powering critical systems in finance, airlines, and government.

Despite that, the number of people who understand it shrinks every year.

The developers who built these systems retired years ago, and the institutional knowledge they carried left with them. Production code has been modified repeatedly over decades, but the documentation hasn't kept up. Meanwhile, we aren't exactly minting replacements—COBOL is taught at only a handful of universities, and finding engineers who can read it gets harder every quarter.

Given these roadblocks, how can organizations modernize their systems without losing the reliability, availability, and data they’ve accumulated over decades? And without breaking anything?

* * * 

How AI changes COBOL modernization

AI excels at streamlining the tasks that once made COBOL modernization cost-prohibitive. With it, your team can focus on strategy, risk assessment, and business logic while AI automates the code analysis and implementation.

* * * 

Start your COBOL modernization

The approach outlined above works for COBOL systems of any size. Tools like Claude Code can automate much of the exploration and analysis work described, giving your team the comprehensive understanding they need to plan and execute migrations confidently.

Start with a single component or workflow that has clear boundaries and moderate complexity. Use AI to analyze and document it thoroughly, plan the modernization with your engineers, implement incrementally with testing at each step, and validate carefully.  This will build organizational confidence and surface adjustments needed for your systems.

In kneejerk reaction, IBM stock, already down sharply on the day, and tumbling 20% from its all time highs just earlier this month, plunged $15 to the lowest level since Liberation Day, briefly dipping below $230...

... as the market realized that it is the latest target of the Claude disruption train. You see, Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL)  is a high-level, English-like compiled programming language developed specifically for business data processing, via IBM. As such, anything that disrupts this lucrative ecosystem created by IBM (code COBOL, then sell consultancy contracts to adjust the code which virtually nobody knows how to use), would immediately smash IBM stock... and that's precisely what happened. 

Which begs the question: after various Claude updates caused hundreds of billions in market cap damage in the past 3 weeks, is the company's strategy to keep rolling incremental disruption updates becoming Antrhopic's self-funding strategy. After all, if Dario Amodei had bought puts on IBM, and the dozens of companies that have plunge dmore than double digits in recent weeks, he would have made billions, certainly enough to fund his company for months if not years. 

And if not Anthropic, when will OpenAI - which needs capital much more badly than its enterprise-focused peer - do the same? 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 14:25

Judge Says Jack Smith's Final 'Mar-a-Lago Docs' Report On Trump Can Never Be Released

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Feb. 23 said that the final report on President Donald Trump compiled by a former special counsel shall not be released.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is based in Florida (and was appointed by President Trump), said in a 15-page decision that she was granting requests from Trump and his co-defendants to keep part two of the report from former special counsel Jack Smith shielded from the public.

Cannon said that Smith wrongly forged ahead with investigating Trump and others for allegedly violating federal law by gathering and retaining sensitive documents even after she ruled his appointment was unconstitutional and threw out the case.

“Rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” Cannon said.

“The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order.”

She added later:

“While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had appealed Cannon’s ruling, but dropped the appeal after Trump won a second term in office.

The department also released part of Smith’s report just before Trump began his second term.

The other part, which has not been made public, was not to be released, according to a January 2025 order from Cannon.

Cannon announced in December 2025 that her injunction was set to expire in February this year.

Trump and co-defendants said in filings on Jan. 20 that Cannon should permanently block the release of the other part of Smith’s report. Lawyers for Trump said Smith was illegally appointed, and all acts he undertook were thus void, so the release “would constitute an irreversible violation of this Court’s constitutional rulings in the underlying criminal action and of bedrock principles of the separation of powers.”

DOJ officials backed that position.

“Put simply, Smith’s tenure was marked by illegality and impropriety, and under no circumstance should his work product be given the full weight and authority of this Department,” they said in a brief, adding later that making the second part of the report public would “lead to the public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other information derived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants.”

The DOJ and Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Cannon’s ruling. Smith’s law firm did not return an inquiry by publication time.

Two outside groups, American Oversight and Knight First Amendment Institute, recently requested to intervene in the case because they wanted the second part of Smith’s report disclosed.

Cannon declined to allow the requested intervention.

In an appeal, the groups said that because the government had aligned with the defendants in the case, unless they were allowed to intervene, the hidden portion of Smith’s report would be buried or destroyed.

“There is no good reason for withholding this report from the public,” Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a Feb. 9 statement. “The public has a right to the report under the First Amendment and common law, and the Freedom of Information Act requires its release as well.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 12:45

 

 

Soon after the Supreme Court dropped its IEEPA decision Friday morning, I wrote up a post on who the IEEPA decison Winners were. Today, as promised, we review the losers. Spoiler alert: there are a lot of them.

In broad strokes, the winners were the large companies that filed for refunds or sued the US, the dollar, consumers, the separation of powers, the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court. The losers are a bit more nuanced: some are obvious, many are not.

My analysis of who won and who lost is based on both the immediate reaction to the tariffs being found unlawful, and the longer-term results of this case. As always, the world is complex and not black-and-white, with much nuance to be found.

Let’s jump right in:

LOSERS

• Consumers:  On Friday, my immediate reaction was that US consumers would have a lower tariff burden. But the President added a 10% (150-day) global tariff, and then raised it over the weekend to 15%.

15%. This regressive Trump Tax will be borne by every consumer on a wide range of imported foodstuffs, manufactured parts, and finished goods. It is much less of a victory than I originally believed due to the latest tariffs POTUS imposed.

• U.S. Equities: What should have been a clear victory for US equities has turned into a muddled mess. (See chart at top). Blocking the president’s power to arbitrarily tariff any country any amount is a significant win; it was offset by the President’s immediate use of Section 232 to impose 10% 15% tariffs for 150 days. While Markets rallied right after the decision, they reacted negatively to the president’s actions over the weekend.

¶ Commodities (especially Gold & Silver): If the dollar was the big winner Friday, then anything priced in dollars is the loser. As noted, 2025 – just like 2017 before it – was a bad year for the dollar What’s been driving the dollar lower has been frustration from our trading partners, the repatriation trade, and a spreading concern that the United States is no longer the reliable ally it once was.

• Domestic automakers: Ford and GM have seen their stocks rise over the past year, but they have been underperforming the industrials and the broader market lately. Aluminum & Steel tariffs have made their cars more costly; other non-IEEPA tariffs1 affecting automobiles were not before the Court.

• Bonds & Deficits: If you believe that the bond market does not like unfunded spending, then it’s hard to see how bonds are not at least modest losers post SCOTUS decision. Tariffs are taxes that raised nearly $200 billion. While nobody here wanted a VAT tax, it did affect government revenues.

On a related note, in the first year of his second term, President Trump added $2.25 trillion to the national debt. His claim was that tariffs would help balance the budget, notwithstanding the Constitution – and that claim is no more.

 

….I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. It will always be the best way to max out our economic power. We are right now taking in $billions in Tariffs. MAKE AMERICA RICH AGAIN

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 4, 2018

Tariff Man: Trump has largely defined his presidency by promoting the benefits of tariffs. Alongside tax cuts and deportations, it is this administration’s signature policy. It’s not surprising that the Supreme Court’s rejection has sparked a wide range of reactions. At one end, Hakeem Jeffries called the tariff ruling a “crushing defeat for the wannabe King”; at the other, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer described tariff policy as “unchanged.”

The truth lay somewhere in between.

It was a frustrating defeat for POTUS, one that led him to lash out at Justices, Democrats, trading partners, and others. (Tomorrow night’s State of the Union address could become unhinged). Regardless, it was a significant loss with consequences that have yet to be fully determined.

• Tariff benefits:

The other thing we learned was that none of the promised benefits of tariffs have materialized:

“It’s the most beautiful word in the dictionary, and it’s my favorite word. It will make our country rich. Tariffs cost Americans nothing, it’s not going to raise our inflation. If I’m going to be president of this country, I’m going to put a 100%, 200%, 2,000% tariff. We’re going to generate hundreds of billions in tariffs; we’ll become so wealthy we won’t know how to spend that money.” 2

Every economist not named “Navarro” had previously forecast this…

• Foreign Policy: The single biggest hammer the president had has been taken away: His ability to single out specific countries and then impose unlimited tariffs (100%) is no longer.

The NYTimes blew this one: “They Did Deals With Trump to Get Lower Tariffs. Now They Are Stuck.”

A naïve headline that is laughably wrong. Nobody who was strong-armed into a deal based on unlawful tariffs is going to honor those deals. (Good luck enforcing them in the court of international trade).

These deals will be slow-walked, empty-gestured, let-me-get-back-to-you, and ultimately ignored.

• Congress: While the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the separation of powers were victors on Friday, the subtle loser in our system was Congress. They had the ability – indeed the obligation – to push back on the executive branch’s power grab. The failure to stand up to the President’s overreach was a self-own. Their timidity allowed the bully to take what was rightfully theirs: the power to tax.

• Sycophants: There are numerous people who have thoroughly embarrassed themselves throughout the tariff regime3 but one stands out above them all: Brett Kavanaugh.

I could criticize Gorsuch’s concurring opinion as an unneeded performative treatise running 46 pages, only to ultimately agree with Chief Justice Roberts.4

But really, it is Kavanaugh whose dissent will be remembered. It fell somewhere in between embarrassing and sycophantic, fluffy and nonsensical.5 He spends 61 pages telling President Trump he won: “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward, because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case.”

Then Kavanaugh – and let me remind you, this is a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and not a junior lawyer in State or DOJ – helpfully lists the alternative statutes (Section 232, 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act) as a roadmap for the administration to use to reinstate tariffs in other ways. (Which they did)

The supposed intellectual heir to Scalia brand of conservatism was revealed as neither. Legally incoherent, intellectually indefensible, and blatantly partisan, Kavanaugh did not write a dissent, but rather, a very long op-ed, or if you want to be less charitable, a loyalty oath dressed up in judicial robes.  It will likely haunt the rest of his judicial career.

 

Previously:
Winners & Losers of SCOTUS Decision Striking Down Tariffs (February 20, 2026)

 

 

__________

1. Passenger vehicles, Light trucks, Medium‑ and heavy‑duty vehicles, and buses are all covered by a separate Section 232 tariffs, as are auto parts, including engines, transmissions, key electrical components, etc.

2. A few assorted dates of quotes:

The word tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary” -2018
“[They]will make our country rich” -2019
“Tariffs cost Americans nothing.” -2019
“The word ‘tariff’ to some people, and not very smart people, but to those people tariff is a dirty word. To me it is not a dirty word, it’s the most beautiful word there is.” Sept 15, 2024 (KNTV‑13, Las Vegas interview):
“It’s not going to raise our inflation.” -2024
“To me the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff. And it’s my favorite word.”-2024
“If I’m going to be president of this country, I’m going to put a 100%, 200%, 2,000% tariff. They’re not going to sell one car in the United States.”  -2024
“The higher the tariff, the more you’re going to put on the value of that piece, those goods, the higher people are going to pay in shops.”  -2024
“Tariffs are going to make us rich as hell, it’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.” -2025
​“We’re going to generate hundreds of billions in tariffs; we’ll become so wealthy we won’t know how to spend that money.” -2025

​3. Lots of sycophants deserve at least a footnote:

Robert Lighthizer: U.S. Trade Representativewho was the key architect and executor of Trump’s tariff strategy

Peter Navarro: The one economist in the country who thought this wasa good idea.

Kevin Hasset: The uniquely unqualified adviser, who, despite multiple sources that correctly identified consumers as shouldering the burden for the Trump Tax, threatened NY Fed researchers for using data toshow the same. Thus, the author who wrote Dow 36,000, the most embarrassing financial book ever written, has another bit of ignominy to add to his resume.

4. Gorsuch: “Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.” WTH dude, 46 pages for THAT?

5. I don’t want to spend too much time on the structural issues with Kavanaugh’s dissent, but here are 3 problems.

1) He simultaneously argues the president has this power under IEEPA, but that the major questions doctrine shouldn’t apply in foreign affairs, and even if the court disagrees, the president has alternative authorities that make the decision moot. That’s not a coherent jurisprudential position — it’s kind words to an upset client.

Second, 61-pages?

Third, and most damning is that Kavanaugh, who supposedly is committed to judicial restraint and textualism, advocates in his dissent for (a) maximally expands executive power against the clear weight of the statutory text, (b) gave explicit political cover to route around the ruling,

 

The post Part II: IEEPA Tariff Ruling’s Losers appeared first on The Big Picture.