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

Core US Factory Orders Better Than Expected In December

While sentiment is sagging to multi-year lows, 'hard' data is helping support growth forecasts (GDPNOW) and holding stocks at record highs.

This morning we get a fresh glimpse at America's manufacturing segment - hard data - with Orders data (which is expected to drop MoM in December).

After surging higher in November (+2.7% MoM), analysts expected US Factory Orders to drop 0.6% MoM in December but the actual print disappointed, dropping 0.7% MoM

Source: Bloomberg

Interestingly, Core Factory Orders rose 0.4% MoM - better than expected

Source: Bloomberg

The final December prints for Durable Goods Orders fell 1.4% as expected (and in line with the preliminary data).\

New orders non-defense, ex-air - a proxy for spending - rose 0.8% MoM (better than expected).

The bottom line is this data is overall supportive for GDP guesstimates (and earnings).

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 10:06

EU To Freeze Trade Deal With US After Supreme Court Overturns Trump Tariffs

Update (9:40am ET): In response to the EU's decision to freeze ratification of Trump's landmark deal, the US president has come out swinging and on Truth Social threatened any countries that "play games" with the supreme court decision that they "will be met with a much higher tariff." It just isn't clear what the procedure for these much higher tariffs - aside from Section 122 which is limited to 150 days - will be now that IEEPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier:

In the aftermath of Friday's SCOTUS decision to reverse Trump's tariff policy, one lingering question is what happens to the bilateral trade deals Trump struck with various countries (and which supposedly would lead to hundreds of billions of fresh investment into the US). Well, in the case of the EU we no longer have to wonder:

The morning, the European Union said it would freeze the ratification process of its trade deal with the US and was seeking more details from the Trump administration on its new tariff program. Zeljana Zovko, the lead trade negotiator in the European People’s Party group on the US deal, said in an interview with Bloomberg that “we have no other option” but to delay the approval process to seek clarity on the situation. 

The main political groups in the European Parliament say they’ll suspend legislative work on approving the trade deal on Monday, days after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s use of an emergency-powers law to impose his so-called reciprocal tariffs around the world.

The center-right EPP, which is the largest political bloc in parliament, will be joined by parties including the Socialists & Democrats and the liberal Renew group to back freezing the process. 

According to Bloomberg, Bernd Lange - chairman of the parliament’s trade committee - called an emergency meeting later Monday to reassess the EU-US trade accord. He said over the weekend that parliament should delay work on the trade accord until the EU receives more clarity on the new tariffs. EU ambassadors will also meet Monday afternoon to discuss the US trade relationship.

Trump’s announcement following the court decision to impose a 10% global tariff, which he then increased to 15%, left many questions unanswered for American trading partners, stirring up more economic turbulence and uncertainty about the US policy.

As a reminder, the deal struck last summer between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen would impose a 15% tariff rate on most EU exports to the US while removing tariffs on American industrial goods heading into the bloc. The US would also continue to impose a 50% tariff on European steel and aluminum imports. The bloc agreed to the lopsided deal in the hopes of avoiding a full-blown trade war with Washington and retaining US security backing, particularly with regards to Ukraine. Parliament had been aiming to ratify the agreement in March.

The trade deal had already faced a rocky path to ratification. After the initial agreement, the US expanded its 50% metals tariff to hundreds of additional products, angering EU lawmakers and European officials. Trump’s Greenland threats amplified that frustration, leading some to call for the deal to be canceled.

EU lawmakers froze the approval process once before, after Trump threatened to annex Greenland. After Trump backed down from his push to annex Greenland, a Danish territory, EU lawmakers briefly restarted the trade deal ratification process. But they also introduced changes such as a sunset clause, meaning that even if parliament ultimately approves the agreement, it will have to go back to other EU institutions for further negotiations. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 09:36

"Worst-Case Scenario": Novo Nordisk Plunges After Next-Gen Obesity Drug Falls Short Of Lilly Rival

Shares of Novo Nordisk A/S plummeted again on Monday after the company reported trial results showing its next-generation obesity shot, CagriSema, delivered 20.2% weight loss at 84 weeks, compared to 23.6% for Eli Lilly & Co.’s tirzepatide (Zepbound).

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Michael Shah explained, "This outcome is the worst-case scenario for Novo and heightens the need for M&A with Novo’s other GLP-1/Amylin drug."

Shares of Novo in Copenhagen plunged as much as 16.5%, breaking below a support level that had held since August 2025. The stock is now down about 75% from its 2024 peak and is near its 2021 low.

The result is yet more trouble for Novo’s new leadership, led by Mike Doustdar, following Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen's recent exit, along with board turnover linked to disagreements over a turnaround plan to regain GLP-1 market share. There’s also the copycat GLP-1 compounding issue involving the telehealth firm Hims & Hers.

Novo’s strategy revolves around CagriSema as Wegovy and Ozempic face longer-term patent pressure; it combines semaglutide and another gut hormone called amylin. Early studies have shown mixed results, and at least one large trial failed to meet Novo’s targeted weight loss.

Another CagriSema trial, due later this year, could yield better results because it aims to move patients to the highest dose.

“Clearly this weakens Novo Nordisk’s competitive stance in the obesity market - especially if the obesity market develops into a ‘winner takes it all’ market,” Danske Bank Credit Research analyst Brian Borsting wrote in a note. “That said, we continue to believe that Novo Nordisk’s product portfolio in the obesity market is diversified and solid although we see today’s news as credit negative.”

Meanwhile, Goldman analyst and Novo super bull James Quigley provided clients with an update on the CagriSema trial:

This morning (23rd February), Novo announced that CagriSema did not achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in REDEFINE-4, with weight loss of 23% for the CagriSema arm vs. 25.5% for the tirzepatide 15mg arm, after 84 weeks of treatment. Previously, we had said that in a non-inferiority scenario, taking the PoS of CagriSema down to 0% in obesity, leaving $5bn in sales only for cagrilintide monotherapy, would lead to a -12% impact to our DCF, all else equal, but noted that investor expectations were likely lower for CagriSema. These data points could further reduce market expectations for CagriSema, even ahead of the REDEFINE 11 trial (1H'27), and while we continue to expect approval for CagriSema and likely some use by physicians as part of a portfolio approach in obesity, investors are not likely to give credit here until the sales start to come though post approval. Novo is looking to explore higher doses of CagriSema with a Phase 3 trial planned for 2H26 - although we believe investors are unlikely to give any credit until the sales trajectory is seen. Therefore, given our expectations noted above, the share price reaction at the time of writing of c.-12% appears in line, as any residual potential for CagriSema moves out of the expectations built in for the stock. Continued momentum for the launch of the Wegovy pill is even more important, we believe, as shifting volumes to the oral market could be advantageous, given Novo has a more competitive profile on weight loss.

• CagriSema failed to meet the primary endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority vs tirzepatide on weight loss at 84 weeks. On an efficacy-estimand basis, 2.4mg/2.4mg CagriSema showed -23.0% weight loss at 84 weeks, vs 25.5% weight loss with 15mg tirzepatide over the same time period. On a treatment-regimen estimand basis, CagriSema showed -20.2% weight loss at 84 weeks vs -23.6% with 15mg tirzepatide. As a result, REDEFINE-4's primary endpoint of CagriSema demonstrating non-inferiority on weight loss vs tirzepatide was not reached.

• CagriSema showed a well-tolerated safety profile, per Novo. While no tolerability data was given, in the release Novo said that overall CagriSema appeared to show a well-tolerated and safe profile, with the most common AEs being GI AEs. Of these, the vast majority were mild to moderate and improved over time, which was consistent with other drugs in the GLP1 agonist class.

• In terms of next steps, Novo anticipates a decision from the FDA on CagriSema by y/e 2026. This is following the company's submission to the FDA in December 2025 based on data from REDEFINE 1 and 2. Novo also expects to initiate an additional Phase 3 trial of higher dose CagriSema in 2H26, and expects the readout from REDEFINE 11 of 2.4mg/2.4mg CagriSema in 1H27 (longer term trial looking at the full weight loss potential of CagriSema in obesity).

Not surprisingly, Quigley's continued "Buy" rating on the stock even as it has collapsed 75% from the peak and nears 2021 lows. "We are Buy rated on Novo Nordisk," he said.

Related:

• Novo Nordisk CEO To Step Down Following Brutal Bear Market

• "Big Miss": Wall Street Disappointed After Dismal Novo Nordisk GLP-1 Sales Outlook, Shares Plunge

• GLP-1 Feud: HIMS Fires Back At Novo Nordisk, Slams Lawsuit As "Blatant Attack" By Big Pharma

• GLP-1 Anti-Obesity U.S. Drug Market In Four Charts

Bloomberg data shows 17 "Buy" ratings, 14 "Hold" ratings, and 3 "Sell" ratings on Novo. The average 12-month price target among Wall Street analysts is 353 kroner.

How many Goldman clients are furious with Quigley's Novo coverage?

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 09:25

Obama's 'Gift' Sticks Taxpayers With $200M+ Bill As Chicago Hides True Costs Of Presidential Library

When former President Barack Obama announced plans for his presidential center on Chicago’s South Side, he described it as a privately funded investment in the city that would give back to the community that shaped his political career.

Former President Barack Obama is pictured next to construction of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, a project facing delays, soaring costs and mounting scrutiny over its finances. (Scott Olson/Getty Images; Reuters/Vincent Alban) via Fox News

And while construction of the brutalist eyesore itself remains privately financed through the Obama Foundation, taxpayers are footing the bill for massive infrastructure costs. 

A review by Fox News found that state and city agencies have not produced a unified accounting of total public expenditures tied to the project’s surrounding infrastructure. While individual agencies have disclosed partial figures, no single office has reconciled those totals or clarified how they overlap.

At the time the project was approved in 2018, public infrastructure costs were projected at roughly $350 million, to be split between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Those estimates covered roadway modifications, utility relocations and related improvements necessary to accommodate the 19.3-acre campus in Jackson Park that nobody asked for. 

In July, the Illinois Department of Transportation said that approximately $229 million in state-managed infrastructure spending had been committed to the project. That total includes about $19 million for preliminary engineering, $24 million for construction engineering and $186 million for construction activities. A department spokesperson described the earlier $174 million figure as a preliminary 2017 estimate.

Now, Chicago’s most recent 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Plan lists more than $206 million allocated to roadway and utility work associated with the project. However, much of that funding is labeled as “state,” and neither state nor city officials have clarified how the figures relate to one another or whether they represent overlapping commitments.

A map graphic shows the footprint of the Obama Presidential Center inside Jackson Park on Chicago’s South Side along Lake Michigan. (Fox News)

Fox submitted records requests to several agencies, including the Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago’s Department of Transportation, the city’s Office of Budget and Management, the mayor’s office and Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration - yet, not one provided a consolidated, up-to-date accounting of total public infrastructure spending. The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor is reviewing whether agencies complied with state transparency laws in responding to the requests.

The Obama Foundation defended the project, reiterating that the center’s construction - whose cost has grown from early projections of roughly $330 million to at least $850 million, according to its 2024 tax filings - is being financed by private donations. In a statement to Fox, foundation spox Emily Bittner said the organization is “investing $850 million in private funding to build the Obama Presidential Center and give back to the community that made the Obamas’ story possible,” adding that the project is intended to catalyze economic opportunity on the South Side. Bittner, of course, didn't address the infrastructure costs - which have been extensive. 

Chicago’s 2024–2028 Capital Improvement Program lists $206,078,058 for "Obama Presidential Center & Jackson Park – Infrastructure Improvements," with most funding labeled as state sources. (City of Chicago Capital Improvement Program)

Cornell Drive, a four-lane roadway along the eastern edge of Jackson Park, was removed and traffic rerouted farther west. Utilities, including water mains and sewer lines, were relocated, and new drainage systems were installed. City and state officials have said the changes were necessary to manage anticipated traffic and visitor demand.

The center occupies 19 acres of public parkland transferred under a 99-year agreement for $10, a decision that prompted legal challenges arguing that the arrangement was not in the public interest. Courts ultimately dismissed those lawsuits.

Though often described as a presidential library, the Chicago complex will not function as a traditional library operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. Former President Obama’s official records will be maintained by the federal government at a facility in Maryland, while the Chicago site will be operated privately by the Obama Foundation.

The foundation also pledged to establish a $470 million endowment intended to protect taxpayers in the event the project encounters financial difficulty. According to previous reporting by Fox News, that fund has received $1 million in deposits.

Who didn't see this coming?

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 07:45

Travel Chaos Erupts In US East As Blizzard Slams Major Cities

Blizzard conditions are expected from Delaware into southern New England, and travel will be "extremely treacherous" to "nearly impossible" today, according to the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center.

Expect travel delays along the I-95 corridor, as well as flight cancellations at airports from the Mid-Atlantic to the Northeast.

Nearly 5,600 flights in, out, or within the US were cancelled at the start of the week, according to flight-tracking website FlightAware.

Travel nightmare for Republic Airways, JetBlue, Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, and United early Monday morning, with the bulk of the cancellations affecting these airlines.

Airports in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia, Boston, Newark, and Philadelphia, experienced the highest number of cancellations and delays.

Here's a map of the flight misery as of 0630 ET.

The heaviest snowfall, as much as two feet in some locations across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas, fell in the overnight hours and will continue into the morning, NWS warned in the most recent update.

Besides the unfolding travel chaos, nearly a quarter million customers are without power this morning because of the blizzard conditions, with a large percentage of the outages concentrated from Delaware to New Jersey.

Over a quarter million people are waking up this morning without power in the Northeast due to blizzard conditions.

Over 15" of snow has fallen in some locations and 50-60+ MPH gusts have been recorded along the coast.

Snow and strong winds continue today. pic.twitter.com/RKS693uskf

— BAM Weather (@bam_weather) February 23, 2026

Anyone planning to travel into NYC or out of it, well, forget about it, because Mayor Zohran Mamdani declared a state of emergency and closed streets, highways, and bridges to most traffic from late Sunday through Monday afternoon. His collective army of snow shovelers will save the day.

"These are blizzard conditions. New York City has not faced a storm of this scale in the last decade," Mamdani said. "We have activated additional high-water rescue teams should flooding grow dire."

How do the blizzard and winter blast compute in the minds of Mamdani's followers after years of being brainwashed about the global warming crisis?

Meteorologist Ryan Maue looks ahead: 

That monstrous Greenland "polar vortex" cold pool is the "Final Boss" ... goes toward Alaska in a week.

Then it heads Southeast into the Lower 48 to crash into the Great Lakes and Northeast by Day 12 (March 6th) ... from ECMWF HRES 00z

Coldest of winter in March! pic.twitter.com/xJ9vFXrX1i

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) February 23, 2026

Winter isn't over. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 07:20

Alberta And Switzerland To Vote On Immigration Control Amid Growing Backlash

As the world watches unchecked immigration fundamentally transform the West, a growing backlash has gained a foothold - and it's made it to the ballot box.

In Alberta, Canada, Premier Danielle Smith announced a referendum this fall to decide whether the province should limit the number of new international, temporary foreign workers and asylum seekers - as Alberta seeks to take charge of the issue amid a surge of proud Canadians who do not embrace change. 

As Reuters notes; 

The move, announced by Premier Danielle Smith in a televised address on Thursday evening, represents an attempt by Alberta to wrest control of a key issue from the federal government. Immigration policy in Canada is primarily the responsibility of Ottawa, not the provinces.

It is also an attempt by Smith to ward off a simmering Alberta separatism movement, which has threatened Canadian unity as Prime Minister Mark Carney makes efforts to improve relations with western, resource-rich provinces in the face of economic challenges posed by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy.

Giving citizens a say on immigration policy is the government's way of giving Albertans hope that the Canadian federation can work, Smith told reporters on Friday.

Smith has also blamed Alberta's financial woes on immigrants - noting that a surge of over 600,000 migrants over the past five years, putting Alberta's population over 5 million in 2025 - has put a strain on provincial resources.

"Throwing the doors wide open to anyone and everyone across the globe has flooded our classrooms, emergency rooms and social support systems with far too many people, far too quickly," she said. 

Pissed Swiss Want Population Cap

Meanwhile in Switzerland, a landmark vote is set for June 14 that would cap the nation's population at 10 million from its current 9.1 million. 

The proposal has been put forth by the country's largest political coalition, the Swiss People's Party (SVP), and would require the government to refuse entry to all migrants - including those 'asylum' seekers who go home to party when the weather is nice. 

Hitting 10 million residents would also force Switzerland to end its free-movement agreement with the EU. Of note, the EU and Switzerland are integrated through more than 120 bilateral agreements, which grants it access to the EU single market and the free movement of people and trade in goods, CNN reports.

SVP argues that Switzerland is undergoing a 'population explosion,' that is straining resources and infrastructure, and inflating rents. 

According to a 2025 poll by Swiss-based polling firm Leewas, the proposal has wide support. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 06:55

CIA Admits There Was Political Bias In Obama-Era Intelligence

For years, anyone who questioned whether Washington’s intelligence machinery tilted left was told they were peddling conspiracies. That narrative fell apart on Friday, when CIA Director John Ratcliffe ordered the official retraction or major revision of nineteen intelligence products produced during the Obama years, citing political bias and substandard analytic tradecraft. It’s the first official acknowledgment that America’s most powerful spy agency let politics color its assessments.

"The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned," Director Ratcliffe said in a statement. "There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record. These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis. Our recent successes in Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE and Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER exemplify our dedication to analytic excellence.”

The bombshell came after the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) completed an independent review of hundreds of finished CIA reports spanning the past decade. This period includes Barack Obama’s second term and the Russian collusion hoax.

The PIAB identified nineteen intelligence products that “failed to be independent of political consideration.” Deputy Director Michael Ellis led an internal review that confirmed the findings. Ratcliffe’s response was swift and blunt. “The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” he said. “There is absolutely no room for bias in our work… These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis.”

That’s a rather diplomatic way of saying that Barack Obama’s CIA got caught red-handed playing politics. The agency admitted that at least some of its Obama-era intelligence relied on questionable sourcing, including political activist groups. One report even drew on material from Planned Parenthood, something one official described as “clearly not an appropriate use of CIA resources.” For an organization that prides itself on independence and tradecraft, that revelation is a true humiliation.

CANCELLED: 19 @CIA intelligence products officially retracted over “inappropriate insertion of DEI issues" and failure to meet "objectivity" standards, per senior CIA official.@CIADirector Ratcliffe ordered the removal of 17 intelligence products from CIA databases + 2 reports… pic.twitter.com/UdaHp6S8Gh

— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) February 20, 2026

The implications stretch far beyond nineteen flawed reports. The time frame under review encompasses the same period that produced the now infamous 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the document commissioned in the last days of the Obama administration and released just before Donald Trump’s inauguration, alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election. 

That assessment relied heavily on the debunked Steele Dossier and cast a dark cloud over President Trump’s first term, giving Democrats cover to claim Trump was an illegitimate president.

If nearly twenty reports from that same era failed to meet analytic standards due to political bias, the question is no longer whether the intelligence community was politicized; it’s how deep the rot went.

However, Democrats clearly aren’t convinced.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dismissed the retractions, insisting that “the strength of the Intelligence Community has always depended on its ability to deliver objective, apolitical analysis, grounded in rigorous tradecraft and insulated from political pressure.” He emphasized that such judgments “must be made by intelligence professionals and not subject to politics.”

Warner warned that when politically appointed bodies “appear to be dictating what analysis is acceptable, it risks eroding confidence in the objectivity of our intelligence.” He described the CIA’s action as part of a “broader and deeply troubling pattern in this administration: sidelining career experts, undermining inconvenient intelligence assessments, and allowing political considerations to override professional judgment.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, however, welcomed the retractions. “The Obama and Biden administrations mixed intelligence analysis and politics far too often,” Cotton said in a post on X. “I commend Director Ratcliffe for correcting the record and ensuring that the CIA’s analysis is free of any political bias.”

He added, “I’ve been sending these kind of reports back to the CIA for years and observing that they contain no intelligence. Our intelligence agencies have too often missed critical national-security developments to waste time on, for instance, how ‘pandemic-related contraceptive shortfalls threaten economic development.’ Honestly.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 05:45

Renewables Now Make Up 1/4 Of US Electricity Generation

In 2025, the share of renewables in U.S. electricity generation has surpassed 25 percent.

Over the course of the past 20 years, their share has continuously risen from just 8.6 percent in 2007.

At the same time, as Statista's Kathraina Buchholz details in the infographic below, coal in electricity generation fell from a share of 49 percent to just 16.4 percent last year.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While Trump administration's policies regarding renewable energy and greenhouse gases have yet to show their full effect, experts believe that the sector's strong growth as well as efficiency and cost improvements will cause it to expand further – albeit slower – despite some government funding losses and the end of emission limits.

In 2022, more electricity was generated from renewable sources in the U.S. for the first time over the course of one year than from coal.

That year, renewable energy sources created more than 900 terawatt-hours of electric power in the country compared to a little over 800 that came from coal.

On a global scale, this change happened last year as renewables outweighed coal electricity generation in the second half of 2025.

Up until 2007, coal accounted for more than 2,000 terawatt hours of electricity in the U.S. before the figure started to declined as regulations around fossil fuels - limits on carbon-intensity and the emissions of toxic elements like mercury - tightened. Electricity generation from natural gas gained pace as a result since it produces somewhat less CO2. To reach the emission goals associated with the net zero age, however, the U.S. would have to continue growing carbon-neutral electricity sources like wind and solar, which have been on a steady upwards climb in the new millennium and are now the second biggest source of electric power in the country.

Looking not only at electricity but energy use as a whole, renewables have a longer way to go in the U.S. and globally.

Here, renewable energy made up only 9 percent in 2023 as energy sources outside of electricity - most notably petroleum in the form of gasoline - are added to the mix.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 04:15

The Baltic States Plan To Form Their Own "Military Schengen"

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

This will one day link with the existing “military Schengen” between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland, which Belgium and France plan to join, for creating a contiguous zone of free military movement between the Pyrenees and the approach to St. Petersburg.

The Baltic States’ Defense Ministers signed a statement of intent in late January for forming their own “military Schengen”, which refers to the agreement signed two years ago in January 2024 between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland for expediting the flow of troops and equipment. Belgium and France are also expected to join the original “military Schengen”, whose members aim to slash to 3-5 days the estimated 45 days that it currently takes to send the aforesaid from the Atlantic to the Eastern Flank.

Upon their modernization, both in terms of infrastructure and legal coordination, the two “military Schengens” will form a contiguous zone of free military movement between the Pyrenees and the approach to St. Petersburg. To be sure, this is a work in progress that won’t be completed anytime soon, especially its Baltic portion. Poland only just opened the portion of the “Via Baltica” highway between itself and Lithuania, while the “Rail Baltica” between them and Estonia is even further behind schedule.

Nevertheless, the unmistakable trend is that NATO is optimizing its military logistics, particularly along its Eastern Flank whose members agreed to turbocharge their militarization during mid-December’s inaugural summit. In connection with that, readers also shouldn’t forget that the Baltic States and Poland are building something called the “EU Defense Line”, which combines the first’s “Baltic Defense Line” and the second’s “East Shield” into what’s de facto a new Iron Curtain that’ll include anti-personnel mines.

This Baltic Front of the New Cold War between NATO and Russia relies heavily on Poland, which already has the EU’s largest military and the third-largest in NATO, with plans to expand from 215,000 troops to 300,000 by 2030 then half a million by 2039 (200,000 of whom will be reservists). Both the Via and Rail Baltica megaprojects, which are the regional flagships of the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, will connect Poland to Latvia’s and Estonia’s borders with Russia for rapid force deployment in a crisis.

The involvement of the EU’s largest military in any such NATO-Russian crisis would inevitably drag the rest of those two overlapping blocs in any whatever war might then follow in the worst-case scenario. If the Baltic States hadn’t agreed to form their own “military Schengen”, and if the associated “Baltica” logistical projects weren’t being built, then potential border incidents could be more easily manageable. Instead, they’d likely result in a speedy deployment of Polish troops, thus escalating matters into a crisis.

Moving beyond the military significance of this recent development and into its political significance, Poland is clearly establishing a sphere of influence over the Baltic States, which is actually a return to history.

Casual observers probably aren’t aware, but the Warsaw-led Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth once stretched as far north as southern Estonia and even controlled parts of Latvia for centuries till the Third Partition in 1795. This is part of Poland’s plan to revive its long-lost Great Power status.

The overarching trend is that Poland is preparing to lead Russia’s containment along the Baltic Front, which could also place more pressure upon Kaliningrad (which borders Poland and Lithuania) and Belarus (which borders Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia).

The eventual merger of these two “military Schengens” could embolden Poland to more actively, even aggressively, contain Russia by ensuring that back-up would speedily arrive from the EU hinterland or even the US homeland in the event of a crisis.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 03:30

Saudis Lead Arab Fury After Huckabee Floats 'Greater Israel' Vision

Blowback was swift across the Arab world after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee declared it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East, words featured in a Tucker Carlson interview from Jerusalem published days ago.

Governments from Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman issued statements condemning the comments, joined by both the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League - a rare moment of quick unity for these countries.

Tehran Times

In a joint statement they "express[ed] their strong condemnation and profound concern regarding the statements made by the United States Ambassador to Israel, in which he indicated that it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab states, including the occupied West Bank."

Most notably close American ally Saudi Arabia was among the first to blast Huckabee's provocative statement and perspective. Saudi Arabia called it "reckless" and "irresponsible".

Jordan too in a rare moment lashed out at Washington:

“The official spokesperson for the ministry, Ambassador Fuad Al-Majali, rejected these absurd and provocative statements, which constitute a violation of diplomatic norms, an assault on the sovereignty of the countries of the region, and a flagrant breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” the ministry said in a sharply worded response.

Asked whether a passage from the Book of Genesis could be read as granting Israel the right to claim all the land between Egypt's Nile River and Syria's Euphrates, Huckabee didn't hedge. He bluntly and without apology said it would be "fine" if Israel and its military took over the whole Middle East. 

"It would be fine if they took it all," Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist Minister and previously the governor of Arkansas made clear. This led to a wide ranging conversation and back and forth over whether the modern nation-state of Israel, officially founded as a sovereign government on May 14, 1948, is synonymous with the Israel written about in the Old Testament, stretching back thousands of years.

Here's how that contentious segment of the interview unfolded, according to a transcript and commentary: 

Huckabee was asked in an interview with US conservative commentator Tucker Carlson about his understanding of a biblical verse suggesting that land including parts of Egypt, Syria and Iraq had been divinely promised to the Jewish people.

Carlson said that according to the Old Testament, the boundaries would be “basically the entire Middle East.”

He continued: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“Not sure we’d go that far,” Huckabee said in reply. “It would be a big piece of land.”

Carlson then pressed him: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee responded, before adding, “I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”

Carlson asked: “You think it would be fine if the state of Israel took over all of Jordan?”

BREAKING: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson that Israel has the Biblical right to take over all of the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all.” pic.twitter.com/BN4fXh03ga

— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 20, 2026

That's when Amb. Huckabee must have realized he was entering some hot diplomatic water, which would be sure to outrage Washington's Arab allies in the region. And indeed condemnation from Middle East leaders has been swift, but it will probably just stop there - though some could pull their support for anti-Iran operations.

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

Trump Declares War On Euro Censorship

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats.

The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts.

A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.

Exclusive: The US State Department is developing an online portal to enable people in Europe and elsewhere to see content banned by their governments including alleged hate speech and terrorist propaganda, sources told Reuters https://t.co/IPFDgr54bz

— Reuters (@Reuters) February 18, 2026

The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety.

The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months.

Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.”

A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.”

Le département d'État américain vient de développer un portail en ligne qui permettra aux citoyens de l'Union Européenne de consulter des contenus censurés par leur gouvernement ! https://t.co/fQR6DcSL2F

Le site sera hébergé sur https://t.co/nS7pRHk4Hx
Ils envisagent… pic.twitter.com/7iXrx4fdt2

— Luc Côté (@lucquebec) February 19, 2026

In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.

This puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. 

This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own.

In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. 

Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

How will this be policed? That’s right, by making everyone prove their age to use the internet with a digital ID. How about letting parents decide what their kids have access to? https://t.co/AqnyPnGAxS

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 16, 2026

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.”

“There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge.

This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed. 

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.”

It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. 

Sources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

The far left Spanish government has also openly announced its intention to outright ban X in recent weeks

French PM Emmanuel Macron also referred to free speech as “pure bullshit” this week.

Macron: “Free speech is complete bullshit”

The mask has come off. Anyone surprised?

pic.twitter.com/kmF18k0juS

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 18, 2026

These countries are in lockstep with the EU which is waging a censorship war against the free internet, particularly X.

Trump is using other means of fighting EU censorship simultaneously.

The Eurocrats have vowed to push back.

Freedom.Gov revives Cold War tactics against modern tyrants, reminding Starmer and EU elites that globalists can’t firewall the truth.

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

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

Trump 2.0's Grand Strategy Against China Is Slowly But Surely Coming Together

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Casual observers are convinced that Trump is a madman with no method behind his madness, but the reality is that he and his team – collectively known as Trump 2.0 – are slowly but surely implementing their grand strategy against China.

Every one of their moves abroad should be seen as a means to this end.

They want to comprehensively contain China and then coerce it into a lopsided trade deal that “rebalance[s] China’s economy toward household consumption” per the National Security Strategy.

Trump 2.0 doesn’t want to go to war over this, however, which is why they’re careful to avoid replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent.

Piling too much economic-structural pressure on China at once could spook it into lashing out in desperation before the window of opportunity closes. They therefore decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.

The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure against Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise. The combined effect thus far is already placing immense pressure upon China to cut a deal with the US.

This is the grand strategic context within which Russia’s talks with the US and Ukraine are taking place.

It too is coming under immense pressure after Trump 2.0 unexpectedly (from their view) perpetuated the proxy war in Ukraine, pioneered a breakthrough to Central Asia through last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” across the South Caucasus, and got India to curtail its oil imports.

Russia must now decide whether to cut its own deal with the US or become more dependent on China.

• The first scenario could include a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US in exchange for compromising on its maximalist goals in Ukraine, which could deprive China of access to the deposits that the US invests in as explained here.

• As for the second scenario, Russia could continue its special operation indefinitely with growing Chinese support in exchange for China receiving unrestricted access to its resources at bargain-basement prices, thus greatly helping China prepare for war with the US.

Framed in this way, reaching a deal with Russia could facilitate China’s strategic surrender to the US without spiking the risk of war, while failing to do so could spike the risk of war if Russia turns itself into China’s raw materials reserve for the aforesaid reason and with the same outcome vis-à-vis the US.

This imbues Putin with leverage vis-à-vis Trump 2.0, but they’re also not desperate to reach a deal with Putin at any cost, ergo why they haven’t coerced Zelensky into his demanded concessions and might never.

If Trump 2.0 can’t cut a deal with Putin, then they’ll prepare for war with China, which their National Defense Strategy envisages given its explicitly declared World War-like military build-up.

Be that as it may, replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent in that case dangerously risks a 21st-century Pearl Harbor, thus imperiling their planned restoration of unipolarity.

It’s therefore better for Trump 2.0 to coerce Zelensky into giving Putin what he wants in order to continue peacefully containing China instead.

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

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

AWS Engineers Allowed An AI Tool to Act...Then The Cloud Unit Went Down

Amazon’s cloud arm has experienced two recent service disruptions tied to the use of its own AI-powered coding systems, stirring debate inside the company over how quickly such tools should be rolled out, according to FT.

One incident in mid-December led to a 13-hour interruption affecting a tool customers use to analyse AWS spending. Engineers had permitted the Kiro coding assistant to implement changes, and the system determined the fix was to “delete and recreate the environment.” An internal review later characterized the episode as an “outage.”

Staff familiar with the events said it marked the second time in a matter of months that an AI tool played a central role in a production issue. “We’ve already seen at least two production outages [in the past few months],” said one senior AWS employee. “The engineers let the AI [agent] resolve an issue without intervention. The outages were small but entirely foreseeable.”

AWS, which accounts for the majority of Amazon’s operating income, is investing heavily in AI systems that can act independently on human instructions and hopes to market them to customers. The episodes have highlighted the potential downsides of granting such tools significant autonomy.

FT writes that Amazon pushed back on suggestions that the technology was to blame, describing it as a “coincidence that AI tools were involved” and arguing that “the same issue could occur with any developer tool or manual action.” The company added: “In both instances, this was user error, not AI error,” and said it had found no indication that AI increases the likelihood of mistakes.

According to Amazon, the December event was an “extremely limited event” affecting a single service in parts of mainland China, while the other disruption did not touch any “customer facing AWS service.” Both were far smaller than a separate 15-hour AWS outage in October 2025 that disrupted customers including OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Kiro, introduced in July, was promoted as moving beyond “vibe coding” to generate software from structured specifications. After the December incident, Amazon said it added tighter controls, such as required peer reviews and additional training, while maintaining that customer uptake of its AI coding products remains strong.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 23:00