Zero Hedge

America's New "Value Menu" Economy Should Worry You

America's New "Value Menu" Economy Should Worry You

Authored by Peter Reagan,

The hottest restaurant items of 2025 aren’t gourmet burgers – they’re value meals. When eating out turns into a budgeting exercise, it reveals something deeper about inflation, the rising cost of living and the quiet erosion of our quality of life…

Restaurants have been a constant of human life for centuries, from roadside taverns serving weary travelers to dining rooms built to impress the wealthy.

Every city, town, and village has one. Even places too small for a post office usually have somewhere to eat.

Today, restaurants are so ubiquitous that many towns have at least one drive-through, letting people grab a meal without leaving their car and eat it on the way back to work.

Because the industry is everywhere (and fiercely competitive), restaurants are always searching for the next angle to pull people through the door and persuade them to spend.

That’s why chains closely track which menu items sell best.

What’s surprising isn’t that they do this. No, it’s what those top-selling items are in 2025.

The hot new trend: Reading menus from right to left

Often, what’s “hot” especially in fancy restaurants is exotic, disgusting, gross or just plain expensive. I once watched an episode of Bizarre Foods where Andrew Zimmern ate a cobra heart. I’ve seen restaurants in LA that serve desserts covered in gold foil (I didn’t order one).

Well, it seems that, at least for now, those days are behind us. According to Amelia Lucas with CNBC, the hottest menu items for 2025 are “value” items. That’s right, budget foods, the ones that cost less or give more calories for your buck, those were the hottest items year-round.

This trend may explain why McDonald’s no longer carries a gourmet burger (which I thought was surprisingly good). Well, it wasn’t a budget product, so it had to go.

And McDonald’s isn’t the only chain cutting down to the bare budget basics. Not by a long shot.

And I bet you can guess why restaurant chains are focusing on the low end of their pricing spectrum. Lucas tells us that “diners, particularly those who make less than $40,000 a year, have been eating out less frequently and spending less money when they do.”

In fact, according to Lauren Clifford at Lending Tree, 85% of Americans surveyed said that they have changed “their dining out habits.” Nearly three out of five said they’re eating out less often.

They just can’t afford it. And when they do eat out, they order off the value menu.

One way of describing it that I found interesting: They read restaurant menus from right to left, checking the price to see if they can afford something before even checking to see if they actually want to eat it. If you’ve ever tried to impress someone by taking them to a restaurant you couldn’t afford, then you’ve probably done this yourself… I know I have. But now people are doing this all the time.

Eating out, which used to be an affordable reward at the end of a long work week, a small luxury that most Americans could enjoy? No longer. Most families can’t afford the temporary respite from cooking dinner for the family and cleaning up the kitchen afterwards.

Now, it’s an exercise in budgeting to even see if they can afford to eat at that restaurant.

Life on the value side

It probably comes as no surprise that more and more people are choosing to eat at home more often than eating out. Sure, Dave Ramsey may be proud of them for doing that, but that’s little consolation when it’s not a choice but a necessity.

The change in how Americans are eating doesn’t stop at the move to focusing on value menu items and eating out less. It is also affecting how people are eating at home. Clifford notes that nearly nine out of ten Americans surveyed “are changing the way they shop to fight inflated grocery bills.” And over 60% of those surveyed said they were stressed about the possibility of not being able to buy enough groceries within the month before the survey.

That’s just appalling. How many mothers and fathers does that include who are scared that they won’t be able to feed junior and their precious little girl? Worse still, earlier this month I read that a shocking 60% of families report skipping meals to save money. Nearly half have delayed payments on such essential expenses as utilities and rent.

Back in November, a survey found that 1 in 5 Americans said they’d taken out a loan to pay bills or rent. (And almost half said they weren’t sure they could pay it back.)

People working hard now are having difficulty making ends meet, and people who’ve worked hard their entire lives are scared that they may have to just stop eating until their next check comes in.

I’m not telling you all this so we can just wring our hands about how much these people are suffering. Or so we can tut-tut and shake our heads and judge them for failing financially.

This trend is important for two reasons.

  • First, the big-picture, macroeconomic reason: Consumer spending makes up 2/3 of total GDP. When families cut back spending, it’s bad news for the economy. Often a sign of imminent recession.

  • Second, the small-picture, microeconomic reason: When we see bad things happen to others, it’s natural to ask how we can avoid such fates. So what can we do?

Failing to plan is planning to fail

It’s a scary situation to find yourself in if you have children and grandchildren to feed, especially if you’re retired, depending on a fixed income. Finding yourself in a situation in which you struggle to make the most basic purchases to maintain your standard of living (not even luxury) isn’t just stressful. It’s humiliating.

Most families aren’t in that situation because they weren’t willing to work hard. They aren’t in this position because they avoided responsibility, or made bad decisions. Most of them followed a conventional path. They just never realized how much inflation could quietly erode their purchasing power over time.

They’re struggling because no one ever taught them how inflation compounds over years and decades. Or how important it is to plan for rising prices, how futile it is to think about future spending in today’s dollars. And that blind spot is catching up with them today.

Sadly, many more Americans will likely find themselves in the same situation, struggling with basic expenses, because they never took steps to ensure a comfortable retirement. They never learned that one of the biggest pillars of a stable financial future is making sure that your savings can endure the inflation that never goes away.

You, however, are different. You’re seeing a first-hand example of how failing to plan for the future is planning to fail in the future. Hopefully it’s not too late to correct this trajectory. You can take action right now to secure your purchasing power by diversifying with inflation-resistant stores of wealth.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/03/2026 - 11:40

Democrats Now Claim They Are The "Real" American Patriots

Democrats Now Claim They Are The "Real" American Patriots

Leftists have never understood the phrase "If you can't beat em', join em'".  Instead, they believe that if they can't defeat their political opponents in terms of logic, reason, morals, facts or the law, then their next best bet is to co-opt the enemy's message and image without actually adopting their values..

Voters witnessed the first tinges of this strategy in 2024 when Kamala Harris claimed her campaign wasn't woke (after years of saying Americans needed to be more woke) and Tim Walz pretended to be manly by talking about football and masculinity without knowing anything about either subject.  

In 2025 going into 2026, however, the Democrats are taking their Talented Mr. Ripley routine to the next level. They don't just want to compete with conservative messages, they are trying to steal the conservative identity by proclaiming themselves to be the "real" American patriots.

The new activist narrative (largely organized and funded by NGOs) runs with 1776 symbolism, claims that the US military is really on their side, argues that they are the true guardians of the constitution and that their revolution is one that the Founding Fathers would applaud.  

In tandem with the "No Kings" protests, Dems like Jasmine Crockett argued that MAGA is "unpatriotic" and anti-constitution.  She believes Democrats are the true patriots and that they are the barrier protecting Americans from "fascism."    

This theme has led to a number of protests which have abandoned woke symbols in favor of a carefully crafted "pro-America" costume. The theatrics often revolve around mass deportations of illegal aliens and lead to hilariously misguided grandstanding.

In a bizarre twist, leftists are proclaiming their patriotism by actively aiding a foreign invasion of the US. Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries co-opted the words of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant as a strange justification for Democrat driven civil unrest, noting that "There are but two parties in America right now, patriots and traitors..." (conservatives, in his version of reality, being the traitors).  

Keep in mind, Democrat activists are the same people who have been celebrating the deconstruction of western culture for years and assert that the constitution is meaningless because it was "written by slave owners."

In 2022 at the height of their pandemic frenzy, Democrats in blue states and blue cities widely supported a flurry of freedom crushing mandates and pushed hard for the creation of a vaccine passport system which would effectively destroy the Bill of Rights by taking away citizen access to the economy if they refused to be injected with an experimental jab.

That same year, a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey found that 48% of voters favored President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies.  The same survey showed that a disturbing number of Democrats also supported "Chinese-style" punishments for people who refused to take the jab.

Around 55% of Democrat voters were in favor of government enforced fines for the unvaccinated.  Nearly 60% supported forced home confinement for the unvaccinated.  48% of Democrats were in favor of fines and prison time for anyone who publicly questioned the efficacy of the vaccines.  Around 45% of Democrats supported the idea of confining the unvaccinated to "designated facilities" (covid camps) until they complied.  47% of Democrats favored the use of digital tracking for the unvaccinated.

Around 30% of progressive voters suggested taking children away from parents who refused to vaccinate.  The Biden Administration and Democrats were exposed for violating constitutional law in their efforts to pressure social media companies to silence and censor conservative critics of covid policies (among other things). 

Anyone who stood against the mandates was accused of being a threat to democracy and a potential terrorist.  The Democrats initiated a propaganda war against US patriots; a war which they ultimately lost.  Now, they want you to forget all about their many trespasses and accept their new image as "freedom fighters" saving the country from Trump's tyrannical policies...which the majority of Americans voted for.   

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/03/2026 - 11:05

Maduro And His Wife Indicted In US Federal Court; To "Finally... Face Justice For His Crimes"

Maduro And His Wife Indicted In US Federal Court; To "Finally... Face Justice For His Crimes"

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were indicted in the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced early on Jan. 3.

“Nicolás Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States,” Bondi said on X.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.”

Bondi issued the statement hours after Maduro and Flores were captured and extracted by U.S. armed forces in Caracas in the early hours of Jan. 3.

“On behalf of the entire U.S. DOJ, I would like to thank President [Donald] Trump for having the courage to demand accountability on behalf of the American People, and a huge thank you to our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers.”

Bondi’s announcement follows statements made by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who said he was told by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the strike on Venezuela’s capital was a means to protect law enforcement as they carried out an arrest warrant for Maduro.

Lee added that Rubio also told him that Maduro was “arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States.”

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau also emphasized that Maduro was expected to face legal action.

“The tyrant is gone,” Landau said on social media.

“He will now—finally—face justice for his crimes.”

In 2020, Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials were charged with narco-terrorism, corruption, drug trafficking and other charges in New York City, Miami, and Washington, D.C.

“The scope and magnitude of the drug trafficking alleged was made possible only because Maduro and others corrupted the institutions of Venezuela and provided political and military protection for the rampant narco-terrorism crimes described in our charges,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in the 2020 press release.

“As alleged, Maduro and the other defendants expressly intended to flood the United States with cocaine in order to undermine the health and wellbeing of our nation. Maduro very deliberately deployed cocaine as a weapon.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Justice to clarify whether Bondi was referring to this 2020 indictment or not.

As Jonathan Turley reports, this operation will be justified as executing the criminal warrant and responding to an international drug cartel, a very similar legal framework to the one used against Noriega in 1989. There is precedent supporting that earlier operation, which will now be used to defend the actions in Venezuela.

Here is part of the earlier description from the Justice Department of the indicted conduct:

“Maduro helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials. As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.  Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns. In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.”

Ordinarily, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other international agreements require the United States to notify the embassy of a foreign national arrested and held in the United States. Notice seems a tad superfluous in this case.

In his appeal, Noriega argued that his arrest violated international law under the head-of-state immunity doctrine.  The district court rejected Noriega’s head-of-state immunity claim because the United States government never recognized Noriega as Panama’s legitimate ruler — an argument that will be made in the Maduro prosecution.

The United States for the Eleventh Circuit also rejected the immunity claim.

Noriega also argued that his capture violated the Treaty Providing for the Extradition of Criminals, May 25, 1904, United States of America-Republic of Panama, 34 Stat. 2851 (“U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty”). The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), however, was found to bar this argument. The issue was whether he was abducted to the United States with a superseding extradition treaty. The Eleventh Circuit held:

The article of the U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty upon which Noriega relies for his extradition treaty claim contains almost the same language as the provision of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty at issue in Alvarez-Machain. See U.S.-Panama Extradition Treaty, art. 5 (“Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizen or subject ․”)…

Under Alvarez-Machain, to prevail on an extradition treaty claim, a defendant must demonstrate, by reference to the express language of a treaty and/or the established practice thereunder, that the United States affirmatively agreed not to seize foreign nationals from the territory of its treaty partner. Noriega has not carried this burden, and therefore, his claim fails.

The Noriega case offers ample support for the Trump Administration, which has had an outstanding arrest warrant for over five years. He is not viewed as the duly elected leader of Venezuela and has been tied to a criminal drug cartel.

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

America's Low-Wage Workers Aren't All High-School Dropouts

America's Low-Wage Workers Aren't All High-School Dropouts

Despite a strong labor market and rising nominal wages, there are still millions of people taking home less than $20 per hour on average.

Education plays a major role in determining earnings, but it does not guarantee high wages—or even employment.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows the share and number of U.S. low-wage workers earning less than $20 per hour by education level, using data from the Economic Policy Institute as of July 2025.

Low-Wage Work Is Concentrated Among Less-Educated Workers

Workers without a high school diploma face the greatest exposure to low wages. Roughly two-thirds of this group—about 6.9 million people—earn less than $20 per hour, reflecting limited access to higher-paying occupations and fewer opportunities for advancement.

The table below breaks down low-wage workers by education level:

Among workers whose highest education is a high school diploma, 43% earn under $20 per hour. This group represents the largest number of low-wage workers overall, totaling nearly 15.9 million people.

Even some college education offers only partial protection. More than one-third of workers with some college (but no completed degree) earn below the $20 threshold, amounting to 12.9 million workers.

College Degrees Don’t Eliminate Low Wages

Higher education significantly lowers the likelihood of earning under $20 per hour, but it does not eliminate it. About 12% of workers with a college or advanced degree, roughly 7.2 million people, still fall below this pay level.

Overall, while education remains one of the strongest determinants of earnings, income outcomes depend on various factors, including industry mix, regional costs of living, and labor market conditions.

If you found this interesting, explore more labor market and income visuals on Voronoi, including U.S. States With the Most Low-Wage Workers.

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

How Global Economic Power Has Shifted Over The Past 45 Years

How Global Economic Power Has Shifted Over The Past 45 Years

Over the past four decades, the global economic hierarchy has undergone profound change.

Some economies have grown steadily, others have surged, and a few have slipped down the rankings as new players emerged.

In the following visualization, Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte charts the world’s top economies from 1980 to 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (October 2025). GDP figures are measured in current U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.

The United States Remains on Top

Since 1980, the United States has consistently ranked as the world’s largest economy. Its GDP rose from about $2.9 trillion in 1980 to more than $30.6 trillion by 2025. While its global share has fluctuated, the U.S. has maintained its lead due to a large domestic market, deep capital markets, and sustained productivity growth.

China represents the most dramatic structural change in the global economy over the past 45 years.

In 1980, it ranked outside the top five, with GDP just over $300 billion. By 2010, China had already surpassed Germany and Japan, and by 2025 it stands firmly as the world’s second-largest economy at nearly $19.4 trillion.

Japan dominated the global economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, briefly narrowing the gap with the United States. However, slower growth and demographic headwinds caused it to lose ground, falling to fourth place by 2025.

Europe’s largest economies—Germany, the United Kingdom, and France—have remained among the top 10.

Emerging Markets Gain Ground

Beyond China, several emerging economies climbed into the top ranks. India’s GDP expanded from under $200 billion in 1980 to more than $4.1 trillion in 2025, placing it among the world’s five largest economies.

Outside of the top 10, countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and Türkiye have also moved up the rankings, reflecting faster growth than many advanced economies over the long run.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Global GDP Growth Projections in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

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

Germany's Family Businesses Warn: Taxes, Energy Costs, And Bureaucracy Are Killing Competitiveness

Germany's Family Businesses Warn: Taxes, Energy Costs, And Bureaucracy Are Killing Competitiveness

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

At the turn of the year, the Foundation for Family Businesses, together with the ifo Institute, presented a corporate survey on tax policy and location attractiveness. The result is unequivocal: Germany is too expensive and no longer competitive as a business location.

There is nothing new under the sun. In their year-end Annual Monitor, the Foundation for Family Businesses and the ifo Institute once again went straight to the heart of the matter. A total of 1,705 companies across all sectors and size categories were surveyed on their assessment of current tax policy and Germany’s attractiveness as a business location. The evaluation of this corporate panel—1,358 of which were traditional family-owned businesses—turned out to be devastating, as expected.

Overburdened Labor Factor

More than 80 percent of companies perceive the overall tax and contribution burden—particularly in the area of personnel costs, i.e., wage taxes and social security contributions—as far too high. The heavy burden on the employee side is especially criticized by smaller family-owned businesses. It has become increasingly difficult to grant wage increases when the fiscal authorities take the lion’s share and key performers are bled ever more heavily with each pay raise due to the continuous increase in social security contribution ceilings.

This assessment is shared by Professor Rainer Kirchdörfer, member of the Foundation’s executive board, who comments on the study:
“Our new Annual Monitor shows just how much employers and employees are pulling in the same direction. It is precisely the high taxes on labor that paralyze both sides and drain the joy from performance. High-tax Germany has also lost ground here.”

Two-thirds of surveyed executives complain about excessive income tax rates. Income tax is particularly relevant for partnerships—and by international standards it is clearly too high. A recurring grievance is also the complexity of Germany’s tax system. The familiar quip holds that roughly two-thirds of global tax law literature originates in the Federal Republic. Even if exaggerated, the message is clear: Germany is a bureaucrat’s paradise.

Currently, 5.4 million people work in the public sector—around half a million more than five years ago. This despite technological progress, artificial intelligence, and increasing automation of internal processes.

The Bureaucracy Reduction Classic

A tangible reduction in bureaucracy, including tax law, has been overdue for decades. Yet no federal government dares to tackle this hot potato. German bureaucracy has grown too powerful, evolving at all levels into a state within the state. At the same time, policymakers view the public sector as a kind of buffer for a labor market that has slowly but steadily tipped.

As a reminder: over the past three years, German companies have been forced to create 325,000 additional jobs merely to cope with the ever-expanding bureaucratic workload. The state is effectively outsourcing its ballooning documentation, archiving, and compliance requirements to the private sector.

Ranked second and third among entrepreneurs’ main points of criticism are rising local business taxes (Gewerbesteuer) and energy-related levies. Both factors are likely to play a significant role in 2026. Municipal budgets, paralyzed by a cumulative deficit of €35 billion last year, are virtually screaming for sharp increases in local business tax rates.

This threatens to trigger a tax-driven recessionary spiral initiated by local governments seeking short-term relief—particularly in regions hard hit by the industrial downturn, such as the automotive hubs of Stuttgart, Ingolstadt, and Wolfsburg.

Additional Pressure from Energy Levies

As of January 1, 2026, under the Fuel Emissions Trading Act (BEHG), the CO₂ price corridor will rise to between €55 and €65 per ton. This represents another substantial erosion of Germany’s economic substance, as it struggles to keep energy-intensive production in the country amid intensifying competition with China and the United States.

Entrepreneurs’ demands are clear: a reduction in the electricity tax is long overdue as a first step toward restoring the competitiveness of German industry. The abolition of the solidarity surcharge, alongside an accelerated reduction in corporate taxes, also ranks high on the business community’s wish list for the coming year.

Germany is too expensive as a business location by OECD standards. Since 2018, this has also become evident in overall economic productivity, which has stagnated and even declined slightly in recent quarters.

Valid Criticism, But the Root Problem Remains Untouched

There is no question that entrepreneurs are correct in their assessment of fiscal overburdening on companies and private households. The German state has expanded excessively and—given steadily rising public debt—is increasingly living at the expense of future generations.

What is striking, however, is what the study fails to address. Neither the billion-euro follow-up costs of migration into Germany’s welfare system nor the fiscal and real-economic consequences of centrally planned climate policy are included in the assessment. Yet both factors significantly contribute to rising tax burdens and have sustainably weakened Germany’s industrial base.

What has materialized in energy costs—burdens sometimes three times higher than those in competing locations such as France or the United States—must become the subject of a broad public debate if a return to rational economic policy is ever to be possible.

Under the current federal government led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, this appears fundamentally out of reach.

If not Germany’s economic middle class, who should initiate such a debate openly and courageously? We are still waiting for the icebreaker capable of overcoming the dogma of the alleged lack of alternatives in climate policy in a practical, rational, and unresentful manner. And it remains all too easy for policymakers, operating in an entrenched mode of accelerated debt accumulation, to align incentive structures and a lavishly funded subsidy machine in such a way that any critical voice from the business sector is ultimately silenced.

In the end, the study delivers a rapid situational assessment from which the familiar criticism emerges—criticism that, at all costs, seeks to avoid a collision with an ideologically hardened climate-socialist policy.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/03/2026 - 07:00

Ex-CIA Analyst: Neocons Prematurely Celebrate Over Protests In Iran

Ex-CIA Analyst: Neocons Prematurely Celebrate Over Protests In Iran

Authored by former CIA officer Larry Johnson

Western media, especially those outlets firmly aligned with the neoconservative view, are quick to jump on reports of protests in Iran as a sign that the Islamic Republic of Iran is about to implode. Events today in Iran provided another spurt of arousal among neocons longing to bring back the Shah and eliminate the mullahs.

Here’s a summary of the various news reports:

On December 30, 2025, protests in Iran entered their third day, spreading from initial economic grievances in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar to universities and multiple cities across the country. Triggered by the Iranian rial plunging to record lows (around 1.38–1.42 million to the USD) and inflation hitting 42.2–42.5%, demonstrations began with shopkeepers and merchants striking and closing businesses, evolving into broader anti-government chants.

Protests expanded beyond Tehran to cities including Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Hamadan, Karaj, Qeshm, Malard, Kermanshah, and Yazd. University students joined on Tuesday, chanting slogans like “Death to the dictator” (referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei), calls for freedom, and pro-monarchy references (e.g., “Long live the Shah” or “Rest in peace Reza Shah”).

President Masoud Pezeshkian acknowledged “legitimate demands,” instructed the interior ministry to dialogue with protest representatives, and pledged economic reforms. The central bank governor resigned, replaced by Abdolnasser Hemmati. Officials offered talks but warned against escalation or foreign exploitation.

Hmmm… What’s really going on? Turns out that Nima Alkorshid, the host of Dialogue Works, is on an extended family vacation in Tehran. It has been 12 years since he was last in Iran. I know one thing for certain… His mom is thrilled to have her son, his wife and her grandchildren in Tehran. Anyway, I called Nima and asked him what he was seeing.

via Malta Today

According to Nima, there is frustration with the government, i.e., Pezeshkian, over the high inflation and that is one impetus driving the protests. However, it is not directed at the Islamic regime despite Western press reports claiming otherwise. Nima also pointed out that about 25% of the population is quite conservative (these are the folks who supported Ahmadinejad) and they are angry with Pezeshkian because he is viewed as too accommodating of the West.

These folks, while miffed at the government, are staunch supporters of the Ayatollah Khameni.

There is video evidence corroborating Nima’s observations. In one clip an Iranian student protester explains the reasoning behind the demonstrations, stating that they are not opposed to the Islamic Republic, but rather to corruption among government officials who are worsening the economic crisis. He says:

This is the voice of an Iranian Basiji. I would sacrifice myself for this homeland. I would give my life for the Islamic Republic. Our protest is against people like Ali Ansari and other corrupt officials. Mr. Ejei [Chief of the Judiciary], where are you?

I was pleasantly surprised by Pezeshkian’s reaction to the protests… Instead of beating the hell out of the protestors and tossing them into prison, he acknowledged the legitimacy of their complaints and fired the central bank governor while promising economic reforms. Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me.

I believe that Russia and China — who have denounced and rejected Europe’s attempt to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran — are working on measures to boost the Iranian economy and get inflation under control. While there is no denying that Iran’s economy has been badly damaged because of Western sanctions — which both Russia and China supported in 2015 as part of the JCPOA — Iran, by virtue of is membership in BRICS and closer economic, political and military ties with Russia and China, is in a stronger position now to revive the economy.

Russia’s economic support focuses on strategic partnerships and trade, and is often intertwined with military cooperation. In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed a 20-year comprehensive strategic partnership treaty, including provisions for economic cooperation. Russia also is providing advanced conventional weapons (e.g., fighter aircraft, attack helicopters) in exchange for Iranian drones, missiles, and ammunition, indirectly bolstering Iran’s economy through barter-like military trade.

Along with the economic cooperation, there have been five visits by four senior Iranian officials to Moscow since July 1, 2025, based on reported trips. These include political, military, and economic figures, with purposes ranging from nuclear discussions to military cooperation and strategic partnerships:

Ali Larijani (Supreme Leader Adviser, political) – July 20, 2025: Discussed nuclear negotiations and bilateral relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Brigadier General Aziz Nasir Zadeh (Defense Minister, military) – July 21, 2025: Met with Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov to expand military cooperation, likely seeking assistance post-Israel-Iran conflict.

Abbas Araghchi (Foreign Minister, political) – August 2025: Sought Russian support in the aftermath of U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure following the ceasefire announcement. He made a second visit on December 17, 2025, to sign a foreign ministry cooperation plan for 2026-2028 and hail expanding partnerships.

Mohammad Reza Aref (First Vice President, political/economic) – November 17-18, 2025: Attended the SCO Council of Heads of Government meeting and held bilateral talks with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin on economic and political cooperation.

But that is not all… there is the North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). There have been multiple bilateral and multilateral meetings/discussions between Russia and Iran (often including Azerbaijan) since July 1, 2025, focused on advancing the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multimodal trade route linking Russia, Iran, India, and beyond. Here are the key meetings in 2025:

October 2025: Trilateral talks in Baku (Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran) on expanding the western route of the INSTC, including infrastructure inspections and agreements on logistics/cross-border efficiency.

November 2025: Railway executives from Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan signed a memorandum in Baku to enhance the western route’s competitiveness (e.g., fixed pricing, unified rates).

December 12, 2025: Presidents Vladimir Putin and Masoud Pezeshkian discussed INSTC progress (including the Rasht-Astara railway) during a meeting in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

December 16, 2025: High-level talks in Tehran between Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister for Transport Vitaly Savelyev, emphasizing fast-tracking the corridor and removing obstacles.

And then there is China. China offers more substantial economic lifelines, mainly through oil trade and pledged investments, positioning itself as Iran’s largest trading partner. China purchases 90% (or nearly all) of Iran’s exported oil at discounted prices (as low as $14 per barrel below market), providing crucial revenue—estimated at $67 billion for the Iranian year ending March 2025 (15% of GDP). This accounts for 13.6% of China’s oil imports and funds 45% of Iran’s 2025–2026 government budget. Under the 2021 25-year comprehensive strategic partnership (reaffirmed in September 2025), China pledged $400 billion in investments for sectors like oil/gas, infrastructure, banking, telecom, ports, railways, and tourism. Infrastructure initiatives include a new railway for overland oil shipments (opened May 2025 but halted by war) and the first freight train from Xi’an to Iran’s Aprin dry port in May 2025. Discussions on economic corridors via Central Asia (e.g., May 2025 railway officials meeting) aim to enhance transit.

At least 3 senior Iranian officials (political and military) have visited China since July 1, 2025, based on publicly reported trips. These visits focused on multilateral summits (e.g., Shanghai Cooperation Organization events), bilateral cooperation, and post-conflict diplomacy following Iran’s tensions with Israel and the US:

Abbas Araghchi (Foreign Minister, political) — July 2025: Attended an SCO foreign ministers’ meeting in Tianjin and held bilateral talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on deepening ties and regional issues.

Masoud Pezeshkian (President, political) — September 1–2, 2025: Visited Beijing for the SCO Summit; met with President Xi Jinping to discuss comprehensive strategic partnership, trade, investment, and global governance.

Aziz Nasirzadeh (Defense Minister, military) — Late June 2025 (close to July threshold, often grouped in post-July reporting): Attended SCO defense ministers’ meeting in Qingdao; first reported foreign trip post-Israel conflict.

Iran’s efforts to resurrect a sound economy are being carried out under the shadow of renewed attacks by Israel and the United States. According to RT:

President Donald Trump warned the US could carry out further military strikes against Iran if it attempts to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. He made the remarks to journalists alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday.

“If it’s confirmed, they know the consequences, and the consequences will be very powerful, maybe more powerful than the last time,” Trump said on Monday. “We’ll knock them down. We’ll knock the hell out of them. But hopefully that’s not happening.”

The US president indicated he would “absolutely” support Israeli military action against Iran’s missile program, saying the US would act “immediately” against any nuclear advances.

Rebuild ballistic missile programs? Looks like Donald Trump has not been informed that Iran’s ballistic missile programs were not destroyed during the 12-day war. Iran is not rebuilding… It is expanding and modernizing its ballistic missile force, which is safely stored below ground out of the reach of Israeli and US weapons. If Israel and Trump are foolish enough to attack Iran again, I think they will find Iran is a far more formidable and dangerous foe than the one they encountered in June 2025.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 23:25

Beijing Wants Babies: Condoms, Contraceptive Drugs Hit With Double-Digit Tax To Boost Birth Rate

Beijing Wants Babies: Condoms, Contraceptive Drugs Hit With Double-Digit Tax To Boost Birth Rate

In an effort to reverse China's sagging birth rate, Beijing has removed a three-decade tax exemption on contraceptives starting Jan. 1, when condoms and contraceptive pills will now incur a value-added tax of 13%, the standard rate for most consumer goods. 

The move comes after 2024 data marked the third consecutive year that birth rates have dropped - something experts have warned is likely to continue. Last year, China introduced an annual childcare subsidy, and exempted such subsidies from personal income tax amid a series of "fertility-friendly" measures implemented in 2024 - such as urging colleges and universities to provide "love education" to portray marriage, love, fertility and family in a positive light, Reuters reports.

Meanwhile, CCP leadership pledged in December at the annual Central Economic Work Conference to promote "positive marriage and childbearing attitudes." 

The country's birth rates have been falling for decades as a result of Beijing's one-child policy implemented from 1980 - 2015, along with rapid urbanization. 

High childcare and education costs along with job uncertainty and a slowing economy has also dissuaded young Chinese from getting married and starting a family. 

As Thomas Kolbe noted two weeks ago:

China is expected to lose about 20 percent of its population over the next 30 years.

There is no doubt this will have consequences for the global economy. Societies react reflexively to such developments. China responds with aggressive subsidies for its export engine to counter these domestic distortions, which primarily manifest economically as deflationary pressures.

China's attempt to course-correct comes as global fertility rates continue to plummet. Fertility rates (the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime) are different from birthrates (the number of live births per 1,000 people in a population over a given period), although the terms are related and often used interchangeably.

Meanwhile, look at who has the highest fertility rates: Somalia, Chad, Niger, DRC, and other African nations. Only about 4 percent of the world’s population reside in a country with a high fertility rate - more than five children per woman - and all of those nations are in Africa, the Census Bureau noted. Even in those countries, fertility rates are generally lower than they once were.

The fertility rate in India, the world’s most populous country, has steadily declined over the past six decades. In June, the UN Population Fund reported that India’s fertility rate stood at 1.9 children per woman, down from five or six children in 1960.

In 1990, China’s fertility rate was 2.51, despite its one child policy. By 2023, it had dropped to less than one birth per woman, according to the United Nation’s population division.

In the United States, fertility has undergone a persistent decline. It fell below the replacement level in 1972 and reached 1.62 in 2023, a historic low.

Asian and European countries have the lowest fertility rates in the world, and South Korea (0.72), Singapore (0.97), Ukraine (0.977), and China (0.999) all have rates below one.

Oh, and...

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 23:00

Russia Expands Biometric ID System... Again

Russia Expands Biometric ID System... Again

Authored by Riley Waggaman via Off-Guardian.org,

The commercial enterprise that controls Russians’ biometric data has introduced new ways to use your face as a form of ID, resulting in unprecedented levels of safety and convenience in the Russian Federation.

Russians young and old are already reaping the benefits of their country’s “digital transformation”—including very, very young Russians.

The Russian government is working on amending federal legislation to allow schools across the country to monitor and identify students using biometrics, Kommersant reported on December 3. Plans for a standardized “biometric turnstile system” for Russian schools are already being tested in Tatarstan.

source: Kommersant.ru

Authorities have stressed that schools will be able to choose whether or not to switch to biometric identification, adding that parents must first consent before their childrens’ faces are scanned and entered into Russia’s Unified Biometric System (UBS).

A Russian schoolboy faces his completely voluntary future (source: Kommersant.ru)

Conservative-patriotic media outlets in Russia responded positively to this completely voluntary and very safe and convenient initiative.

source: Katyusha.org

Concentration camp? A bit dramatic, no? These so-called Russian patriots could learn a thing or two from disaffected westerners who read RT and understand the delicate nuances of the Russian government’s Plan, which must be trusted at all times.

Here is an unrelated excerpt from Kommersant’s recent article on the subject:

The Ministry of Education told Kommersant that the biometric school entry system is already being tested in 20 schools in Tatarstan, where “special attention is paid to security”: the school grounds are fenced, cameras are installed along the perimeter, and entry is through checkpoints.

Perfect for learning.

As this blog reported, at the end of August, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and Chief of Staff of the Government Executive Office Dmitry Grigorenko deployed familiar language when describing the advantages of using biometrics to identify schoolchildren:

Entry to school ‘by face’ is not only convenient, but also very safe. Because it is always clear who is entering, who is exiting, who is in school… After all, this is where our children spend their lives.

But underage children aren’t the only Russians basking in the safety and convenience of biometric identification (although they are very obviously the primary targets of the country’s “digital transformation”; dehumanization must start at a young age so as to seem “normal”): Russians of all ages can now leave their unsafe and inconvenient paper IDs at home.

The Center for Biometric Technologies, the joint stock company that stores and manages Russians’ biometric data, recently unveiled a new platform for providing biometric services, “Migom” (Мигом, which can be translated as “instantly” or “in an instant”).

On December 11, the company posted a photo collage demonstrating how Migom will be incorporated into everyday life in Russia.

source: The official Telegram channel of Joint Stock Company (JSC) Center for Biometric Technologies

The accompanying caption:

[W]e want to show you how these [biometric] services look in real life. These photos show how easy it is now to access familiar services: order documents at the MFC [government services portal], check into a hotel, verify your age when purchasing age-restricted goods [including energy drinks; no, not a joke] at vending machines and self-checkouts, and soon, undergo pre-flight security checks.

Let’s have a closer look at these inspiring photographs.

A lady with nice long hair checkmates George Soros by using her FACE, and not her NATO-ENDORSED PAPER ID, to prove that she is a responsible taxpayer, and not a terrorist-biohazard!

Respectable suit-wearing man receives facial recognition-permission to buy something from a vending machine. VERY MULTIPOLAR, INDEED.

Energy drink enjoyers in Russia can now prove they are old enough (18+) to drink their favorite drink using their FACES. Davos trembles.

The End.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 22:35

Setting Up The 2026 Midterms

Setting Up The 2026 Midterms

Authored by J.T.Young via American Greatness,

Ten months ahead of November’s midterms, political and economic crosscurrents are colliding. Which of these conflicting trends prevails will greatly shape the next two years. And possibly even longer.

Midterm elections are always important. Besides gauging the country’s political mood, they have proven integral to maintaining America’s political equilibrium.

They are the “ebb” to the “flow” of America’s political tide. Historically, every four years, a large tide of voters goes to the polls and elects a president. Then every two years, the large voter flow ebbs back and the president’s party suffers accordingly.

This midterm is particularly important to Trump because he has proven susceptible to being baited by his opponents. After 2018, Rep. Nancy Pelosi returned to the House speakership and unrelentingly harassed Trump over the last two years of his first term. These distractions and obstructions­—especially during COVID—were undoubtedly a factor in Trump’s narrow 2020 electoral college defeat.

Today’s political crosscurrents are pronounced. As already mentioned, the president’s party historically loses seats. The last two two-term presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suffered congressional losses averaging 22 House seats and 7.5 Senate seats.

Such losses would give Democrats control of Congress: a House majority larger than Republicans’ current narrow one and a Senate majority larger than Republicans’ current six-seat one. Such outcomes would end Trump’s legislative agenda, and Democrats could set their own.

To understand the potential impact, play back the recent funding impasse when Democrats shut the government down for the longest period ever—despite not having control of either chamber.

While Trump would be able to veto Democratic legislation and Republican numbers would be ample to uphold his vetoes, Democrats would have a formal hand in shaping the political agenda. This could greatly help their 2028 presidential prospects.

However, current politics are blunting the historical midterm flow.

Trump is divisive, with just a 43.4% favorable rating; however, his job approval rating of 43.1% is higher than Obama’s (42.4%) at the same point in his second term. Further, Democrats are in abysmal shape: just a 32.5% favorability rating.

The current 2026 political map is also favorable to Republicans. While they have more seats (by 22 to 13) to protect in the Senate, the toss-up seats are evenly split: Republicans with Maine and North Carolina; Democrats with Georgia and Michigan. Mid-decade House redistricting efforts are also likely to somewhat favor Republicans; if the Supreme Court should allow race to be disregarded in drawing House districts when it rules on the Louisiana case currently before it, then even more redistricting could occur and amount to an even greater Republican advantage.

Today’s economic crosscurrents are equally pronounced.

For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

At the micro level, the growing issue is “affordability.”

Nationally, this is an overhang of inflation that surged during Biden’s administration and peaked at 9.1% in June 2022—a 40-year high.

Locally, affordability played well in New York City (which has been plagued by Democratic policies of rent control and excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation) in 2025’s mayoral race. It also played well in Virginia, where it linked powerfully into the record-long government shutdown. Democrats are therefore seizing on the issue with some success—particularly in the establishment media—and are trying to nationalize it.

At the macro level, the economy is a different story. Despite “expert” predictions that Trump’s tariffs, green agenda rollback, attack on illegal immigration, and reduction in government would combine to wreck the economy, the reverse has occurred. In Trump’s first two full quarters in office, GDP averaged over 4% growth: up 3.8% in Q2 and 4.3% in Q3. Inflation has also been moderate—2.7% in November—certainly not the spike experts predicted and a far cry from the previous four years.

So politically, depending on your perspective, Republicans look to outperform historically. Their Senate majority looks safe for now, with the chance Republicans could even gain a seat or two. Contrastingly, the Republicans’ House majority looks vulnerable; this could be offset slightly by current mid-decade redistricting efforts. Yet even just half the average loss of the last two administrations in their second midterms would mean an 11-seat swing and a 226-209 Democrat majority.

Economically, the question is whether the micro or the macro prevails. Can the micro become a national mood outside Democratic areas, or will the macro of strong GDP growth and moderate inflation have time to prevail? Expect political midterm fortunes to respond accordingly.

What is certain is that the midterms will shape the last two years of Trump’s second term. And possibly determine who will run and who will win the presidency in 2028.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 21:45

US Reissues Urgent 'Do Not Travel' Warning For Russia, As NYT Confirms CIA's Escalating Involvement

US Reissues Urgent 'Do Not Travel' Warning For Russia, As NYT Confirms CIA's Escalating Involvement

The US State Department has once once again re-issued an urgent advisory warning Americans not to travel to Russia. The renewed travel advisory also tells any American citizens currently in Russia to depart immediately. It cites the danger associated with the ongoing war with Ukraine, as well as the significant risk of wrongful detention by Russian officials, and the possibility of terrorism.

This is nothing new, given such warnings have been issued going all the way back to February 2022, but it suggests that the Trump administration's view is that things might continue to escalate as efforts toward a peace deal stall.

"Russian officials often question and threaten U.S. citizens without reason. Russian security services have arrested U.S. citizens on false charges. They have denied them fair treatment and convicted them without credible evidence. Russian authorities have opened questionable investigations against U.S. citizens for their religious activities," the advisory reads.

US Intelligence has been helping Ukraine strike Russian energy infrastructure.

This joins no less than five fresh advisories reissued by the department since Dec. 18. They include Level 4: Do Not Travel warnings for Belarus and Yemen, as well a Level 2 warning for Jordan due to terrorism, and a Level 1 advisory for Portugal.

Currently the State Department also has active Do Not Travel warnings for Venezuela, Syria, Haiti, Ukraine, and several other countries.

One thing the official Russia travel warning leaves out is the fact that the CIA continues to assist Ukraine in actively targeting Russian territory, especially energy sites.

Even as the Pentagon has taken steps to draw down its support, the CIA has been ramping up its anti-Russia covert actions launched out of Ukraine, as The NY Times this week highlighted:

Where Mr. Hegseth had marginalized his Ukraine-supporting generals, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Ratcliffe, had consistently protected his own officers’ efforts for Ukraine. He kept the agency’s presence in the country at full strength; funding for its programs there even increased. When Mr. Trump ordered the March aid freeze, the U.S. military rushed to shut down all intelligence sharing. But when Mr. Ratcliffe explained the risk facing C.I.A. officers in Ukraine, the White House allowed the agency to keep sharing intelligence about Russian threats inside Ukraine.

Now, the agency honed a plan to at least buy time, to make it harder for the Russians to capitalize on the Ukrainians’ extraordinary moment of weakness.

"Brilliant" or foolhardy and stupid to keep poking the nuclear-armed Russian bear?

The Times report presented some jarring language which points to the Trump administration playing with fire in provoking Putin in order to force him to the negotiating table:

As the campaign began to show results, Mr. Ratcliffe discussed it with Mr. Trump. The president seemed to listen to him; they had a frequent Sunday tee time. According to U.S. officials, Mr. Trump praised America’s surreptitious role in these blows to Russia’s energy industry. They gave him deniability and leverage, he told Mr. Ratcliffe, as the Russian president continued to “jerk him off.”

The energy strikes would come to cost the Russian economy as much as $75 million a day, according to one U.S. intelligence estimate. The C.I.A. would also be authorized to assist with Ukrainian drone strikes on “shadow fleet” vessels in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Gas lines would start forming across Russia.

“We found something that is working,” a senior U.S. official said, then had to add, “How long, we don’t know.”

Or perhaps it's "working" until things go boom between NATO and Moscow, mushroom cloud style.

Meanwhile, the CIA as usual has an outsized role in tipping Trump in a direction which makes peace harder, and a lot further away:

Mr. Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. chief, flew to Alaska with the president on Aug. 15 and, before the meeting, briefed him on “what we’ve got” about Mr. Putin’s intentions. It did not align with Mr. Trump’s instinct; the Russian, the agency argued, was not interested in ending the war. A senior American official described the assessment this way: “Trump isn’t going to get what he wants. He is just going to have to make Alaska a show.”

Above is a scene which has played out weekly, and almost daily, for a matter of months now. One option the Kremlin might be looking at is fully capturing Ukraine's crucial Black Sea export hub of Odessa, which would further decimate the country economically. NATO might by that point be ready to get more directly involved. Trump has also issued warnings against seizing Odessa.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 21:20

SMRs Explained: Real-World Economics, Fuel Bottlenecks, & The Race To Scale

SMRs Explained: Real-World Economics, Fuel Bottlenecks, & The Race To Scale

Authored by Michael Kern via OilPrice.com,

  • The shift to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) is driven by rising global electricity demand, especially from AI data centers, and the limitations of intermittent renewable energy sources, positioning nuclear as the essential source of 24/7 "firm" baseload power.

  • SMRs bypass the financial risks of traditional megaprojects like Vogtle by offering shorter construction timelines (3–5 years) and a lower initial cost, trading "economies of scale" for "economies of unit production" through factory-built components.

  • Key challenges for the SMR industry include the need for mass production to achieve economic viability, managing the waste issue, and navigating the geopolitical risks associated with a highly concentrated global uranium fuel supply chain.

Nuclear power is currently having its "Silicon Valley" moment. After decades of being treated as a dinosaur technology—too slow, too expensive, and too politically toxic—the industry has pivoted toward something it calls the Small Modular Reactor (SMR). The goal is to stop building energy cathedrals and start building energy appliances.

The market fundamentals are finally in place for a new era. Global electricity demand is rising at twice the rate of total energy demand, pushed over the edge by the relentless growth of AI data centers and the slow-motion electrification of the global vehicle fleet. Generation from the world’s fleet of nearly 420 reactors is already on track to reach an all-time high in 2025. This is  about a global realization that "intermittent" renewables cannot carry the load of a 24/7 civilization alone.

Baseload power is no longer a luxury; it’s the price of admission for the modern economy.

Why Small Is the Only Way Big Nuclear Survives

If you’ve spent any time reading about energy, you know the term "Small Modular Reactor" is used as a catch-all... it actually refers to three distinct shifts in how we think about the atom.

  • First, "Small" means anything up to 300 MWe. That is roughly a third of the output of a traditional Gigawatt-scale plant... enough to power about 250,000 homes or a massive industrial complex.

  • Second, "Modular" is the real economic engine. Instead of custom-designing every pipe and valve on a muddy construction site, components are factory-built and shipped via truck or rail.

  • Finally, "Reactor" is where the physics get messy. Current designs aren't just "shrunk down" versions of the 1970s light-water tech. 

We are seeing a move toward Generation IV concepts: molten salt reactors that can't melt down because the fuel is already liquid, and gas-cooled reactors that can provide the 700°C+ process heat required for making steel or hydrogen.

Why Megaprojects Died in Georgia

Traditional nuclear projects like the Vogtle plant in Georgia or Hinkley Point C in the UK have become legendary for their cost overruns. They aren't just power plants; they are multi-decade civil engineering nightmares that consume capital faster than they produce watts.

Vogtle ended up costing over $30 billion... nearly double the original estimate.

No private investor wants to sit on a $30 billion debt for fifteen years before the first dollar of revenue trickles in. SMRs attempt to bypass this "Valley of Death" by shortening construction timelines to roughly 3–5 years and lowering the initial check to something a mid-sized utility or a tech giant can actually afford.

It’s an attempt to trade "economies of scale" for "economies of unit production."

The East Is Building While the West Files Paperwork

The "Nuclear Renaissance" is already happening; it just hasn’t reached the Atlantic yet. Of the 52 reactors started since 2017, nearly half are Chinese, and the other half are Russian.

(Source: IEA) 

And the bottleneck isn’t technology…it’s fuel. Russia currently controls 40% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity. Energy security is a hollow promise if you have to buy the uranium from your primary adversary.

AI Is the Insatiable Beast That Only Fission Can Feed

The tech giants aren't buying nuclear because they've suddenly developed a passion for carbon-free baseload. They’re doing it because their AI roadmaps are hitting a physical wall... a single ChatGPT query consumes roughly ten times the electricity of a Google search.

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have realized that wind and solar are essentially "part-time" energy sources.

When the sun goes down and the wind stops, the data centers don't. This creates a massive, expensive problem called "intermittency" that batteries aren't ready to solve at a multi-gigawatt scale. The SMR is the only thing on the menu that offers 24/7 "firm" power with a small enough footprint to sit next to a server farm.

For the first time in history, the primary driver for nuclear power is coming from the private sector, not the state. 

These companies have the credit ratings and the long-term horizons to do what traditional utilities can't: they can guarantee "offtake." 

By signing 20-year Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), they provide the bankability that SMR manufacturers need to start their assembly lines.

Picking Winners in a Graveyard of Energy Startups

The SMR market is a graveyard of good ideas that ran out of money. To win, a company needs three things: a simple design, a licensed site, and a customer with deeper pockets than God.

The market is split between the "Old Guard" shrinking proven tech and "Disruptors" chasing Generation IV designs.

The $2,500/kW Target: Chasing the Chinese Cost Curve

This is where the marketing brochures usually stop being honest. If you build one SMR, it is the most expensive electricity on Earth. The "Modular" promise only works if you build them like airplanes—in a factory, at scale.

The IEA projects SMR investment will hit $25 billion annually by 2030. That sounds like a lot until you realize that building the first factory for these modules could eat half that budget before the first reactor is even shipped. The "learning curve" for SMRs is a steep and expensive climb. Studies suggest that "learning-by-doing" can reduce capital costs by 5% to 10% for every doubling of production. However, a report by Germany’s BASE suggests that an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be produced before they reach true economies of mass production.

This is the central friction of the industry. No CEO wants to tell their board they are the "guinea pig" for an unproven $1 billion reactor. 

Private funding alone won't work. The long timelines for permitting mean the "breakeven point" for a large reactor is 20-30 years after project start. SMRs cut that timeline in half, but it's still a tough sell for commercial lenders.

This is where Green Bonds and Public-Private Partnerships come in. 

Over $5 billion in green bonds have been issued for nuclear so far, and the U.S. DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is throwing billions at prototypes. But the real bridge across the "Financial Valley of Death" is the credit rating of Big Tech. When Google or Amazon signs a 20-year PPA, the debt becomes bankable.

Fukushima-Proofing the Atom With Passive Physics

SMR proponents love to talk about "passive safety"—designs where physics (gravity and convection) cool the reactor even if the power goes out. It’s essentially "Fukushima-proofing" by design. Because these units are smaller, they have a lower radioactive inventory per reactor, allowing them to be placed on the sites of retired coal plants. The need: 

  • Gravity-Driven Cooling: If power is lost, cool water is naturally pulled into the core.

  • Smaller Cores: Less radioactive inventory means the "exclusion zone" can be significantly smaller.

  • Underground Siting: Placing reactors below grade adds a natural barrier against external threats.

But the waste issue remains messy. A 2022 Stanford study claimed that SMRs might actually produce more waste per unit of energy because smaller cores "leak" more neutrons, making the surrounding shielding more radioactive over time. The industry’s rebuttal? They claim they can "burn" this waste as fuel in the next generation of breeder reactors. Both sides are technically correct, but the breeder reactors aren't here yet, and the waste is.

If we build thousands of SMRs and ship them to remote mining sites or developing nations, we are "distributing" nuclear material across the globe. That is a security nightmare. The fix is "Battery-Style" SMRs: built, fueled, and welded shut in a factory. They are shipped to a site, run for 20 years, and shipped back. The end-user never touches the fuel.

Teaching the NRC to Move at the Speed of Light

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was designed to regulate massive, one-off light-water reactors. Applying 1970s regulations to 2025 technology is like trying to get a Tesla licensed using rules written for steam engines.

In July 2024, the ADVANCE Act was signed into law, explicitly directing the NRC to streamline the process for microreactors and SMRs. By December 2025, the NRC had already met 30 of its 36 planned deliverables under the act. It’s an attempt to stop the "licensing-by-exhaustion" strategy that has killed so many designs in the past.

International harmonization is the next frontier. If a design is approved in Canada (like the BWRX-300), why does it need to spend another five years and $100 million being "re-approved" in the U.S. or the UK? Strategic leadership is being built in concrete while the West waits for a policy consensus.

The $1.5 Trillion Industrial Heat Prize

Most people think of nuclear as a way to keep the lights on. But electricity is only about 20% of global primary energy demand. The real monster in the room is Industrial Process Heat. If you want to make steel, cement, or glass, you need temperatures that wind and solar simply cannot provide through a wire without massive efficiency losses. Today, 89% of that high-temperature demand is met by burning fossil fuels.

The SMR—specifically the High-Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR)—is the only zero-carbon technology that can sit "inside-the-fence" with a chemical plant and provide 750°C steam. According to a 2025 study by LucidCatalyst, the potential market for industrial SMRs could hit 700 GW by 2050. 

We’re talking about a $1.5 trillion investment opportunity.

The top five markets for this aren't utilities... they are synthetic aviation fuels, coal plant repowering, maritime fuels, data centers, and chemicals. 

In October 2025, the European Commission launched its first pilot auction for industrial heat decarbonization. Companies like France’s Blue Capsule are designing reactors specifically for this market. 

If SMRs can’t crack the industrial heat market, Net Zero is a mathematical impossibility.

Why Desalination Might Be the Secret Middle East Play

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), energy security is inseparable from water security. Arab states currently account for more than 50% of global desalination capacity. Desalination is an energy hog. Traditionally, it’s been powered by oil and gas, but the GCC nations have pledged net-zero goals for 2050–2060.

SMRs offer a "dual-purpose" solution: they provide baseload power for the grid and the massive amounts of heat or electricity needed for Reverse Osmosis (RO) or Multi-Effect Distillation (MED).

 In Jordan, an IAEA team recently evaluated studies for using SMRs to pull drinking water from the Red Sea to Amman. In Saudi Arabia, the world's largest desalinated water producer, the government is looking at nuclear as the cornerstone of its move away from an oil-based economy.

The economics are starting to pencil out. Using the Desalination Economic Evaluation Program (DEEP) model, 2025 data shows that high-temperature helium-cooled reactors can produce water at an economically viable range of $0.69 to $1.04 per cubic meter.

Microreactors Are the Frontier Batteries for the Arctic and the Mine

While the 300 MWe reactors get the headlines, a subset of the industry is going even smaller. Microreactors (under 10 MWe) are being designed as "nuclear batteries" for the most austere environments on Earth.

The U.S. Department of the Air Force is the lead customer here. In May 2025, they issued a Notice of Intent to Award a contract to Oklo, Inc. for a microreactor pilot at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. 

Why Alaska? 

Because shipping diesel to remote Arctic bases is expensive, dangerous, and a massive logistical vulnerability.

The Eielson project is a 30-year PPA where the vendor owns and operates the reactor. It is "Mission Assurance" in a 50-below-zero environment. But it’s not just the military. 

Remote mining operations in Canada and Australia are looking at microreactors like the eVinci (Westinghouse) or the KRONOS (Nano Nuclear). For a mine that currently spends $50 million a year on diesel fuel, a microreactor that runs for 10 years without refueling isn't just a "green" choice... it’s a massive competitive advantage.

Navigating the Yellowcake Landmine in Kazakhstan and Niger

Now, we have to talk about the fuel. Everything we’ve discussed depends on HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium), and right now, the supply chain is a geopolitical landmine. Kazakhstan currently supplies over 43% of the world's uranium. That is a terrifying level of concentration, especially given the civil unrest seen in the region.

Then there is Africa. 

The 2023 military coup in Niger effectively knocked out a reliable supplier for Europe. In 2025, no production was reported from the SOMAÏR mine.

The West is finally waking up. In late 2025, Urenco USA produced its first run of enriched uranium above 5% in New Mexico. Centrus Energy launched commercial enrichment activities in Ohio, targeting HALEU production to meet a $2.3 billion backlog. But new mines take 7–10 years to come online. We are currently in a "seller's market," with uranium prices hitting a range of $86 to $90 per pound in new contracts. If the fuel supply isn't diversified, the SMR revolution will be choked in its cradle.

Overcoming the Duck Curve

The modern grid is struggling to handle the "Duck Curve"—the massive fluctuation in supply caused by solar and wind. 

(Source: DOE)

Traditionally, nuclear was considered "inflexible" baseload... you turned it on and left it at 100% for two years.

SMRs are being designed with Load-Following capabilities. 

TerraPower’s Natrium reactor, for example, includes a molten salt heat storage system. This allows the reactor to run at a constant temperature while the storage system "flexes" the electrical output to the grid. When the sun is shining, the reactor stores heat. When the sun goes down, it releases it to generate power.

It turns the nuclear reactor from a "firm floor" into a "flexible battery." This is the missing piece of the renewable energy transition. Without this flexibility, we are forced to keep gas-fired "peaker" plants on standby, which defeats the purpose of the carbon-free goal.

Resurrecting the Rust Belt With Coal-to-Nuclear Pivots

There are over 300 retired or retiring coal plant sites in the United States alone. These sites are energy goldmines. They already have the grid connections, the cooling water access, and, most importantly, a workforce that knows how to run a thermal power plant.

The SMR is the only technology that can "slot" into these sites without requiring a total overhaul of the local economy.

NuScale is currently working with Dairyland Power in Wisconsin to evaluate VOYGR plants for retiring coal sites. It preserves high-paying jobs in rural communities that would otherwise be hollowed out by the move away from coal. It turns a liability (a dead coal plant) into a 60-year asset.

The 2030 Deadline: A Final Verdict for the Assembly Line Era

We have moved past the era of "paper reactors." By the end of 2025, the industry has shifted its focus to the three pillars of success: Licensing, Supply Chain, and Offtake. The technology is no longer the main question... the factory is.

The IEA’s APS scenario calls for 120 GW of SMR capacity by 2050. Under today’s policy settings, we are only on track for 40 GW. The gap between those two numbers represents the difference between a grid that works and a grid that fails.

The next five years (2025–2030) will be the most important in the history of nuclear power. SMRs are not a "silver bullet," but they are the only "firm" floor that makes a clean grid physically possible. If SMR manufacturers can reach a production rate of just one unit per month, the "learning curve" will finally drive costs toward that $4,500/kW target.

If they remain stuck in "bespoke project" mode, they will join the graveyard of 20th-century energy experiments.

The stakes are higher than they’ve ever been. 

Between AI’s hunger for power and the world’s desperate need for clean industrial heat, the SMR isn’t just an "option." 

For a carbon-free industrial civilization, it might be the only move left on the board. The atomic renaissance is here; the only question is whether the West can build it fast enough to matter.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 20:05

America's Top New Year's Resolutions For 2026

America's Top New Year's Resolutions For 2026

Exercising more is top of mind for many Americans making resolutions for 2026.

As Anna Fleck reports, data from a recent survey by Statista shows that close to half of U.S. adults are committing to the fitness goal.

9.3 Million Americans Work Multiple Jobs to Make Ends Meet | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Vows to save more money, eat healthier, spend more time with family and friends and lose weight were the next most commonly cited resolutions this year.

Rounding off the top ten were spending less time on social media (21 percent) and quitting smoking (19 percent).

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 19:40

Dropping The Façade: Propaganda, Power, & The Absurdity Of Empire

Dropping The Façade: Propaganda, Power, & The Absurdity Of Empire

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

Whenever you see a coordinated full-frontal assault, a blizzard of the same rhetoric all focused on an end result with a particular narrative attached, you know that it is pure unadulterated propaganda.

Recall the Covid scam and every channel parroting the same lines…

“Safe and effective” and “we’re not all safe until everyone is safe,” and on and on.

The model, tried and tested many times prior, has proven remarkably effective on a docile populace, spoon-fed junk media, junk food, and junk science.

Critics and skeptics are labeled. Different labels are pulled out of the toolbox and used — depending on the topic in question — all designed to shut down discourse and discredit the questioning. Playing the man, not the ball.

You weren’t allowed to question the vaccine, and so you were labeled a “conspiracy theorist” for simply asking valid questions. You aren’t today allowed to question the genocide in Gaza without being “anti-Semitic.” Or the war in Ukraine without being “pro-Putin.” Never mind that the two questions above have nothing to do with the labels attached.

Now, fast forward to the “narco-terrorist” Maduro…

Question the narrative and you’re a “communist lover.” In the meantime, every shill has been brought out of the woodwork to do the bidding of the deep state.

Apparently West Israel is at grave risk of “narco-terrorism” — whatever that is.

Remember the CIA’s last failed coup attempt in the country?

They did manage to do some serious pillaging, though. They nicked the president’s plane, stole their gold (an entire story in itself… how they “seized” it then “lost” it).

And true to form they’re rolling out some tired shulbit narrative. Hey, the rubes bought it with the “weapons of mass destruction” story, which turned out to be what we knew it was all along: codswallop.

I guess it’s time to bring some LGBTQ to Venezuela. Most of the peasants in America haven’t ever been to Venezuela, but hey… they’d never been to Iraq either, and they fell for that one, so…

I wonder if they’ll completely destroy it like they did to Libya, Iraq, Syria. To be fair, Maduro has done a pretty good job of destroying it with socialist policies, but I’m quite sure that the Americans can keep the populace poor, enslaved, and hungry while the bankers pilfer the country.

First, they’ll allow the US multinationals in… but only after securing loans (because it is always the debt that is created that is the ultimate tool of coercion and enslavement).

Hilariously, while the podium donut-in-chief is threatening Maduro and accusing him of “drug trafficking,” guess what he just did — and I swear I’m not making this shit up…

He’s just pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández.

Look him up if you have to, but he is — at least according to the US Government themselves — not only a “narco-terrorist” but one of the worst EVER!

And to drive the insanity nail hard into the coffin of plausibility…

It’s like we’re living in a live Monty Python skit. If we are to consider that the Trump administration can end wars started by previous administrations (pretty easy to cut the funding), then the current podium donut of the Deep State in the US has failed spectacularly.

Existing wars: Ukraine and Israel’s war. Can’t really call it a war, but… well, that conflict.

Trump has continued to fund the oligarchs in Ukraine. He’s continued to fund the Zionists’ genocide in Gaza. He’s bombed Iran on behalf of his handlers. He’s bombed Yemen, funded and assisted in the overthrow of Syria and installed the previous head of ISIS (you can’t make this shit up). And he’s now threatening war with both Venezuela and Colombia on the laughable excuse of “drug trafficking.”

It is the most insane inversion of the truth. I understand how history tends to unfold, and reading through the collapse of previous empires I’m quite sure that none were so terribly absurd as this. Curiously, the rest of the world is no longer playing by the empire’s rules.

China and Russia reopening direct flights to Venezuela is a clear message: Washington can issue “closures,” but the world no longer circles around American permission slips.

Caracas is reconnecting with its allies, and the era of unilateral US gatekeeping is fading fast.

Trump is now in an awkward position. He can’t do nothing (otherwise he risks being seen as a blustering blowhard fool). And if he does enter Venezuela, he risks a repeat of Vietnam.

Certainly, it would be a ripe opportunity for US enemies to fund guerrilla activities designed to wear down and weaken the empire. The goal then would not be to actually kick the US Military out of Venezuela, but rather to entrench them deeply in the country… like a mud pool.

This is all actually understandable when you acknowledge that Trump — and in fact all politicians in the US — are merely effigies. They are merely front men to the Deep State. And the Deep State profits handsomely from war. They serve no allegiance to any state. The idea that they’re “for” or “against” some nation is simply not true. They couldn’t care less.

Trump and all the other podium donuts will simply abide by their handlers and will then be tossed aside when no longer useful. Same as it’s always been.

Either way, it is fascinating to note that all of this is done in order to secure the oil.

Meanwhile, the market still hasn’t woken to the opportunity in oil.

What is happening here is simply the Monroe Doctrine 2.0, where the US is shoring up its influence in the Americas. This explains the pressure on Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia.

*  *  *

Empires don’t collapse in a straight line — they fracture through contradiction, narrative control, and reckless policy, usually while most people are still focused on the surface story. What’s happening now isn’t just about Venezuela, war, or propaganda; it’s about a system desperately trying to preserve power as its economic foundations weaken. Those shifts always leave clear signals in the markets, currencies, and commodities long before they become obvious to the public. For readers who want to look past the theater and understand how this moment fits into a much larger transition, we’ve prepared a special report titled Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. It lays out the forces now colliding — and what they could mean for your money and personal freedom in the years ahead. You can access the free PDF report by clicking here.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 19:15

Brookfield Enters Data Center Game With Its Own Nuclear Power

Brookfield Enters Data Center Game With Its Own Nuclear Power

In the latest sign that the AI data center buildout party is reaching dizzying heights, The Information reports that private equity firm Brookfield is launching its own cloud computing business to challenge the hyperscaler oligopoly of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. The real highlight may not be the fact that a non-tech company is crossing over from facility leasing to chip leasing, but more so that Brookfield owns the majority of Westinghouse, the hottest energy technology company in North America. The reactor developer poised to eventually provide truly carbon-free baseload power to the US grid to meet the demand of AI compute could now have a serious power offtaker lined up; not only for their signature AP1000, but their AP300 as well.

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor

Brookfield is tying its new cloud venture, named Radiant, to a $10 billion AI infrastructure fund with priority leasing rights to data centers built under the fund. The firm is targeting governments and corporations demanding sovereign, locally-stored data. Global head of AI infrastructure Sikander Rashid discusses managing compute clusters in-house to avoid reliance on fragmented partners. Projects are already underway in France, Qatar, and Sweden, with Nvidia even chipping in investment and expertise for server setups.

While we're on Nvidia though, let's not forget what Jensen Huang labels as the “the” bottleneck for AI: power. Data centers are the new energy hogs, driving electricity prices through the roof and straining grids like the PJM to the breaking point.

Most observers are in agreement at this point: gas now, nuclear tomorrow. Natural gas turbines can deploy relatively quickly to a new power consumer, and at this point developers are literally bolting jet engines to the ground just to make more electrons as fast as possible.

The major consumers want nuclear more than anything though, with Constellation Energy highlighting this fact on their last earnings call: “Today, we’re seeing a far more sophisticated and aggressive customer walk through our door. They have done deals. They understand pricing and terms. They know they want nuclear”

As the 51% owner of Westinghouse, Brookfield is uniquely positioned to start the long-lead work of preparing nuclear energy to power its data centers in the 2030s. Westinghouse just inked an $80 billion deal with the U.S. government for new reactor and its AP1000 design is primed for the AI era’s massive baseload needs. Brookfield could also assist with fast-tracking development of the AP300, an additional option for the data center power struggle.

The AP300 is a 300 MWe reactor announced back in 2023, and shares the same power capacity range as GE Vernova’s BWRX-300 and Holtec’s SMR-300. The AP300 is based on the AP1000, utilizing identical major equipment, structural components, passive safety systems, fuel, and instrumentation and control systems. daniIt’s an effort to minimize technological risk and streamline licensing, as the AP300 can inherit some of the AP1000’s regulatory approvals. Westinghouse anticipates receiving a design approval for their reactor by 2027.

It's not exactly an ace in the hole though. Developing in any of the countries listed above will be extremely difficult in terms of competition. France has their own reactor industry with the EDF, and Sweden is in discussions with two reactor developers, GE Vernova and Rolls-Royce, for deploying nuclear energy across the country. That's not to say that a data center offering to bring its own power will not provide a shake of the bottle to the situation in any of those countries. 

Considering the nuclear executive orders signed by Trump back in May explicitly discuss the intent to leverage Westinghouse reactor designs as political tools for foreign nations, it's extremely likely that no lever will be spared to achieve success in this game of nuclear politics against Russia and China.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 18:50

MN Lawmaker: Walz Team Threatened Whistleblowers With "Racism" & "Islamophobia" Slurs To Hide Somali Fraud

MN Lawmaker: Walz Team Threatened Whistleblowers With "Racism" & "Islamophobia" Slurs To Hide Somali Fraud

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Minnesota State Rep. Kristin Robbins has unleashed a stunning revelation, confirming that credible whistleblowers came forward with evidence that Gov. Tim Walz and his administration used threats of “racism” and “Islamophobia” labels to suppress exposures of massive Somali-linked fraud schemes draining taxpayer dollars.

In an appearance on Fox Business, Robbins detailed how the protective shield around certain communities enabled rampant abuse of state and federal funds for years.

“We have dozens of credible whistleblower reports saying that exact same thing. That people were told not to say anything because they’d be called racist or Islamophobic or it would hurt the state,” Robbins stated.

“And so people tried to come forward but were shut down and that protection of a particular community is what really allowed this fraud to flourish in Minnesota for years!”

This bombshell aligns with ongoing scrutiny of Walz’s oversight failures, as Robbins, who chairs the House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee, has repeatedly blasted the governor for turning a blind eye to red flags.

Recent reports indicate Robbins warned Walz directly about alleged fraud in social services, including daycare and adult care programs, but claims her alerts went unheeded. 

“Minnesota fraud was not a ‘hidden secret’,” she emphasized in the interview, pointing to leadership lapses that let schemes balloon unchecked.

The slur threats are also not isolated.

The revelations build on citizen journalist Nick Shirley’s explosive investigations, which uncovered over $110 million in questionable payments to Somali-operated businesses appearing largely inactive. 

The FBI now views this as the “tip of the iceberg,” with Director Kash Patel vowing to “continue to follow the money” in an ongoing probe.

Shirley’s fieldwork exposed patterns like shared addresses, recycled officers, and shell companies—hallmarks of organized fraud networks potentially diverting funds overseas, including to terrorist groups.

As this scandal began to explode Walz attempted damage control earlier this month. stating, “I am accountable for this, and more importantly, I am the one that will fix it.” 

Yet, he now appears to be attempting to deflect the blame onto… President Trump.

Yet critics argue his administration’s inaction speaks louder, especially as federal investigators ramp up entity mapping to trace circular payments and minimal operations.

The Trump administration has seized on the scandal, using it to justify immigration raids targeting Somali communities implicated in the fraud, signaling a shift toward stricter enforcement against welfare abuse.

This protectionist playbook—silencing dissent with weaponized smears—echoes broader Democrat tactics to shield failed policies on immigration and entitlements. As Robbins’ committee pushes for more hearings, including on adult day services, the pressure builds for real consequences.

With billions potentially siphoned off, far exceeding Somalia’s GDP in scale, Minnesotans, and all Americans, deserve transparency and justice. 

Now even more citizen journalists are joining the effort to dismantle the networks exploiting America’s generosity and hold enablers accountable before billions more in taxpayer funds vanishes into the void.

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 Fri, 01/02/2026 - 18:25

FBI Thwarts ISIS-Inspired New Year's Eve Terror Plot In North Carolina

FBI Thwarts ISIS-Inspired New Year's Eve Terror Plot In North Carolina

The FBI said it foiled an ISIS-inspired New Year’s Eve terror attack in North Carolina.

Suspect Christian Sturdivant, 18, was arrested on Dec. 31 and charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina Russ Ferguson said at a Jan. 2 press conference.

Sturdivant appeared in court on Jan. 2.

A U.S. citizen, Sturdivant had allegedly planned the attack for about a year, according to Ferguson.

A hand-written document titled “The New Year’s Eve Attack 2026” was found in Sturdivant’s bedroom trash can and included a section labeled, “martyrdom Op,” court papers claim.

As Jackson Richman reports below for The Epoch Times, Sturdivant read ISIS material online, visited the terrorist group’s websites, and made TikTok videos, Ferguson said.

He communicated online with someone he thought was a member of ISIS, but was actually an undercover agent with the New York Police Department, he added.

Ferguson said Sturdivant pledged his allegiance to ISIS with the agent and said he would “do jihad soon.”

Sturdivant also met an undercover FBI agent he thought was an ISIS participant, “and he started to be very specific with his plans,” Ferguson said, adding that Sturdivant allegedly said he planned to carry out the attack at a grocery store and a fast-food restaurant in Mint Hill, which is outside Charlotte.

The suspect said he was going to wear a Kevlar vest and attack people with knives and hammers on New Year’s Eve, according to Ferguson.

The FBI searched Sturdivant’s home, where they found hammers and knives underneath his bed and notes planning the attack, said Ferguson.

“It was a very well-planned, thoughtful attack ... that was fortunately foiled here,” Ferguson said.

“He was preparing for jihad and innocent people were going to die. And we’re very, very fortunate they did not.”

Sturdivant faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

The FBI took Sturdivant to a state magistrate to attempt to have him involuntarily committed due to his allegedly threatening people and planning to die at the hands of a policeman, according to Ferguson.

The judge denied the request.

The FBI investigation lasted two weeks, said Special Agent in Charge James Barnacle.

Sturdivant first came to the FBI’s attention in January 2022 as he was in contact on social media with an identified ISIS member overseas, said Barnacle.

The ISIS member instructed him to dress in all black, knock on people’s doors, and attack people with a hammer.

Sturdivant dressed in all black and left his house with a hammer, but his family stepped in, Barnacle said.

No charges were filed, and Sturdivant was referred for and underwent psychological care - the details of which Barnacle said he did not know.

A contact for Sturdivant’s legal representative could not be found.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 18:00

Maduro Open To US Talks On Drug-Trafficking

Maduro Open To US Talks On Drug-Trafficking

Authored by Rachel Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said he is open to talks with the United States to combat drug trafficking, but did not comment on last week’s U.S. strikes on a docking facility.

Maduro made his comments in an interview aired Thursday on Venezuelan state television, repeating his claim that the United States is trying to force a government change in the South American country and gain access to its vast oil reserves through the campaign against the cartels.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions to combat drug trafficking began last August with a significant military deployment to the Caribbean Sea. Boat strikes by the United States began off Venezuela’s Caribbean coast and later expanded to the eastern Pacific Ocean.

“What are they seeking? It is clear that they seek to impose themselves through threats, intimidation, and force,” Maduro said.

‘Ready’ for Oil Investment

Later in the interview, he said that it is time for both nations to “start talking seriously, with data in hand.”

“The U.S. government knows, because we’ve told many of their spokespeople, that if they want to seriously discuss an agreement to combat drug trafficking, we’re ready,” he said.

“If they want oil, Venezuela is ready for U.S. investment, like with Chevron, whenever they want it, wherever they want it, and however they want it.”

Venezuela has the world’s largest known oil reserves, and Chevron Corp. is the only major company exporting the South American country’s crude oil to the United States.

Footage of a U.S. strike on three alleged drug trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Dec. 29, 2025. U.S. Southern Command/Screenshot via The Epoch Times

New Year Boat Strikes

The New Year’s Eve interview was recorded on the same day the U.S. military announced strikes against five alleged drug-smuggling boats.

The latest attacks bring the number of known boat strikes to 35, while the number of people killed is at least 115, according to numbers from Washington, with Venezuelans among the dead.

The White House said in October that the attacks are a necessary escalation to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, stating that the government is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Trump on Dec. 29 said that the United States had knocked out a loading facility linked to Venezuelan drug boats, but didn’t provide further details, in the first known direct operation in the South American country since the boat strikes began.

The latest strike marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s campaign to put pressure on Maduro, who was charged with narco-terrorism in the United States in March 2020.

In the interview, Maduro said he would be able to talk about the operation on Venezuelan soil “in a few days.”

Trump made reference to the operation in an interview on Friday with John Catsimatidis on WABC radio in New York, saying the United States had knocked out some type of “big facility where ships come from.”

On Monday, as he hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago resort, Trump declined to comment when asked whether the attack was conducted by the military or the CIA, but said in an exchange with reporters that the operation targeted a “dock area where they load the boats up with drugs.”

(Left) U.S. President Donald Trump looks on aboard Air Force One during travel to Palm Beach, Florida, from Joint Base Andrews, Md., on Nov. 25, 2025. (Right) Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro speaks during the Meeting of Jurists in Defense of International Law at the Eurobuilding Hotel in Caracas on Nov. 14, 2025. Anna Rose Layden/Reuters; Federico Parra/AFP via Getty Images

Covert Operations

However, Trump has previously taken the step of publicly acknowledging that he had authorized the CIA to carry out covert action inside Venezuela.

The administration is required to report covert CIA activities to senior congressional officials, including the chair and ranking members of both the Senate and House intelligence committees. However, an action undertaken by the intelligence agency rather than the military would likely face less scrutiny from lawmakers in the United States.

In October, Trump said he authorized the operations for two reasons: criminals and drug trafficking.

“And the other thing, the drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea,” he told reporters.

Justice Department officials alleged that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and other regime officials ran a cartel aimed at flooding the United States with cocaine. The United States estimates that 250 metric tons of cocaine are trafficked from Venezuela each year. Department of Justice

Accusations Against Maduro

Trump and members of his administration have alleged that Maduro and senior officials in Venezuela lead the Cartel de los Soles, a shadowy network they say moves cocaine through Venezuelan territory in cooperation with criminal groups such as Tren de Aragua.

The gang has been accused by Trump of engaging in “irregular warfare” against the United States through drug trafficking and transnational violence.

Maduro denies any such involvement in organized crime, alleging that Washington has fabricated evidence to justify intervention and impose “regime change through military threat.”

The United States and much of the international community view Maduro’s presidency as illegitimate, citing evidence that his 2024 reelection—his third term in office—was marred by allegations of fraud and manipulation, while accusing Venezuela’s leftist authoritarian regime of human rights abuses.

Trump has repeatedly expressed readiness to deploy U.S. military power to stop drug trafficking from Latin America, including land-based strikes or the use of ground forces if deemed necessary.

In November, War Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled Operation Southern Spear, a broad U.S. initiative aimed at dismantling what the administration terms “narco-terrorist” networks across the Western Hemisphere.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 17:40

Kathy Hochul Caves On 'No Tax On Tips'

Kathy Hochul Caves On 'No Tax On Tips'

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill made a straightforward promise: more money in workers’ pockets.

The plan eliminated the federal tax on tips and overtime pay for linemen and factory workers, and created a new deduction for seniors relying on Social Security. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called it “the most pro-worker, pro-family legislation in a generation.” 

However, several blue-state governors were refusing to reciprocate by eliminating state taxes on tips, including Govs. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused them of “deliberately blocking their own residents” from the bill’s benefits at the state level.

Bessent made clear that states that refused to comply with the law should expect consequences.

“Treasury stands ready to work with any state committed to delivering on that promise, but we will not stand idly by as this obstructionism drags down the national recovery,” he said. “This is about fairness. This is about opportunity. And this is about putting America first, starting with the families and workers who make our economy the envy of the world.”

Kathy Hochul has now caved. On New Year’s Day, she announced that New York will finally move to exempt service workers’ tips from state income taxes on up to $25,000 in tipped income.

“As we welcome in the New Year, affordability remains my top priority and I am doubling down on my commitment to put money back in New Yorkers’ pockets,” Governor Hochul said in a statement Thursday.

“Starting today, tax rates for the vast majority of lower and middle-class New Yorkers will be cut, families with children will see a sweeping increase in the child tax credit, and minimum wage workers across the state will see their wages go up. I’m kicking the new year off with a proposal of no state income tax on tips, continuing my efforts to make New York more affordable for hard working New Yorkers.”

The change comes only after months of outrage from restaurant owners and service workers who accused Albany of putting politics ahead of paychecks.
Service industry workers noticed and called it a slap in the face to people barely scraping by in such an expensive state. 

One worker, reacting to Hochul’s original stance, told the New York Post last month, “Screw her.”

Another called her refusal “disgraceful,” while a different worker described it as “disheartening” that the governor would block a policy that could put real money back in their pockets. They argued that Albany is effectively punishing people who live off tips, with one server saying, “We’re the ones who make the least and get taxed the most.” 

“Their hands are in everything and finally they’re doing some good and they passed the bill and now the state comes and screws you,” said Jackie Puttre, manager of P. McDaid’s Irish Pub in Midtown.

 Others stressed how transformative the policy could be; as one put it, “That extra money could help me pay my rent and maybe work one less double shift.” To these workers, Hochul’s opposition to eliminating the state tax on tips proved she is out of touch with the reality of living on tips in New York. 

 “It’s like, what are we doing? Just leave it to Kathy Hochul to do that.” Bartender Hannah Teal said she earned only $40,000 in 2024 after state taxes and figured she’d make at least $3,000 more if New York followed Trump’s lead. With Hochul seeking reelection in November, it must have become clear that refusing to eliminate taxes on tips would hurt her campaign. 

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, a Republican running for governor of New York, had been among her sharpest critics for moving too slowly, welcomed the shift with a jab of his own.

“I see Kathy Hochul is doing a u-turn on taxing tips. I was told she changed her mind after I said I would never tax tips,” Blakeman told The New York Post. “Kathy, if you want more of my ‘tips’ on how to govern, just continue to follow my lead.”

While the flip-flop is welcome news for the service industry, some are still criticizing her for not acting quickly enough.

But the tax eliminating proposal has existed in Albany in some form since at least early last year when Assemblyman Mike Durso (R-Nassau) and state Sen. Jack Martins (R-Nassau) introduced a bill to scrap levies on tips.

Durso said Hochul shouldn’t wait to pack the policy into the burgeoning state budget package, which isn’t likely to be passed before its April 1 deadline.

“We don’t need to add stuff to it, attach stuff to it that’s going to make it stink. Let’s just get it done,” Durso said.

“This is plain and simple. It’s going to help working class people,” he added. “I don’t see any pushback, and if there is pushback on it from any of my colleagues, shame on them because they obviously have never worked in these types of industries and understand how hard these people work.”

Hochul narrowly won reelection in 2022 against Republican Lee Zeldin, and polls have suggested Hochul isn’t a lock for reelection. Several polls showed Hochul either locked in a tight race or losing to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). Though Stefanik has since dropped her bid for governor, Hochul can’t afford to anger working-class voters, even if it is to spite Donald Trump.

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 17:20

5 Things To Know About Trump's Education Policy Rollout

5 Things To Know About Trump's Education Policy Rollout

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump prioritized education reform during his 2024 campaign and went to work quickly after taking the oath of office.

President Trump, joined by female athletes, signs the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

A series of executive orders followed by actions against the status quo in both K–12 and higher education that would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars prompted pushback from Democratic governors and the national teachers’ union. Several lawsuits will continue into 2026.

“These are reforms that conservatives have championed for decades,” the Department of Education proclaimed in a year-end post on its website. “And in one year, we’ve made them a reality.”

Here are five things to know about Trump’s education policy in 2025.

Ending the Department of Education

Trump appointed Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who supports his goal of returning policy decisions to states and shifting funding mechanisms to other federal agencies, thereby potentially putting herself out of a job. Both have acknowledged that officially eliminating the Education Department requires congressional approval.

McMahon immediately cut her staff in half and closed satellite offices outside Washington. So far, she’s announced plans to move all functions except special education, student loans/financial aid, the office of civil rights, and data and information services to other departments, though she previously suggested those programs could be absorbed by Health and Human Services, the Treasury Department, Justice Department, and Census Bureau, respectively.

Eliminating the federal bureaucracy would get more money directly into classrooms, McMahon announced last month, adding that these interagency agreements are allowed under the Economy Act, which authorizes agencies to conduct transactions with one another in the absence of cheaper private alternatives.

In the months ahead, as state block grant programs are established to replace the current federal education grant systems, McMahon will continue her nationwide school visits, gather input from education leaders, and establish best practices for districts and states aimed at improving K–12 academic achievement.

The National Education Association teachers’ union has called the moves “illegal, cruel, and shameful.”

Civil Rights

Trump signed an executive order prohibiting the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices such as race-based hiring, admissions and curriculum; mandatory diversity training; and affinity groups by race or ethnicity. This was followed by orders condemning campus anti-Semitism and protecting women’s sports programs under Title IX.

The Education and Justice departments immediately began enforcing these policies in schools, launching investigations and withholding billions in federal funding to colleges and universities with recent histories of civil rights violations and disruptive or violent anti-Semitic protests.

Trump reached settlements with several universities he investigated, including Columbia, Brown, Cornell, the University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern, Wagner College, and the University of Virginia.

Columbia will pay a $200 million fine plus $21 million to Jewish employees harassed by co-workers and students. Cornell University, also cited for both discriminatory student admissions practices and anti-Semitism, agreed to pay a $30 million penalty to the federal government and invest $30 million in research that directly benefits U.S. farmers.

The University of Pennsylvania, which was sanctioned for allowing a male to compete on the women’s swim team, was required to strip that athlete, Lia Thomas, of all awards, including his 2022 NCAA national championship, and send a letter of apology to all female swimmers who competed against him.

Trump attempted to freeze more than $500 million in research grants to the University of California-Los Angeles, but the school obtained a federal court order that said the funding must be released.

A legal battle with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, Harvard, is also ongoing. Trump’s attempt to withhold billions of dollars in research grants to the institution was met with a lawsuit, though the two sides have discussed a settlement. In September, Trump said a settlement could include $500 million for trade school programs that provide instruction on artificial intelligence, engines, and other vocations.

But most U.S. colleges and universities have not challenged federal policies and have removed online references to DEI programs.

“Faculties had collectively owned universities, and problems had been allowed to fester for years,” Jay Greene, formerly of the Heritage Foundation and now a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, previously told The Epoch Times. “Senior leadership at these schools gains back control. They are relieved, and they get to blame Trump. It’s a total win.”

Trump has taken far fewer civil rights actions against K–12 institutions, though he has threatened to withhold federal funding from states that allow males to compete in girls’ sports or permit schools to withhold information about their child’s sexuality or chosen gender from parents.

Higher Education Compact

After the 2025–2026 academic year began, the Trump administration presented its proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education to nine universities.

They were offered preferred consideration for federal grants and flexibility in research costs if they agreed to eliminate preferential treatment by race, require SAT scores in student applications, limit undergraduate admission of foreign students to 15 percent, freeze tuition for five years, maintain a policy of institutional neutrality on political and social issues, and accept all transfer credits from military members and veterans.

Seven schools declined the offer, announcing that such a deal would compromise their institutional independence. The remaining two schools, Vanderbilt and the University of Texas, haven’t announced a decision yet.

The Education Department hasn’t indicated whether the compact has been, or will be, offered to additional colleges and universities.

Universal School Choice

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress this year, includes a federal scholarship tax program supporting private school vouchers.

The program, which takes effect in 2027, allows a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donors to qualified scholarship-granting organizations or to cover associated costs like transportation and supplies. There are income eligibility guidelines in place to prioritize needy families.

The program is optional for states, and governors will consider it in the months ahead.

Trump and McMahon have promoted school choice, saying the one-size-fits-all approach of assigned schools by ZIP code is largely to blame for declining test scores across the nation.

In April, the president spoke to Republican Texas state legislators before they passed a bill that provides $1 billion for private school vouchers in the first year of the program, plus $2,000 per student for homeschooling expenses and up to $30,000 for special education students who chose a different school.

In June, McMahon boosted federal funding to publicly funded charter schools by $60 million for an annual total of $500 million. Her Republican supporters in Congress plan to introduce a federal tax credit for charitable donations to start up new charter schools.

Student Loans and Higher Education Transparency

Trump overhauled the student loan policies of his predecessor, President Joe Biden, who attempted to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in delinquent debt to more than 5 million student borrowers. He also capped student loan programs that under Biden allowed students and parents to borrow unlimited amounts.

“The Trump administration is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme. The law is clear: If you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a Dec. 9 statement.

The Education Department will soon begin garnishing wages of borrowers who default on loans. The agency has also denied almost 380,000 requests for lower monthly payments. The American Federation of Teachers has sued the administration to maintain Biden-era payback arrangements.

In applying for federal student aid, meanwhile, borrowers are now informed of their post-graduation earning potential based on data from colleges and universities.

In 2026, Trump is expected to push the bipartisan College Transparency Act, which would task the National Center for Education Statistics with analyzing higher education costs and financial aid, as well as evaluating student enrollment patterns, completion rates, and post-collegiate outcomes.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/02/2026 - 17:00

Pages