Counting Our Energy Blessings During This Season Of Hope

Authored by Gary Abernathy of the Empowerment Alliance via RealClearEnergy,

The Christmas season is upon us, a time of year when many of us reflect on the year that is drawing to a close and on the good times, the sad times, and the challenges ahead. It’s also a time of year when we count our blessings and express gratitude for any good things that have come our way.

While some may realize it more than others, all Americans should be grateful for one thing most of us tend to take for granted – light that appears in the rooms of our homes at the flick of a switch, heat that emanates through our floorboard vents or radiators by merely increasing the number on a dial or a digital pad, cars, SUVs and trucks that start with the turn of a key or the push of a button.

All these modern conveniences are made possible for even low-income Americans thanks to energy that is affordable and widely accessible.

In this increasingly diverse and often divided society in which we live, all Americans are united by access to low-cost, effective energy. We have been blessed for so long by affordable energy that we are sometimes in danger of taking it for granted.

But without the change in presidential administrations that happened last January – and with it the blessings of lowered inflation, a return to free-market principles and, especially, regulatory rollbacks (more on that shortly) – Americans could have been facing a much bleaker winter this Christmas season.

Under the Biden administration, inflation averaged nearly 5%, “hitting 9.1% during the worst inflation crisis in decades,” the White House recently pointed out. In the new Trump administration, inflation has dropped to an average of 2.7%, and “Americans have seen the first overall price decline since 2020.”

Even more impressively, the skyrocketing gas prices experienced under the Biden regime have thankfully been dramatically reversed. Americans “now see the lowest average gas price in more than four years and are on track to spend the lowest amount of their disposable income on gas in the last two decades.”

While energy costs remain relatively low compared to other rising costs, the Trump administration is working to tame electricity prices which began climbing in 2022 under the Biden administration.

One analysis showed that “from March 2022 to June 2025, average monthly energy bills rose from $196 to $265 – a 35 percent jump, or nearly three times overall inflation during that period.” Trump’s reversal of Biden subsidies and incentives that artificially propped up “alternatives” like wind and solar will begin to reap dividends in the coming months and years. The new administration’s fast-track permitting process for new exploration will supercharge our most abundant and reliable legacy resources, driving energy costs down.

But while politicians and pundits seem focused on “prices” as a measure of “affordability,” the long list of regulatory rollbacks in which the Trump administration has engaged will be the real catalyst leading to a more affordable life in the U.S.

Trump’s deregulatory efforts “are saving Americans a collective $180 billion — or $2,100 per family of four,” the White House notes. “For example, President Trump halted burdensome Biden-era efficiency standards that jacked up the price of everyday appliances.”

Earlier this month, in an announcement that did not get the attention it deserved, President Trump unveiled relaxed fuel economy standards “for the more than 15 million new cars and trucks sold in the country every year,” as the Detroit News reported.

“The plan, if finalized, would slash fuel economy requirements through the 2031 model year, to about a fleetwide average for light-duty vehicles of roughly 34.5 miles per gallon, down from roughly 50 miles per gallon under the current rules,” the story noted.

Administration officials rightfully said that “the new standards would increase consumers’ access to a wider range of affordable gas-powered vehicles and help hold down new car prices.”

“Today’s a victory of common sense and affordability,” said Jim Farley, CEO of Ford Motor Company, who joined Trump at that Oval Office announcement. It was great news for everyone who loves their dependable gas-powered cars, SUVs and trucks.

It’s impossible to overstate the scope of the catastrophe that has been averted by dismantling the disastrous energy policies of the previous administration. If the Biden-era subsidies, mandates and penalties had continued, Americans would likely be facing a much bleaker holiday season, not to mention the cold-weather months that follow for much of the country.

The gift of energy policies that promote affordability, accessibility and commonsense emission standards should be high on the wish list of every American family.

While this Christmas may be too soon upon us to expect delivery of such a present, passage of the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security act (ARC-ES) introduced in October by Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH) would make the perfect gift from Congress and President Trump to all 340 million Americans in conjunction with America’s 250th birthday on July 4, 2026.

ARC-ES would codify low-cost, accessible energy into law, protecting energy security from the radical political whims of future far-left administrations. In this season of hope, wishing for such a gift in the next six months should not require a Christmas miracle – merely the will of our elected representatives in Washington to do the right thing.

“May your days be merry and bright,” Bing Crosby sings in “White Christmas” – merry because of the holiday, bright thanks to low-cost energy that is there when we need it. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 18:25

Judge Allows Abrego Garcia To Remain Free While She Considers Immigration Issues

A U.S. District Judge overseeing a lawsuit by Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia against the Trump administration allowed him to remain free from custody while she assesses whether the government can validly remove him from the country.

Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, based in Greenbelt outside of Washington, D.C., said that she was “growing ... impatient” with the government’s attorneys, who are arguing that Abrego Garcia’s summary removal from the country to El Salvador on March 15—pursuant to President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—was justified.

As Arjun Singh reports for The Epoch Times, Abrego Garcia, 30, entered the United States illegally as a teenager.

He had been granted, in 2019, a “Withholding of Removal” order by an Immigration Court, which prevents an alien who is otherwise deportable from being removed from the country, due to the finding of a credible fear for his life.

Thereafter, he lived in Maryland for six years, during which time he married a U.S. citizen and fathered a U.S. citizen child.

The Trump administration removed Abrego Garcia in March, stating that he is an “MS-13 gang member with a history of violence,” which he and his lawyers denied.

Democrats and progressive groups criticized the removal of Abrego Garcia in spite of the 2019 court order.

The administration said the removal was an “administrative error.”

“Why should I give the respondents the benefit of the doubt?” Xinis said during a hearing in the case on Dec. 22.

Xinis had issued a writ of habeas corpus—a constitutional remedy to release someone from government custody—to Abrego Garcia on Dec. 11, which freed him from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, and then issued a restraining order to the agency to bar it from re-taking him into custody on other grounds.

On Dec. 22, Xinis denied the government’s request to rescind that order.

“This is an extremely irregular and extraordinary situation,” Xinis said during the hearing.

Abrego Garcia also faces criminal charges in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens and related smuggling offenses stemming from a 2022 traffic stop.

A federal grand jury indicted him on May 21, 2025, after which the Trump administration repatriated him from El Salvador, his native country, on June 6 to face those charges.

Any proceeding to remove him from the country would occur in a civil Immigration Court, created for the purpose of adjudicating removal cases, and would be subordinate to the ongoing criminal case in Tennessee. Xinis has prioritized resolving the civil habeas corpus case in Maryland before allowing Abrego Garcia’s re-detention for removal.

The Trump administration has been ramping up deportations of illegal immigrants, prioritizing those with a criminal record.

Critics of federal immigration enforcement have been protesting in support of Abrego Garcia. Outside the hearing on Dec. 22, which he attended, supporters cheered for him while a choir sang, accompanied by bullhorn and drum.

Abrego Garcia’s case, on interlocutory appeal, also reached the Supreme Court, which on April 10 ruled to grant in part and deny in part an application to vacate Xinis’s order, vacating the return deadline but requiring the government to facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador and process his case as if not improperly removed.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 18:00

California: Taxing People Who Aren't There

Authored by Mike McDaniel via AmericanThinker.com,

As the old aphorism goes: “Don’t tax you; don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.” Nobody likes paying taxes, but most Americans accept them as a necessary evil and are willing to pay their fair share, unless politicians waste those tax dollars in extraordinarily—well—wasteful ways, or steal them outright.

I refer, of course, to California, where, as the classic Eagle’s song Hotel California goes: “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.”

California, it’s no secret, is in deep financial trouble. In 2022, Gavin Newsom bragged about a $97.5 billion dollar surplus. By the 2024-25 budget, that surplus turned into an estimated $73 billion deficit. By the end of 2025, it’s likely far worse and virtually no one trusts state government’s estimates.

Graphic: X Post

A substantial part of the problem has been grotesque government overspending and fraud that reportedly makes Minnesota’s fraud totals look like couch cushion change. Newsom’s high-speed-rail-to-nowhere debacle hasn’t helped. And worse, Americans get to vote with their feet and U-Hauls. California is losing a taxpayer every one minute and 44 seconds of every day. This includes billionaires, of which California used to have a reasonably large supply.

What to do; what to do? Newsom and the one-party Democrat legislature know: retroactively tax fleeing billionaires!

California Democrats are pushing the retroactive billionaire tax targeting the roughly 220 billionaires residing in California in 2025. It signals not just desperation in the face of crippling debt and overspending but a recognition that California is chasing its highest earners out of the state.

The “2026 Billionaires Tax Act” would impose a one-time 5% tax on individual wealth exceeding $1 billion. While technically using 2026 wealth figures, it would apply to billionaires who resided in California in 2025. So you cannot hope to flee… at least with your wealth intact. It is a penalty for those who stayed too long hoping that rational minds would prevail in California.

Democrats have long whined that the rich weren’t “paying their fair share.” Make the rich pay what they owe and our budget problems, state and federal, will disappear, they claim. It’s a topic Bill Whittle addressed in a classic video titled: “Eat the Rich!”    Whittle, step by step, explored taking all the assets of the wealthy to fund one year of the federal government, and by that mechanism barely manages to do it, but points out that money covered—barely—a single year. All the assets of the wealthy are gone, every penny. From where—who—will the money to cover next year’s bills come? A one-time billionaire tax suddenly becomes eternal.

Californians can be certain if California gets away with a retroactive tax on billionaires, they’ll surely extend it to millionaires and then everyone else, and so will other blue states. But how does that work? How can a state tax people who don’t live there any more?

George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley explains:

The constitutionality of a retroactive tax has long been controversial. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), the Supreme Court declared “the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence… [e]lementary considerations of fairness dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and conform their conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted.”

Turley goes on to note several other Supreme Court decisions coming down on both sides of a bright line. And at Legal Insurrection, Mary Chastain notes that presidential candidate Gavin Newsom may have had a change of heart: 

Dan Newman, a political adviser opposing the campaign to tax billionaires, said Newsom is against a plan to slap a one-time, 5% tax on roughly 200 Californians worth more than $1 billion to “replace lost federal dollars and protect essential services,” as described by the campaign’s website.

That’s a tough one for Newsom. On one hand the financial disaster he’s made of California is likely to figuratively kill him in a presidential race. On the other, if he does decide to run, and he wouldn’t lie about a thing like whether or not he’s already made that decision, he’s going to need every billionaire buck he can find. Fleecing them after they’ve fled the state isn’t going to fill his campaign coffers.

Maybe Newsom won’t get the chance to do to America what he’s done to California after all—but he just might.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 17:40

US Moves Special Operations Aircraft Near Venezuela: 'Prepositioning For Action'

"They are prepositioning forces to take action," David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday of the ongoing US forces build-up in the southern Caribbean. 

The WSJ commentary further assessed that "The movement of such assets indicates that the administration already has decided on a course of action" - though with President Trump it's currently anyone's guess as to precisely what that course of action will be.

Illustrative Air Force file image.

The report unveils that a fresh and large number of special-operations aircraft, troops and equipment have surged into the Caribbean this week, over and above the significant amount of assets - including warships and a nuclear powered aircraft carrier - which have already been in place for months.

The additional groups deployed included special forces, described in the following:

At least 10 CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which are used by special-operations forces, flew into the region Monday night from Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, according to an official. C-17 cargo aircraft from Fort Stewart and Fort Campbell Army bases arrived Monday in Puerto Rico, according to flight-tracking data. A different U.S. official confirmed that military personnel and equipment were transported on planes.

It isn’t clear what types of troops and equipment the aircraft were transporting. Cannon is home to the 27th Special Operations Wing, while the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, an elite U.S. special operations unit, and the 101st Airborne Division are based at Fort Campbell. The first battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment is based at Hunter Army Airfield, at Fort Stewart.

An official statement from the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) negated to give specifics on the new units reportedly moving closer to Venezuela, but downplayed the movements as routine and standard.

"It is standard practice to routinely rotate equipment and personnel to any military installation," said a SOUTHCOM spokesperson to WSJ. "And as a standard practice, due to operational security concerns, we do not disclose details or comment on U.S. assets or personnel operational movements and activities, nor disclose details of specific operations or routes."

Currently there's a lot of signaling from Washington, and the purpose of such stories as WSJ's may be to continue instilling fear in Venezuela's President Maduro. Of course, the White House is not going to push back at this moment on anything which touts the real threat facing Caracas. The US wants the government to feel the heat and pressure.

Meanwhile...

Venezuela's military distributing rifles to the people in working-class districts. These militias will form an armed resistance to defend their nation if the US tries to occupy the country. pic.twitter.com/GCn0M3E8Fi

— Ollie Vargas (@Ollie_Vargas_) December 21, 2025

But the endgame remains unknown, and there's been a good degree of confusion over this - given how long the Pentagon build-up has dragged on. Also given the Ford Carrier Group is positioned near Venezuela, the clock is ticking, and such a deployment is very costly which each passing day.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 17:20

A Christmas Gift To The War Machine

Authored by Ron Paul

Late last week, Congress passed and President Trump signed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill marks the first time the US military budget officially passed the one trillion dollar mark. Of course, when you add in other military-related spending such as interest on the debt, veterans’ affairs, and military components of other government agencies, the true number is at least one and a half times that amount.

To paraphrase the famous 1953 President Eisenhower speech, "The Chance for Peace," each of these dollars spent on military offense and the maintenance of the US global empire rather than on defense of our own nation is taken from the mouths of the hungry and off the backs of hardworking American families.

Congress is so addicted to military spending that they appropriated even more money than President Trump requested, including an unconscionable $800 million for thoroughly corrupt Ukraine. Will Washington ever be called to answer for why Americans, who are seeing their standard of living eaten away by inflation and a declining economy, should continue to subsidize a criminal regime overseas whose ruling class enjoys the comfort of golden toilets?

The Ukraine money also undermines President Trump’s claim to be a neutral mediator in the conflict. How can you be a peacemaker when you are sending nearly a billion dollars in weapons to one side to help kill the other side? It makes no sense.

Congress even included measures in the bill that would prevent President Trump from bringing any US troops home from real “forever wars” in Korea and Europe. For how many more decades must the American worker continue to subsidize a US military presence in countries completely unrelated to our own security? World War II ended 80 years ago and the Korean war some ten years later. Yet the American military empire remains, at an incalculable cost to Americans.

Some fellow critics will say this is all about welfare for rich countries overseas, and that’s partly right. But more than that, it is welfare for the politically-connected US military-industrial complex at home. Imagine how many retired US military officers and former US officials-turned-lobbyists might be financially inconvenienced if we finally "just marched home"?

This week Western Christians will celebrate the coming of the Prince of Peace, with the Orthodox celebrating a few days later. It is disheartening that so many Americans who call themselves Christians also hold fast to a view that we must bankrupt our country and impoverish our people by playing policeman to the world and arbiter of whose regime must be changed by Washington.

Christians are among the biggest victims in these overseas operations, including in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. Yet many American Christians turn a blind eye to the suffering and misery produced by neocon-led militarism overseas. They don't care that unquestioning support for Israel, for example, has nearly erased Christianity from where it was born.

Imagine if Jesus were born in the Holy Land today.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." That is the message of the Savior whose birth we Christians celebrate this week. Continuing to bankrupt our country and export misery overseas in the futile pursuit of a global military empire places us in opposition to this worthwhile advice. Let us all join together and work for a real peace in the New Year!

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 17:00

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid To Deploy National Guard In Chicago

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Trump's emergency request to allow National Guard troops to be deployed in Chicago, dealing a setback to the admin's attempts to curtail high crime rates in major cities.

The 6-3 decision left in force a judge’s ruling that has blocked the deployment since Oct. 9.

“At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority said.

The government hadn’t shown the president could legally “federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”

It is an unusual loss on the Supreme Court's emergency docket for the Trump administration.

In more than 20 other emergency appeals this year, the administration has won short-term rulings that allowed Trump to swiftly enact an array of policies that lower courts had blocked.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the high court’s ruling Tuesday, saying he had “serious doubts” about the majority’s reasoning.

“The Court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose,” Alito wrote, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a separate dissent, contending that the challengers to the National Guard deployment - the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago - had forfeited the argument about the meaning of "regular forces" by failing to present that issue in the lower courts.

Trump contends military force is needed to protect federal immigration agents from what he claims are violent protests.

The court deliberated over the case for more than two months, an unusually lengthy review for a request that claimed government officials were facing an imminent threat.

Trump told the justices in his Oct. 17 application that troops were needed “to prevent ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety of federal personnel.”

Bloomberg reports that the case marked the high court’s first look at Trump’s fight to dispatch troops to cities where his immigration crackdown has drawn widespread protests.

The ruling means Trump, at least for now, can’t deploy hundreds of troops in the Chicago area.

The case is Trump v. State of Illinois, 25a443.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 16:40

How Trump Can Turn The Midterms Around

Authored by John Tillman via RealClearPolitics,

Midterm elections go one of two ways. They’re either a validation of the sitting president, or they’re a repudiation. Historically, they’ve almost always been a repudiation.

The 2026 midterms are shaping up to be no different – a firm rebuke to Donald Trump. That’s obviously bad for him. Congress will spend two straight years investigating and likely impeaching him.

But the bigger danger is to America. Democratic control of Congress will jeopardize Republicans’ efforts to restore an economy of opportunity for all. Worse, the left will lay the groundwork for recapturing the White House in 2028, at which point they’ll implement the most anti-opportunity agenda in American history. We’re talking welfare for all, funded by crippling tax hikes and a federal takeover of a once free economy.

Can Donald Trump turn the midterms around? Only if he, his fellow Republicans, and their allies on the right make immediate changes. If they do, they could stem the losses in November – and maybe even defy the odds to expand their majorities in the House and Senate.

First and foremost: They need to realize that midterms hinge on turnout.

The reason midterms are usually a presidential repudiation is because voters from the other party are more motivated. They feel greater anger and intensity, and they show up. The president’s supporters, meanwhile, usually think they did their job when they elected their man. Why bother showing up again?

If President Trump’s supporters don’t show up, Republican defeat is guaranteed. The most urgent need, therefore, is to invest in a massive get-out-the-vote operation. The GOP needs one the likes of which it’s ever seen.

But such an effort also needs a message – something that resonates with voters and sparks them to action. That’s the second area where change is needed. Because right now, Republicans don’t have any meaningful message at all.

The left certainly does. Democratic politicians, their allies in the media, and their associated army of activists and nonprofits have rallied around a single word: Affordability. They’re tricking voters into thinking that all the inflation and financial pain that Joe Biden caused is really the fault of Donald Trump. The call to action writes itself: If voters want to make ends meet, their only hope is to vote the GOP out.

This message works, but only because Republicans are letting it work. They’re largely silent in the face of Democratic attacks. Worse, in the president’s case, he’s calling affordability a “hoax.” For voters who supported him because of Joe Biden’s inflation, nothing could be worse. It’s tantamount to saying their problems don’t matter.

Republicans must reclaim the economic high ground. They need to relentlessly hammer the point that Joe Biden’s enormous failures will take time to fix. They need to point to the relief they’ve given, especially the tax cuts the president signed in July. Most importantly, they need to lay out a unified agenda that speaks to Americans’ deep concerns, convincing voters that the GOP will in fact make life more affordable.

Crafting that agenda is as much the work of policy wonks as it is public relations. Republicans and their allies should be relentlessly message-testing and focus-grouping to discover not only what policies Americans want, but how to sell the policies that Americans need – in health care, housing, and beyond. This can be done without compromising conservative principles. In fact, it’s essential if those principles have a path to becoming policies.

There’s one more message the GOP needs. It’s not enough to make the positive case for their own priorities. They need to relentlessly remind Americans of the danger posed by Democrats.

This isn’t hard. The return of crippling inflation. The collapse of our borders once again. Higher taxes on the middle class. Republicans have a simple case to make: If voters want all of America to look more like crime-ridden, welfare-defrauding, utterly unaffordable big blue cities, they should vote for Democrats.

Republicans needed these messages yesterday. They needed a turnout operation that was already delivering these messages to the base and undecided voters alike. If they and their allies don’t get their act together before the start of the year, the midterm elections will indeed be a repudiation of Donald Trump. Worse, they’ll put America’s future at risk. The clock is ticking.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 16:20

"Winter Isn't Over": NatGas Soars As Another Cold Blast Targets US East

U.S. natural gas futures surged the most since late October as one energy trader warned that "winter isn't over," with another wave of cold air set to spill into the eastern half of the Lower 48 early next week. The upcoming cold blast arrives even as much of the U.S. enjoys a brief warm-up following an early-month polar vortex that plunged large parts of the U.S. East into Arctic-like conditions.

"Winter isn't over yet. Here are forecast anomalies for this time next week showing a large area of unseasonably chilly temperatures across the major population centers of the Eastern US," energy trader Celsius Energy wrote on X.

Winter isn’t over yet. Here are forecast anomalies for this time next week showing a large area of unseasonably chilly temperatures across the major population centers of the Eastern US. #Natgas pic.twitter.com/U1N63JU7tE

— Celsius Energy (@CelsiusEnergyFM) December 23, 2025

Celsius Energy noted, "Near-term #natgas demand will be quite volatile with very bearish daily storage withdrawals under +5 BCF/d through this weekend surging to nearly -30 BCF/d by this time next week, more than double the 5-yr avg. In general, these projections have improved considerably."

Near-term #natgas demand will be quite volatile with very bearish daily storage withdrawals under +5 BCF/d through this weekend surging to nearly -30 BCF/d by this time next week, more than double the 5-yr avg. In general, these projections have improved considerably. pic.twitter.com/lHZQOr5Wxb

— Celsius Energy (@CelsiusEnergyFM) December 23, 2025

By late afternoon Tuesday, NatGas futures are up nearly 10%, the largest intraday jump since October 30's 17% price spike. Prices are trading around $4.365 per MMBtu.

Looking at Heating Degree Days for the Lower 48 - the weather-based measure of US heating demand -the index is projected to surge well above the 30-year average early next week and remain elevated through year-end.

Cold is returning to the eastern half of the Lower 48. Time to stack the firewood and get the gas-powered snowblower ready.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 15:45

Top Libyan General Confirmed Killed In Mysterious Private Jet Crash Departing Turkey

Update(1529ET): Tripoli has confirmed that the private jet which went down earlier as it departed Ankara was carrying top military commanders of the Government of National Accord (GNA), which is the Libyan government ruling the western part of the country and supported by Turkey.

Tripoli's Army Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Ahmed al-Haddad has been confirmed killed in the crash. While Turkey has been slow to confirm details as the wreckage has only within the last hour been located, the GNA has announced the death. Haddad and his officials were coming off a meeting with Turkey's National Defense Minister Yaşar Güler.

Naturally - given the high profile nature of the delegation - there will be questions over whether this was an accident, sabotage, or possible bomb blast. Some initial unconfirmed reports have mentioned an electrical failure. Haddad and the government he represented are bitter enemies of Gen. Khalifa Haftar in eastern Libya, which is supported by Russia. Turkey has been supporting the rulers in Tripoli from the start, soon after longtime ruler Gaddafi was overthrown in the NATO-backed war of 2011.

Footage shows the moment of the private jet crash in Ankara which was carrying Libyan military top brass pic.twitter.com/LmPVlb4Yfd

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) December 23, 2025

Still, Haftar in the wake of the aircraft downing is taking a polite and conciliatory tone, extending his condolences to his rivals...

#BREAKING
Libyan Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar: I express my condolences over the deaths of Lieutenant General Mohammed Ali Al-Haddad, Lieutenant General Al-Faitouri Ghribil, Brigadier General Mohammed Al-Fadhyawi, and their accompanying… pic.twitter.com/yz8JuMO1hp

— Libya Review (@LibyaReview) December 23, 2025

* * *

In what could be the start of a major geopolitical crisis, moments ago Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya said in a post on X that contact was lost with the private jet which was carrying Libya’s Army Chief of ⁠Staff, Mohammed Ali Ahmed al-Haddad, and four other passengers. 

The Falcon-50 private jet had just taken off from the Turkish capital of Ankara in direction of Tripoli, Libya.

An emergency landing notification was received from the aircraft, at which point contact with the jet was lost, the Turkish minister added. 

Contact was lost as of 8:52pm local time over the Turkish capital Ankara, broadcaster NTV reported as flight ‍tracking data showed flights being diverted ‍away from ‍Ankara’s ⁠Esenboga airport.

As the following flight map from Flightradar24 shows, the plane was in the air for just a few minutes after take off, having reached an altitude of 32,400 feet when it disappeared from radar. The airplane of Yevgeny Prigozhin, once "Putin's chef" before his fall out with the Russian president, suffered a similar fate when allegedly the plane exploded near cruising altitude after a bomb went off inside of it. 

Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper reports that the country shut down airspace over Ankara after the private jet incident. 

Turkey’s ‌defense ministry had ⁠announced ‍the Libyan chief of staff’s ⁠visit to Ankara earlier this ‌week, saying he had met his Turkish counterpart and other ‍military commanders.

Bloomberg reports that the Dassault Falcon 50 was 37 years old and was operated by Harmony Jets, according to data from FlightRadar24. The aircraft had recently flown into Ankara from Tripoli on Dec. 22.

Haddad as Libya's army "chief of staff" is a reference only to the Tripoli-based GNA (Government of National Accord, or sometimes GNU) - one among several rival governments controlling Libya, but which is backed by the UN and especially Turkey.

However, what can be seen as the most powerful military is the Eastern government, based in Benghazi, led by warlord and general Khalifa Haftar, backed by Russia. Haftar soon after the war to overthrow Gaddafi returned from decades in exile in Virginia, where he lived with his family within a mere miles from CIA headquarters in Langley. Turkey has long been supporting a proxy war in Libya, against Haftar's forces, and against Russian interests.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 15:29

Obesity Economics: How Subsidies Distort The American Diet

Authored by Laura Williams via TheDailyEconomy.org,

"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Let me introduce you to Sam. Sam has obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. His diet consists mostly of refined grains and trans fats. He’s got cabinets full of dirt-cheap junk food and sky-high healthcare costs to address its effects. He takes home $27,000 a year, but spends $36,000. He’s in debt up to his jaundiced eyeballs, and he wants his niece to foot the bill for weight-loss medication.

As a real-life niece of my Uncle Sam, I’m concerned about his diet. Some 56.2 percent of the daily calories consumed by US adults come from federally subsidized food commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy, and livestock. While these calorie-dense foods once made sense for a government preparing for famine or total war, in recent decades they’ve instead helped make us fatter and sicker. 

Obesity is a top driver of healthcare costs. One study compared the health of people who eat mostly foods the federal government subsidizes to those who eat fewer. Those who follow the revealed preferences of what the government subsidizes (rather than the diet it consciously recommends) are almost 40 percent more likely to be obese and face significant diet-related health issues. Those with the highest consumption of federally subsidized foods also have significantly higher rates of belly fat, abnormal cholesterol, high levels of blood sugar, and more markers of chronic inflammation. All these are increasing contributors to the most common causes of death in the developed world.

The negative impact of subsidized crop consumption on health — while it can’t be called causal — persists even after controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic factors. But life does not control for those factors.

The Great Grain Giveaway

The federal government recommends one diet to Americans, and subsidizes another. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the USDA and HHS promote eating fruits, vegetables, whole grains, protein, and moderate dairy, while limiting saturated fats, sugars, salt, and refined grains. According to data compiled for Meatonomics, American agribusiness receives about $38 billion annually in federal funding, with only 0.4 percent ($17 million) going to fruits and vegetables. Just three percent of cropland is devoted to fruits and vegetables, despite USDA guidelines’ insistence that they should cover half of your dinner plate. Just 10 percent of Americans consume the recommended amount of fresh produce, and the poor consume the least. (Fruit and vegetable producers’ exclusion from the federal direct payments program provides a valuable example of a food industry thriving without significant subsidies. They do, however, rely heavily on migrant labor to lower costs.)

Instead, the US spends tens of billions annually to subsidize seven major commodities. The three largest farm subsidy programs contribute 70 percent of funds to producers of just three crops — corn, soybeans, and wheat. Approximately 30-40 percent of US corn, over half of soybeans, and nearly all sorghum feed livestock, heavily discounting high-fat, lower-nutrition meat and dairy (especially compared to grass-fed options). The prevalence of grain-fed livestock generates demand for commodities used to feed them, completing the circle. 

Subsidies also contribute to our consumption of refined grains, sugary drinks, and processed foods. About five percent of corn becomes artificially cheap high-fructose corn syrup (which allows it to compete with tariffed natural sugars), and half of soybeans are processed into oils, which also contribute to obesity.

My Uncle Sam is sick because he eats the food the government makes artificially more affordable. Those foods are poorer in quality and more harmful to health than their unsubsidized alternatives. We are paying to make ourselves sicker.

Diet-Related Health Issues Fuel Healthcare Costs

For more than 20 years, the FDA has known that trans fats and refined grains harm health, damage metabolism, and cause disease. Diet-related illnesses like obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure are increasing, while heart disease remains the leading cause of death. These epidemics are intertwined at the artery level, and both contribute hugely to rising US health care costs.

In an economic order awash with subsidies and regulation, agricultural policy is health policy. Government subsidies for agricultural products have shaped the current American nutritional environment, and they are exacerbating obesity trends.

An article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine confirms: “Current agricultural policy remains largely uninformed by public health discourse.”

Johns Hopkins physician (and current Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration) Marty Makary called out the disconnect clearly. “Half of all federal spending is going to health care in its many hidden forms,” he told an interviewer in October, but Americans continue “getting sicker and sicker… Chronic diseases are on the rise. Cancers are on the rise. And we have the most medicated generation in human history.”

We’re getting more medicated every day — and more of it is at taxpayer expense. 

A Better Answer Than Ozempic?

Government spending on healthcare now exceeds the entire discretionary budget. Excess weight is a significant risk for older Americans, who are also the most likely to both have high healthcare costs and to rely on government health care. Forty percent of Americans over 60 are classified as having obesity, which is a contributing or complicating factor in diseases that kill older Americans: cancers, heart disease, infection, stroke, and cirrhosis.

Late last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved the weight-loss drug Wegovy as a treatment for people at risk of heart attack or stroke. Medicare is forbidden by statute from covering prescription drugs for weight loss alone, but in 2021 regulators approved Wegovy for reducing weight-related risks in patients with diabetes. Medicare Part D plans spent $2.6 billion last year on related compound Ozempic to keep 500,000 patients with diabetes stable. Wegovy’s list price is around $1,300 per month, but that’s still small compared to the $1.4 trillion Americans spend on direct and indirect costs from obesity.

It has a certain economic logic. Instead of waiting for a patient to develop a cascade of expensive comorbidities like heart failure or diabetes, we could consider asking Medicare to pay for anti-obesity meds on the front end. That wouldn’t work as well as lifestyle changes, but all our health and activity messaging over the past several years doesn’t seem to have moved that needle, and significant evidence suggests our efforts are counterproductive. 

The Tangled Web of Farm Subsidies

To understand the insanity of American agricultural and health policy, it’s hard to do better than comedian-illusionists Penn & Teller, who in characteristically salty style explained it this way 15 years ago: 

High fructose corn syrup is a dirt-cheap way to add sweetener and extend shelf life. And why is it so cheap? Because we subsidize corn farmers! Our government gives about 10 billion of our tax dollars to corn farmers every year so they can produce more corn than we need. They then sell the corn at artificially low prices. They spend our money to make corn syrup cheap, and now the same government that uses our tax money to keep soft drinks cheap wants more of our tax money to make soft drinks more expensive. Does anyone else think this is incredibly f—d up?

Yes, Penn. We do. And since that clip aired, obesity rates have worsened 50 percent, and rose 78 percent in children. Medical spending on the consequences of obesity doubled. Over the same period, subsidies to corn growers (which includes disaster aid and insurance) have tripled. 

Rather than cut back on his terrible diet, Uncle Sam wants us to pony up for weight loss drugs — to undo what our food policy has done.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 15:25

Goldman's Small-Cap Biotech Universe: The 2026 Catalyst Playbook For Investors 

There are just nine days left in the year, and this year has flown by.

We've delivered readers a steady stream of 2026 outlooks over the past few days and weeks, and next up is a year-ahead catalyst list from Goldman Sachs' small-cap biotech stock coverage.

Goldman analysts, led by Corinne Johnson, held their third "Year-Ahead" Catalyst Clinic, highlighting significant clinical catalysts for small-cap biotech companies (market caps under $3 billion) in their stock coverage universe.

Featured companies in the Catalyst Clinic included AbCellera Biologics, Allogene Therapeutics, Apogee Therapeutics, BioAge Labs, Entrada Therapeutics, Gossamer Bio, Gubra, Lyell Immunopharma, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Sana Biotechnology, Sionna Therapeutics, Sera Prognostics, Tyra Biosciences, Viralgen, and Viridian Therapeutics.

Johnson said the sentiment from the event was mostly positive, with several names showing clearer paths to value-creating data in 2026.

Here are the key catalysts across Goldman's small-cap biotech coverage, spanning immunology, oncology, metabolic disease, rare disease, and cell and gene therapy. Across the group, management teams highlighted upcoming Phase 1 and Phase 2 readouts, pivotal trial starts, and regulatory milestones:

• AbCellera (ABCL): Ahead of proof of concept data from the Ph1 study (expected in mid-26), management underscored the vast opportunity for ABCL635, the company's most advanced wholly-owned asset under development for moderate-to-severe VMS associated with menopause. In particular, management discussed the benefits of an antibody approach (vs. small molecules) to targeting neurokinin 3 receptor (NK3R, which has been implicated in its role in neuroendocrine regulation and reproductive function), confidence in the ability of an antibody to cross the BBB and reach the receptor which sits on KNDy neurons in the hypothalamus (a key question for investors), and its expectations for a potentially differentiated profile per improved efficacy, safety/tolerability, and more attractive dosing regimen.

• Allogene Therapeutics Inc. (ALLO): The discussion centered on the interim analysis of the pivotal ALPHA3 study of CD19- targeted cema-cel in frontline consolidated large B-cell lymphoma, and initial clinical data from the Ph1 RESOLUTION study of CD19/CD70 dual-targeted ALLO-329 in autoimmune indications. On the former, management views the ~30% bar for the delta in minimal-residual disease (MRD) conversion rate vs. the observation arm as achievable and de-risking to the primary endpoint of event-free survival. Further, management highlighted the potential ~$5bn opportunity, aided by increasing utilization of CAR-T therapies in the community setting and awareness of MRD testing. On the Ph1 RESOLUTION study, management discussed the goal of establishing proof-of-concept and providing insights on the ability to eliminate lymphodepletion preconditioning.

• Apogee Therapeutics Inc. (APGE): We hosted APGE, where a catalyst-rich 2026 could potentially validate the product-in-a-pipeline potential for lead asset APG777 (anti-IL13). Management highlighted: 1) Ph1b data in mild-to-moderate asthma in 1Q26, where APGE seeks to demonstrate a Dupixent (anti-IL4Ra)-like profile, to support expansion into respiratory indications in combination with anti-TSLP (APG273); 2) Ph2 readouts in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, where management expects to validate 3QM/6QM dosing in the Part A maintenance study (data in 1Q26), and further interrogate exposure-response and inform dose selection for Ph3 (initiation in 2H26) in Part B (data in 2Q26); and 3) Ph1b proof-of-concept data evaluating the OX40L combination APG279 against Dupixent in 2H26, where management expects to demonstrate deeper and broader responses in a more heterogeneous patient population.

• BioAge Labs (BIOA): The discussion was focused on: (1) key 2026 catalysts, including additional Ph1 MAD data in 1H26 and Ph2a 12 week proof-of-concept data by YE26 in obese and inflamed patients to validate BGE-102's (oral CNS-penetrant, NLRP3 inhibitor) impact on hsCRP reduction, although management views weight loss benefit as pure upside; (2) BGE-102's potential in cardiovascular (CV) risk, where BIOA expects the NLRP3 class to be positioned as oral IL6 inhibitors, given the robust hsCRP reduction (~80%) seen with VTYX's asset earlier this year and in three patients with elevated baseline hsCRP treated with BGE-102 in Ph1 - albeit, BIOA seeks partnership to advance BGE-102 in CV risk; and (3) other prioritized indications for BGE-102 to be disclosed in the near-term, with feasible development pathways for a small biotech, where BIOA looks to establish differentiation leveraging BGE-102's strong penetration into the brain and retina.

• Entrada Therapeutics Inc. (TRDA): Management discussed: 1) potentially best-in-class efficacy with 40% dystrophin production after a single injection versus del zota's ~10-11%, 2) preferential safety given efficient excretion of the oligonucleotide components, thereby circumventing hypomagnesemia, and 3) greater drug efficiency at lower dosing levels supported by a smaller carrier size.

• Gossamer Bio Inc. (GOSS): Management discussed: 1) differentiation of its TKI seralutinib versus historical comparators given improved tolerability from systemic drug elimination and potential for disease remodeling, 2) the company's focus on an enriched population and statistical plan following learnings from the Phase 2 TORREY study, and 3) continued confidence in the regulatory outlook given consistency/alignment in interactions with the FDA.

• Gubra A/S (GUBRA.CO): Key takeaways from the discussion: 1) Gubra see potential for ABBV-295 (long-acting amylin) to perform in line with eloralintide in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability, 2) management see ABBV-295's c.11 day half life and extended Cmax as supportive of a monthly dosing regimen, and 3) Gubra see ABBV-295 being used as both a monotherapy and in combination with a partner.

• Lyell Immunopharma (LYEL): The discussion focused on ronde-cel (autologous CD19/20-targeting CAR T-cell therapy) in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), including: (1) the longer-term Ph1/2 update at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting, where the data continues to track competitively vs. approved CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies; and (2) pivotal trial strategy, where LYEL aims to demonstrate superiority vs. approved assets in the H2H study in 2L patients (enrollment initiation in early-2026), albeit approval is first expected in the 3L+ setting basis the PiNACLE study (final data in mid-2027, 2028 launch). Separately, LYEL also touched upon LYL273 in 3L+ metastatic colorectal cancer, where they expect further derisking per Ph1 updates in 2026 to support a pivotal start in 2027.

• Sana Biotechnology (SANA): Management and discussed the company's key programs, where, post the recent pipeline re-prioritization, the focus is on: (1) SC451, its HIP-modified stem cell-derived pancreatic islet cell therapy for type 1 diabetes (T1D) - where SANA highlighted alignment with regulators regarding the GMP master cell bank and the path to an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) and Ph1 start as early as 2026 (noting the potential for initial data in 2026), and (2) SG293, an in vivo CAR T with CD8-targeted fusogen delivery of a CD19-directed CAR for a range of B-cell mediated cancers and autoimmune diseases - where SANA highlighted deep B-cell depletion and immune reset achieved in non-human primates with no off-target toxicity (supporting a potentially best-in-class profile), and management expects an IND/Ph1 start for SG293 in B-cell cancers and B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases by 2027 (but noted the potential for an accelerated timeline with initial data in 2026).

• Sionna Therapeutics (SION): Ahead of Ph2a proof-of-concept data from NBD1 stabilizer SION-719 in cystic fibrosis as an add-on to VRTX's standard-of-care Trikafta in mid-2026, the discussion focused on: (1) the study's goal of establishing the synergistic and additive benefit of targeting NBD1 and confirming the translatability of SION's preclinical CFHBE assay, which is key to de-risking SION's dual combination approach (Ph1 healthy volunteer data in mid-2026); (2) the bar for success, which managements views as a ≥10mmol/L improvement in sweat chloride given its historical translation to a clinically meaningful lung function benefit; and (3) the forward development strategy — while a dual combination is the prioritized path, management sees the potential to progress SION-719 into later-stage development.

• Spyre Therapeutics Inc. (SYRE): Management discussed: 1) SYRE's relationship with Fairmount Funds, and related sister companies, 2) expectations for results from Part A of the SKYLINE study of 15-20% placebo-adjusted remission rates with comparator drugs annualizing at ~$5bn-10bn longer term, and 3) continued clinical progress for the SKYWAY study, with expectations heightened following the expansion of Roche's and Merck's TL1A programs, which SYRE views as validation of its approach.

• Recursion Pharmaceuticals (RXRX): RXRX's incoming CEO Najat Khan and CFO Ben Taylor discussed their key priorities: (1) translating insights from the AI-levered Recursion OS platform to differentiated clinical data - most recently, with the positive Ph1/2 REC-4881 data in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), where aligning with the FDA on pivotal design/endpoints is the key next step; (2) focused platform investments in high-value areas; and (3) financial discipline, including a high bar for advancement. Management also touched on the oncology programs, noting: REC-617 (CDK7) combination data in ovarian cancer in 1H27; first Ph1 data for REC-1245 (RBM39) in biomarker-enriched solid tumors/lymphoma in 1H26 and REC-3565 (MALT1) in B-cell malignancies in 1H27; and preclinical PI3Kα H1047R inhibitor REC-7735. Overall, we see the narrative changing for RXRX as it enters into late-stage development in FAP, and remain focused on execution on the prioritized programs.

• Tyra Biosciences Inc. (TYRA): Management discussed: 1) upcoming Ph2 readouts for dabogratinib ("dabo"; FGFR3 inhibitor) in intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (IR NMIBC; 1H26) and achondroplasia (2H26), 2) for IR NMIBC, expectations for >70% complete responses (CRs) for an oral therapy, with meaningful readthrough from 3-month data and potential for a Ph3 study, and 3) for achondroplasia, the goal to exceed average height velocity (AHV) of approved therapies (e.g., BMRN's Voxzogo) with at least 7cm/year AHV, supporting a multibrand strategy.

• Viridian Therapeutics (VRDN): Management discussed: 1) Veli's BLA status, anticipated decision on priority review by YE25, and potential launch as early as mid-2026, 2) VRDN is planning to launch veli in the US on its own and has been working toward an accelerated review timeline, 3) veli's differentiated profile can potentially expand the current market size of Tepezza by ~30%, 4) VRDN's Ph. 3 chronic trial enrolled all CAS scores and expects these results to be included in the label (vs. Tepezza's that lacks chronic results), 5) the bar for VRDN-003 is Tepezza-like efficacy, 6) VRDN believes the market can potentially grow ~2-3x at peak due to veli's and '003's potential to expand use in chronic TED.

• Valneva SE (VLS.PA): Key takeaways from our discussion: 1) Phase 3 readout from VALOR trial of VLA15 in Lyme is still expected in 1H26, 2) Valneva reiterated that the aim has always been for VLA15 to deliver more favourable efficacy to that achieved by LYMErix, and 3) management highlighted the importance of an ACIP for VLA15 in the commercial rollout.

Overall, the Catalyst Clinic indicates 2026 will be a data-heavy year for Goldman's small-cap biotech stock universe.

More broadly, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB), the largest and most widely used ETF for broad exposure to U.S. biotechnology companies, has reached new record highs after trading largely sideways since 2021.

For Johnson's stock ratings on each of the companies above, along with detailed 12-month price targets, ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can access the full note in the usual place.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 15:10

John Brennan Lawyers Confirm Their Client Is A "Target" Of A Grand Jury Investigation

Authored by Sundance via The Last Refuge,

Lawfare lawyer Kenneth Wainstein representing former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed in a proactive litigation letter to Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, their client is a “target” of a grand jury investigation.

The word “target” is important here, because the letter specifically outlines how Brennan has received subpoenas for documents and information surrounding his construct of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.

The letter notes that prosecutors from the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, have advised Mr. Brennan that he is “a target” of a grand jury investigation.

[SOURCE]

The letter by is by Mr. Kenneth Wainstein, a partner in Mayer/Brown law firm, Washington DC, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he describes a “concocted case” and “politically motivated and fact-free criminal investigation.”

Wainstein is seeking proactive intervention by Chief Judge Altonaga to block U.S. Attorney Quinones from seeking jurisdiction in the Fort Pierce Division, the court with jurisdiction over the Mar-a-Lago raid, led by Judge Aileen Cannon.

I strongly urge everyone interested to READ THE ENTIRE LETTER to understand why I shared prior warnings about the nonsense ramblings of perhaps well-intentioned voices who will create problems for this case against Brennan if it is to continue.

Pay attention to the footnotes being cited by Brennan’s lawyers as they begin to pull in some of the commentary by voices who have publicly given opinion about the overall Trump targeting operation.  Mike Davis name appears frequently in this letter, as the Brennan defense team begins to frame the conspiratorial nature of some claims against their client.

In essence, the Brennan legal team are attempting to refute the evidence by pointing to the blanket of some crazy commentary that covers it. This is exactly what I have been cautioning about {SEE HERE}.

U.S Attorney Quinones already faces an uphill battle, because John Durham already reviewed the ICA origination as part of his investigation – but Durham never prosecuted anyone inside government.

This year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of background information, [114 pages of information], showing how the Obama administration intentionally and with great purpose fabricated the Russia election interference story. DNI Tulsi Gabbard Press Release Here – Files Containing Evidence Here

What the evidence shows is a focused targeting operation intended to fabricate a false premise by the United States Intelligence Community, centered around a fraudulent CIA analysis (ICA) led by John Brennan, and organized through the Office of former DNI James Clapper.  The op was green-lighted by Barack Obama as a way to impede the agenda of incoming President Donald Trump.  All three branches of government eventually collaborated on the scheme.

Lawyers for John Brennan are now seeking to proactively undermine the grand jury proceedings and influence the venue where any investigation and review might be taking place.  [pdf, Page 9] 

In addition to sending the letter to the Southern District of Florida, John Brennan also sent the letter to the New York Times to help him frame a media defense.

[…] Pursuing the case in Fort Pierce, Fla., would draw jurors from a more conservative area than the District of Columbia and put it under Judge Cannon, who showed Mr. Trump unusual favor during the documents investigation. In particular, Mike Davis, an influential former Republican Senate staff aide and friend of Mr. Reding Quiñones, has pushed the idea of a Fort Pierce grand jury, warning Mr. Trump’s adversaries to “lawyer up.” (read more)

Again, get familiar with this letter, because you will find me citing it quite a bit in the next few weeks.

Wainstein and Brennan have made a significant strategic mistake by detailing their defenses, specifically by framing the background context of prior investigative authorities in their positions.  What they have inadvertently done for Jason Quiñones is to give a potential expanded witness list for a conspiracy review.

With information from a mountain of previous research, Quiñones can now call ancillary actors to testify as to the nature of their participation based on the storyline of Brennan.  Wainstein even cited the Robert Mueller investigation as part of his defense for his client.

Example, people like the SSCI chair Rubio, and/or Vice-Chair Warner, along with Feinstein’s lead staff Dan Jones, and/or the SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, can be called to answer questions within a grand jury proceeding based on the claims of Brennan’s defense team in this letter.

Former DNI James Clapper, former NSA Director Mike Rogers, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and former counterintelligence officers could all be questioned based on Brennan’s defense.

All of the Brennan defense citations in the letter open up pathways for Quinones questioning.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 14:50

More Ukrainian Strikes On Russian Energy Sector Amid Ongoing Pressure For Zelensky To Make Concessions

Ukraine is desperately hitting back at Russia's energy sector at a moment it remains under immense pressure from Washington to make serious concessions which might lead to achieving a peace deal.

Overnight drone attacks attempted to inflict damage on the Stavrolen petrochemical plant in southwestern Russia. The operation appeared at least somewhat successful amid reports of fires at the site, and as Russia confirmed attempts to intercept inbound drones.

Ukrainian drones attempted to attack the energy targets in the town of Budyonnovsk, triggering air defenses, with the regional governor confirming "There are fires in the industrial zone" and that "Emergency services are on site" - however thankfully that there were no casualties or damage to surrounding homes. Unverified videos widely circulating online do show large flames in the sky from the direction of the plant.

These Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil and energy sites have slowed compared to their high tempo of a month ago and prior.

This could in part be because every time Ukraine hits Russian territory with a significant or damaging attack, Russia's military comes back harder with large-scale retaliation on Ukraine's own critical infrastructure. 

Ukrainian strikes hit the "Stavrolen" petro-chemical plant located Budyonnovsk, Stavropol Krai, southern Russia.

A significant fire broke out at the facility following the attack. pic.twitter.com/y7uVIQ3jOf

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (@Archer83Able) December 23, 2025

Early Tuesday witnessed another huge Russian aerial attack across Ukraine which reportedly killed three people and plunged who regions into darkness. Local media details, "Explosions were reported across multiple regions, including Rivne and the Ivano-Frankivsk region in the far west, with hits recorded in the towns of Burshtyn and Rohatyn. The blasts were also heard near Cherkasy, as well as in Odesa, Khmelnytskyi, Ternopil, and Zhytomyr regions."

BBC related President Zelensky's description of the fresh attack as follows:

Russia carried out a "massive" overnight attack on several Ukrainian cities, President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, a day after he warned of strikes over the Christmas period.

At least three people were killed, according to Ukrainian officials, including a four-year-old child, while energy infrastructure was also targeted, leaving several regions without power.

Russia launched 635 drones and 38 missiles, Ukraine's air force said, adding that 621 of them were downed.

Zelensky said "people simply want to be with their families, at home, and safe" in the run-up to Christmas, and said the strikes sent "an extremely clear signal about Russia's priorities" despite ongoing peace talks.

Damaged home from Russia's fresh assault which spanned several cities and regions of Ukraine:

Power has been cut to many thousands in freezing winter temperatures across Ukraine, as the national energy ministry confirmed there would have to be more rolling blackouts as immediate repair work to the damage is undertaken.

Such power restrictions have become to the norm in various parts of Ukraine. Even US leaders have acknowledged that the energy grid is being degraded and damaged faster than it could possibly be repaired, and no solutions have been offered.

Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha has called on "collective transatlantic strength" in the face of these attacks and said that peace must be forced on Moscow. "This can be achieved through increasing the cost of continuing this war for the aggressor," he said on X.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 14:20

Chicago's Guaranteed Income Guarantees Less Opportunity

Authored by Josh Bandoch via RealClearPolitics,

There have been more than 150 guaranteed income pilot programs implemented across the country, but only one has made its program permanent – Cook County, Illinois.

The county, which includes Chicago, became the first place in America to commit to a taxpayer-funded program indefinitely, serving as the nucleus for expanding the scope of these programs nationally. Taxpayers and recipients beware.

A guaranteed income program is simple: Give low-income people a monthly amount of money to use as they see fit. These payments are in addition to other welfare benefits they receive, and don’t come with any requirements to work, to learn better money management, or to get job training.

The idea is to promote equity and help the poor and disadvantaged, a noble goal, but in practice it can harm families by reducing work, income, and opportunity.

They’re extremely expensive, too, and threaten to wreck the finances of any city or state that implements them with ever-higher taxes.

Cook County used $42 million in funds from the American Rescue Plan to run a two-year pilot program that provided 3,250 low- to moderate-income participants with $500 per month.

The results? One firm committed to “equitable economic development” found four apparent benefits.

Their modeling estimated that households directly spent 55.8% of the money received. The $42 million investment generated only $8.3 million annually for local businesses and a $5.4 million increase in annual economic output in Cook County. Generating $286,000 in tax revenue, $44,000 of which stayed in Cook County.

One concern with these findings is that no results from a control group were reported. There’s no way of knowing if the increases were a result of these 3,250 recipients or if it was simply a post-pandemic boon.

The county is continuing the program in 2026 at a cost of $7.5 million to local taxpayers.

Another study of a more rigorous Chicago-area pilot program with a control group found that the program discouraged participants from working and reduced their earned income.

Taking part in the pilot actually lowered participants’ earned income by $1800, excluding program payments. Recipients’ workforce participation dropped by 3.9 percentage points. 

Participants and, surprisingly, others in the recipient’s household, ended up reducing their hours worked per week. Children who grow up around full-time working adults are more likely to climb the economic ladder, so this reduction in work threatens the future of participants’ children.

Still, the appetite for guaranteed income programs is rapidly expanding in Illinois and nationally. Illinois allocated $827,272 in its 2026 budget to fund a pilot.

In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) reintroduced the Guaranteed Income Pilot Act, with the stated goal of lifting people out of poverty. The federal program would select 20,000 participants.

Of them, 10,000 would receive “a cash payment each month equal to the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom home in the ZIP Code in which the eligible individual resides, or a substantially similar amount.” In Chicago, the payment would increase to $2,670 per month. In New York, it’d be $2910. A control group would contain 10,000 people.

A final report on the program would explicitly be required to study the feasibility of expanding the program. The goal of these programs – sometimes explicitly stated – is to cover more people.  

The federal government spends $1.2 trillion on welfare programs. Despite all that spending, the federal poverty rate has stubbornly hovered between 11% and 15% for decades.

Providing no-strings cash payments won’t solve poverty, and it won’t ensure recipients can gain the skills and experiences necessary to climb the economic ladder.

The best way to help low-income Americans is to expand opportunity. This starts by removing systemic barriers the government has created that disincentivize work.

America’s welfare system makes it economically rational and psychologically understandable for poor people to reject opportunities due to “benefits cliffs.” Increases in income through raises and promotions can cause recipients to lose more in welfare benefits than they gain in higher earnings.

To solve these cliffs, federal lawmakers should consolidate programs to reduce redundancy, standardize benefit reductions across programs, and streamline benefit delivery systems.

State and local elected officials should focus on empowering people through work rather than disincentivizing it. The best way to do this is to adopt a career-first education system that’ll ensure people have the skills they need to work and cast aside the broken degree-first model.

With guaranteed income programs gaining traction, we need to instead embrace the reality that the only proven way to guarantee more income and opportunity and help low-income Americans is work.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 14:00

Ugly, Tailing 5Y Auction Sees Slide In Foreign Demand As Directs Take Record High

After a disappointing, subpar, tailing 2Y auction started off the last coupon week of the year, moments ago we got the week's second auction, a $70BN sale of 5Y paper which was also disappointing.

The auction stopped at a high yield of 3.747%, up from 3.557% in November and the highest since July. It also tailed the When Issued 3.7146 by 0.1bps. This was the 6th tail in the past 7 auctions.

The bid to cover dropped to 2.35 from 2.41 last month; thie was the lost since September and also below the recent average of 2.36.

The internals were also soft, especially at the Indirects: foreign buyers took down just 59.5%, the lowest since September and well below the recent average of 61.8%. The trend is clearly not the 5Y tenor's friend. 

But it was Directs who saved the day: awarded 31.7%, this was the highest on record.

As a result, dealers were left holding 8.8%, tied for the lowest on record.

Overall, this was an ugly, tailing 5Y auction but it could have been even worse had Directs not stepped up. Or maybe they did just because they know that in a few more months the Fed will expand its universe of QE purchases from Bill-2Y all the way to 5Y... and beyond, as Powell gradually shifts to the endgame, which as readers know well, is nothing less than Yield Curve Control.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 13:24

The EU's Failed Attempt To Steal Russia's Seized Assets Was Self-Discrediting

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

It arguably dealt irreparable damage to the bloc’s reputation as a safe location in which foreigners the world over could store and invest their financial assets after influential members left no doubt about their desire to steal its assets, thus signaling that they might try to steal other countries’ one day too.

It was assessed last week that “The EU’s New Policy Towards Russia’s Seized Assets Isn’t About Helping Ukraine” after influential members of the bloc moved to either outright confiscate at least some of Russia’s seized assets for giving to Ukraine or use at least some of them as collateral for a loan to it. As was written, the real purpose was denying the US access to these funds for joint projects with Russia per point 14 of Trump’s reported 28-point peace deal framework, not arming Ukraine or reconstructing it.

For as much as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her compatriot German Chancellor Friedrich Merz tried, they failed to reach consensus on this unprecedented move, which would have provoked the US’ wrath like was explained in the analysis above. Instead, they reached a compromise whereby members – except Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia – will raise common debt to finance a €90 billion loan to Ukraine over the next two years, thus perpetuating the conflict.

This was an attempt to “save face” after their whopping 16-hour-long talks on this issue since no outcome at all would have exposed the bloc’s impotency, yet The Economist concluded right afterwards that the US will still see it that way since its two most powerful politicians ultimately didn’t get their way. To add insult to the injury inflicted upon the German Chancellor’s reputation, the Financial Times then cited a source who claimed that “Macron betrayed Merz” by not backing the latter’s plot.

The EU’s failed attempt to steal Russia’s seized assets was therefore self-discrediting for him and von der Leyen personally but also for the EU as a whole since it arguably dealt irreparable damage to the bloc’s reputation as a safe location in which foreigners the world over could store and invest their financial assets. Even though Russia’s seized ones weren’t (yet?) stolen, there’s no longer any doubt that influential members of the EU had the intent to do so, thus shattering the aforesaid perception.

As was written in the analysis hyperlinked to in the introduction, “Foreign investors might be spooked into fearing that their assets are no longer safe and could thus pull them from EU banks and not deposit future ones there either. The bloc might therefore ultimately lose hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps upwards of a trillion or even more with time”. After all, since they tried to steal Russia’s assets, they might also try to steal the assets of other countries with which they might have problems one day too.

Unlike Russia, however, relatively less significant states might not have the chance to reach a deal along the lines of the US’ proposed one whereby a share of these assets would be returned in the form of joint investments if other conditions are met. Even so, the EU would still have to cross the Rubicon by authorizing the theft of those countries’ seized assets and also importantly defend this decision in court when it’s legally challenged, with a supportive ruling dealing a deathblow to the bloc’s reputation.

Top non-Western countries like China and India, which are the possible targets of European political (and perhaps other forms of) aggression after Russia, might not want to risk that and could thus begin transferring some of their EU-based assets and not depositing more (at least at scale) in the future. It remains to be seen just how financially damaging the EU’s failed attempt to steal Russia’s seized assets was, but there’s no doubt that it was self-discrediting, which in any case damages the bloc’s reputation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 13:20

Musk, US Gov't In Talks Over Land Swap Deal To Expand SpaceX Launch Operations

The Trump administration is considering a proposed land swap that would transfer about 775 acres of federally protected land in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to SpaceX, allowing Elon Musk's rocket company to expand launch operations in the newly incorporated town of Starbase, Texas, helping ensure America continues to lead the space race into the 2030s.

New documents obtained by The New York Times show that SpaceX would give the federal government approximately 692 acres of land it owns elsewhere in Cameron County in exchange for 775 acres.

Not surprisingly, the proposed land swap has caused an uproar among conservationists and archaeologists who say the 775 acres are home to endangered species and even part of the Palmito Ranch Battlefield.

However, Fish and Wildlife Service officials have taken a more optimistic view of the proposed land swap. In an October memorandum, Stewart Jacks, the agency's acting regional director for the Southwest region, wrote that the swap deal would deliver a "net conservation benefit."

The deal would "facilitate greater habitat protections for important fish and wildlife resources," Jacks wrote in a letter to Brian Nesvik, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. He added that SpaceX would divest of lands that "include high-quality habitat for a myriad of species, including the endangered ocelot."

But Sharon Wilcox, the senior Texas representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group, said she was skeptical of Jacks' claims, noting that "With SpaceX present in this place, we have a very explosive force nestled in among all of these really fragile habitats."

What's clear is that any proposed land swap would have been rejected if Democrats were still in the White House. In fact, Musk blamed federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, for being weaponized against him during the Biden-Harris regime years that slowed rocket launches.

To expand Starbase City, it seems a lot more land will be needed. SpaceX says on its website that it plans "to build 1,000 Starships per year in order to send enough crew and cargo during Mars transfer windows to build a self-sustaining civilisation."

Starbase City is incredibly special, with its cutting-edge industrial spaceflight infrastructure, including a purpose-built town that merges factories, launch pads, housing, and local services into a single live-work town built entirely around the Starship program.

The city is the first of its kind, well, at least in our generation, as building company towns in the 1800s and 1900s was popular nationwide when America was an industrial powerhouse. Those times are changing as the Trump administration seeks to revitalize the nation's industrial core.

Thanks to Musk, America leads the space race and will likely continue to do so well into the 2030s.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 12:40

Johnson Whips Out Warning Over 3rd Trump Impeachment If Democrats Win Midterms

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) warned that President Donald Trump could face another House impeachment inquiry if Republicans don’t win the 2026 midterm elections.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) at a press conference in Washington on Nov. 3, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

“Everything is on the line in the midterms of 2026, and we have much more to do. But if we lose the House majority, the radical left, as you’ve already heard, is going to impeach President Trump. They’re going to create absolute chaos; we cannot let that happen, and I know you won’t,” Johnson told the audience at the AmericaFest event in Phoenix on Sunday.

The House speaker added that the audience should emulate Charlie Kirk, the conservative podcaster who was assassinated in September, saying that they should “fight like happy warriors, advance his principles, and adopt his approach.” AmericaFest is an annual event hosted by Turning Point USA, which Kirk had founded.

“We will win next year, and we will save the greatest nation in the history of the world,” Johnson said.

House Democrats impeached Trump twice during his first term. In late 2019, they charged him with abuse of power centered around a phone call that he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over military aid. The second occurred in 2021 after the breach at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 of that year. The Senate acquitted him both times.

Earlier this year, Johnson told the Shreveport Times, “Democrats would vote to impeach [Trump] on their first day” in office if they won in the 2026 midterm elections. In October, he offered a similar message to Fox News’ Laura Ingraham and predicted that the GOP would win those elections.

It takes a simple House majority to impeach a sitting president. However, the bar is set much higher in the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is needed to convict.

Several Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Al Green (D-Texas) and Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), have said they will try to impeach Trump.

The House in June voted overwhelmingly to set aside an effort to impeach Trump on a sole charge of abuse of power after he launched military strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities without first seeking authorization from Congress. The measure was sponsored by Green. Most Democrats joined the Republican majority to table it.

Earlier this month, the House voted 237–140 to shelve another Green impeachment resolution, with 47 Democratic lawmakers voting present. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and his deputies said in a statement before the vote that impeachment “requires a comprehensive investigative process” that had not been undertaken by the Republican majority.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 12:20

DOJ Releases More Epstein Files After Blowing Deadline, Says Some Documents Contain False Claims

After missing a Friday deadline to release 'all' of the 'Epstein Files,' nuking several files containing images of President Donald Trump (before restoring them!), and heavily redacting most of what came out (which can apparently be un-redacted to reveal salacious claims against Trump), the DOJ on Tuesday morning released nearly 30,000 additional pages according to a statement posted on X, which also warned that some of the claims made in the documents against Trump are 'untrue and sensationalist.'

"Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election," reads the post. "To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.

"Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epstein’s victims." 

The Department of Justice has officially released nearly 30,000 more pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be…

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) December 23, 2025

For example:

“He raped me.”

“Donald J Trump had raped her along with Jeffrey Epstein.”

“She was found with her head ‘blown off’… there was no way it was a suicide.”

Now we’re starting to see why Trump was hiding the Epstein files, and it probably gets much worse. pic.twitter.com/QJ8T0FzjSn

— Melanie D'Arrigo (@DarrigoMelanie) December 23, 2025

The releases were mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency act, which was passed in Congress and signed into law by Trump. It requires the DOJ to produce all records related to Epstein, accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and any other possible co-conspirators by Dec. 19. 

Over the weekend, Deputy AG Todd Blanche said that the DOJ is working to make redactions to files to protect possible Epstein victims, telling NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday "The reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that to protect victims," adding that the DOJ is "going through a very methodical process with hundreds of lawyers looking at every single document and making sure that victims’ names and any of the information from victims is protected and redacted, which is exactly what the [Epstein Files] Transparency Act expects."

Except, apparently it's amateur hour at the DOJ...

many of the "redacted" PDFs from the epstein files aren't actually redacted, they just have black boxes drawn over text. the underlying data is fully extractable.

this is an example. in this case it's just photo processing paperwork from a palm beach camera shop pic.twitter.com/kjFVMHJuF9

— celeste (@vmfunc) December 23, 2025

 In a Saturday evening statement, the DOJ wrote that it had re-released 119 pages of materials that had been entirely redacted.

"Documents and photos will continue to be reviewed consistent with the law and with an abundance of caution for victims and their families," the department posted to X. 

Maxwell is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence stemming from her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking crimes, while Epstein was found dead in a New York City jail cell in Aug. 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 12:00

Will The CME Raid The Silver Party?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Silver’s parabolic rise has been remarkable. Its price has more than doubled this year and is nearly three times higher than in 2023. The current surge closely mirrors two previous price jumps shown below. 

In this article, we examine the two similar price surges shown below to provide context for what may be occurring today and, importantly, for what might cause this bubble to pop tomorrow.

The Post Financial Crisis Silver Surge

As the turmoil of the Financial Crisis of 2008 began to ease in 2009, the price of silver embarked on a 500% rally, rising from $8.50 to $50.00 over two years. The Fed’s excessive monetary responses to the crisis, alongside heavy speculation, created a perfect storm for silver.

During the crisis, the Fed cut interest rates to zero, introduced QE, and implemented a host of monetary bailouts. As a result, real interest rates (adjusted for inflation) collapsed into negative territory. The graph below shows that 2-year UST real yields fell sharply in 2009 and continued lower until mid-2011. The increase in silver prices coincided with the decline in real yields.  Such distortions in monetary policy, as evidenced by real yields, benefit silver as it is considered a high-beta monetary hedge against extreme monetary policy actions.  

While the monetary environment was conducive to such a rally, there was also a supply-demand mismatch benefiting prices. The supply of silver is relatively inelastic, meaning that mining operations can’t promptly increase output to meet rapid changes in demand. The advent of ETFs makes the asset class far more accessible to a much larger class of investors, adding to the supply-demand imbalance. Maybe most impactful, speculative investors, using futures, options, and other forms of leverage, significantly boosted demand.

The boom ended in 2011 when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) raised margin requirements five separate times in nine days. The graph below, courtesy of Business Insider, shows the doubling of silver margin requirements and the destructive impact on prices.  The CME’s action forced deleveraging in the futures markets, resulting in silver falling by nearly 30% over a few weeks. Demand for physical silver didn’t necessarily vanish, but leverage and the extra buying power it created did. Additionally, QE2 ended in June 2011; real interest rates began to rise, and the U.S. dollar appreciated.

The Fed’s unprecedented monetary policy actions and speculative leverage drove up silver prices. As those factors reversed, and the CME made leverage costlier, silver prices crashed.

The 1970s Hunt Brothers Squeeze

The Hunt brothers, Nelson, Lamar, and William, had extensive holdings in oil, real estate, cattle, and sugar. Concerned about the effects of what they believed were careless monetary and fiscal policies, as well as the risks posed by the newly formed oil cartel (OPEC), they sought to hedge their businesses and assets. Since it was still illegal for individual investors to own gold, they chose physical silver.

The Hunts began buying silver in 1973, when the price per ounce was $1.50. Over the next six years, the Hunts increased their holdings to more than 200 million ounces, valued at more than $4.5 billion.

Silver Rule 7

In late 1979, their massive holdings and the impact they were having on silver prices prompted action by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the CME. Both entities sought to restrict their purchases and compel the liquidation of the brothers’ silver assets. In January 1980, the CME enacted Silver Rule 7, which imposed stringent restrictions on the purchase of silver futures on margin. This rule significantly increased the amount of collateral required of traders, thereby curbing leveraged speculative buying. It also included restrictions on the number of contracts one could hold and effectively halted new margin buying.

These changes meant that if a trader wanted to continue buying, they would have needed to put up nearly 100% cash for their positions instead of borrowing on margin — effectively eliminating leverage.

Silver nearly hit $50 per ounce in mid-January 1980 and then, due to the abrupt changes in margin requirements, fell to $10 per ounce by the end of March. At that point, margin calls on futures contracts and borrowings against existing silver holdings depleted the Hunts’ cash, forcing them to liquidate their holding to cover margin debts.

Leverage Builds and Leverage Kills

The Hunts initially took physical delivery of silver and did not use leverage. Over time, though, they understood the power of using their silver as collateral to buy more. Buying silver futures on margin enabled them to positively influence the price at a fraction of the cost. Such leverage allowed them to multiply their purchasing power and drive silver prices higher. The only requirement for the Hunts scheme was to maintain sufficient cash to adequately fund their futures margin account.

In addition to the CFTC and CME efforts, the Federal Reserve also played a role in breaking the Hunt brothers. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker sharply raised interest rates in January 1980, from 11.75% to 20.0%, making margin borrowing for the Hunts and other speculators much more expensive. One week after the Hunts ceased market activity, Volcker began lowering interest rates.

Leverage allowed the Hunts to distort the price of silver, but it also killed their legendary squeeze. They incurred over $1.1 billion in losses on the trade. They also lost civil lawsuit claims, which, in part, led them to declare bankruptcy.

The Tiffany advertisement below describes the economic effect the Hunts had on various industries. 

Current Silver Situation

Today, there are many sound, fundamental reasons for the recent rise in silver prices, as there were in the 1970s and in the post-financial-crisis years. For example:

Monetary & Fiscal Tailwinds: Like in the post-Financial Crisis era, the post-pandemic environment has certainly provided those with a reason to hedge against monetary tomfoolery with precious metals. The monetary debasement narrative certainly adds to the conversation. Moreover, with QE resuming and a few signs that DOGE hasn’t reduced fiscal spending, there does not appear to be an end in sight to the monetary and fiscal problems we face. 

Supply Deficit: Silver has been in a multi-year supply deficit, with demand exceeding newly mined supply and silver from recycling.

Surging Industrial Demand: Silver is essential for solar panels, electric vehicles, power electronics, semiconductors, and data-center infrastructure. Given the rapid growth in these sectors globally, silver demand is increasing.

Limited Supply: Roughly 70% of silver production is a by-product of mining for other metals. This means that higher silver prices alone do not incentivize new supply, thereby slowing the market’s ability to rebalance. Moreover, reserve depletion, declining ore grades, mine closures, and underinvestment in exploration and development constrain supply.

Valuations

Silver investors often use ratios to assess silver value. Among the most widely used are the silver-to-gold and silver-to-oil ratios. The chart below shows both ratios. The silver-to-oil ratio (green) is at record highs going back to at least 1990. As the graph shows, there have been numerous spikes in the past. Assuming this too is a spike, either oil prices are ready to ramp higher, or silver is due for a mighty correction.

The silver-to-gold ratio remains cheap despite silver’s recent outperformance versus gold. If the ratio were to return to its late-2011 highs, silver prices would have to rise significantly more than gold prices. While a continued increase in the ratio is undoubtedly possible, note that the trend has been downward for most of the 55 years shown.

When Will The CME Raid The Party?

The problem with traditional valuation and fundamental analysis, as discussed above, is the precedent the CME has set when the price of silver goes parabolic. Accordingly, we think it’s only a matter of price before the CME and/or governmental action pulls the rug out from silver speculators.

If you disagree, consider that on December 12th, the CME raised silver margins by 10%, as shown below. In 2011, the first margin increase also had no impact. It was the subsequent actions that were the problem.

Silver investors should carefully read the sections above detailing the post-financial-crisis period and the Hunt Brothers boom-bust cycles. Changes in margin requirements and rules triggered mass liquidations of silver, resulting in an abrupt reversal of fortunes. Such actions are unpredictable and happen extremely fast.

Summary

At its core, this article provides yet another lesson on the high price that leverage can inflict on investors. When the market for an asset becomes highly leveraged, the risks increase markedly. We are reasonably confident that this bullish charge in silver will end poorly, as it has in the other two instances. What we don’t know is when the shift will occur. Complicating the timing is that the CME could, on any day, terminate the leverage.

Fool me once, shame on you. Twice, then shame on me. But fool me three times….

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/23/2025 - 11:40