Erosion Of Freedom In The EU: From Censorship To Centralized Power

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The European Union has increasingly fallen on the defensive in foreign policy. Domestically, the Green Deal has significantly damaged the economic foundation. Together with its main pillars Berlin and Paris, the Brussels-based EU Commission is pushing forward the systematic construction of a censorship apparatus to suppress its own failures from public debate.

The heated discussion in recent days over the censorship of unpopular platforms like Nius is far more than just a warning sign. Schleswig-Holstein’s Minister-President Daniel Günther offered a deep insight into the strategic toolbox of current politics during Markus Lanz’s ZDF show. The politician’s subsequent, at times desperate, attempts—alongside the host and state-affiliated media—to retract his openly stated censorship demands toward critical platforms and media such as Nius illustrate the seriousness of the situation: Germany is slowly but steadily sliding toward a surveillance state.

The Vulgar Side of Censorship

The debate over controlling public opinion, particularly in the digital space, also has a vulgar, unrestrained side—as Apollo News experienced a few months ago. At that time, the local branch of the Left Party openly called for, if necessary, violent action against the newsroom to drive it out of its neighborhood. The statement was phrased as: one should “kick the journalists on their keys.” This is far more than a verbal lapse by radicalized ideologues. It marks a rupture in the political culture of the Federal Republic, in which repressive elements, faced with a simmering economic crisis and growing criticism of the political course, emerge plainly and unapologetically.

We are witnessing an attempt to delegitimize what is visible: the democratic right to freedom of speech and open discourse. The very nature of new digital media—their ability to create fragmented opinion clusters—makes them dangerous for a political system increasingly focused on control. Media like Apollo News contribute to genuine public discourse and thereby evade the interpretive authority of established apparatuses, making them a threat to the censor.

A Pattern at the EU Level

On the EU level, a media-tactical pattern emerges. Representatives in Brussels and their national proponents pursue a clear goal: when externally pressured—such as in the Greenland conflict with the United States—they present themselves in public discourse as victims. Domestically, however, they adopt precisely the position they accuse U.S. President Donald Trump of: acting with elbows, showing no regard for fair negotiation.

The narrative created in this mode is largely carried by a media apparatus closely aligned with Brussels’ political lines. We have seen this in climate policy (Apollo News reported): first, the narrative of existential emergency is established, the story of a burning planet woven into public discourse over years. This is followed by the construction of a centrally planned, strictly regulated transformation economy. Criticism of this strategy has so far been marginalized through a form of soft censorship, placing critics near conspiracy theories in public media. The critic is ridiculed, publicly humiliated.

A similar pattern is evident in the EU’s treatment of countries like Hungary. Because Budapest has resisted open borders and mass migration for years, it is sanctioned in the style of a known bully: sometimes through funding cuts, sometimes via openly threatened penalties. It is always about money. The EU sanctions rather than negotiates. In essence, the EU applies Trump’s “dealmaker” strategy with precision domestically, against its own citizens.

Romania experienced similar treatment last year. During the presidential election, significant pressure was applied to the judicial apparatus to annul the unwanted election of a right-wing conservative president. The aim was not political competition over the country’s future, but institutional and legal intervention to control the outcome.

The explicit goal of EU policy is to centralize power within the Brussels Commission apparatus permanently. This can only succeed if dissenting forces—such as the strengthening right-wing opposition in Eastern Europe—are kept in check and growing criticism of the disastrous economic course of the Green Deal is systematically excluded from public debate.

The Decline of Germany

Since 2018, Germans have witnessed the gradual decline of their industry—and with it the erosion of the foundation of their prosperity. The idea of “Net Zero,” the forced restructuring of the economy toward a fully CO₂-free order, has so far led to a roughly 14% decline in industrial production in Germany, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) reports that over 400,000 industrial jobs were lost in this period.

While industrial value creation and productivity shrink, the state apparatus expands. Bureaucracy and administration boom, creating hundreds of thousands of new positions where no market value is generated. At the same time, a stagnating or shrinking GDP—exacerbated by ongoing mass migration—is spread across a growing population. The result is a large-scale poverty program, which the government prefers not to discuss openly.

The Digital Services Act as a Censorship Tool

The debate over this process increasingly shifts to digital platforms. Leading the way are Elon Musk’s company X, as well as secondary arenas like Telegram or Reddit, offering forums for exchange, research, and counter-speech—places where information circulates that Brussels or Berlin will not accept unchallenged. This is exactly where the problem lies from the policymakers’ perspective: they want to buy time, convinced of the success of their social and economic transformation strategy, while reversal would mean a loss of power.

With the Digital Services Act (DSA), a comprehensive regulatory framework has come into force EU-wide. In simple terms, it obliges large online platforms to remove, restrict, or flag content classified under EU law as illegal, hateful, or socially harmful, including disinformation. Companies must also report on these actions in detail.

In practice, the DSA forces corporations like Meta, X, or TikTok—under threat of heavy fines—to systematically act against content deemed problematic, for example on climate policy, pandemic consequences, migration, or the Ukraine war. Measures include deletions, shadowbanning, warning labels, and deep interventions in recommendation algorithms.

Critics argue that the underlying criteria are often vague, placing political speech under preventive moderation pressure—even before open societal debate can occur.

The Perfidy of the DSA

The DSA’s perfidy lies in creating deliberately vague pseudo-legal grounds under terms like hate, incitement, and disinformation. Platform operators are pushed by economic incentives into preemptive censorship. Legal clarity is not the controlling factor; economic pressure via threat of fines is.

Combined with a growing network of so-called “trusted flaggers”—NGOs and private actors reporting potentially critical content to national authorities—a more constrained public discourse emerges. Brussels’ compliance rules are thus effectively enforced without formally naming a censorship regime.

In this context, it is understandable why a politician like Daniel Günther casually offers a glimpse behind the scenes in the safe space of public broadcasting. Where one believes oneself unobserved, one speaks what elsewhere is carefully concealed: unable or unwilling to make substantive course corrections in economic, climate, or migration policy—or in dealings with Moscow—critics are removed via the censorship stick.

The deliberately provoked dispute with the United States over the future of freedom of speech in Europe, and the threats toward American tech companies, are accepted. Political costs are externalized. Ultimately, the citizen pays the price—both as taxpayer, user, and censored participant in an increasingly narrow public discourse.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/26/2026 - 07:20

Three Lessons From Venezuela's Economic Collapse

Authored by Matthew Mitchell via TheDailyEconomy.org,

President Trump has accepted the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Venezuela’s opposition leader, María Corina Machado.

Unlike Machado, however, he does not accept the central lessons that can be gleaned from five decades of Venezuelan misrule.

There are three. 

Lesson 1: Past prosperity is no guarantee of future prosperity. 

In 1970, Venezuela was the wealthiest country in Latin America. Sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserve, it churned out more than 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. Using GDP per person as a metric, its citizens earned 2.7 times as much as the rest of Latin America — about the same as the average Finnish, Japanese, and Italian citizen. 

This prosperity bought Venezuelans better health, longer life, and more creature comforts — especially fancy foreign cars that poured into the country as oil poured out. And it wasn’t just the wealthy that benefited. Venezuela’s poverty rate was about a third of what it was in the rest of Latin America. 

The zenith was around 1977. Thanks to the global oil crisis of a few years earlier, crude prices had quadrupled. Amidst the boom, President Carlos Andrés Pérez made the fateful decision to nationalize the country’s oil industry, hoping to use its wealth to fund economic development and poverty relief. Instead, by combining public and private interests, the decision proved a boon for corruption, eventually turning the country into a petrostate. 

Almost immediately, incomes began to fall. By 1999, average Venezuelans were earning less than 90 percent of what they had three decades earlier. But the worst was yet to come. 

Which brings us to the second lesson. 

Lesson 2: Policy matters. 

Oil was not the only explanation for Venezuela’s 1970s prosperity. The government spent and taxed modestly. It left most industry in private hands. Inflation was low. And international trade was almost entirely free of tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade. 

In 1970, Venezuela scored a little less than 7 on the Fraser Institute’s 10-point Economic Freedom of the World index, making it the 13th most economically free country in the world, just ahead of Japan. 

But as the rest of the world liberalized in the 1980s and 1990s, Venezuela went in the opposite direction. The government ramped up transfers and subsidies and began to acquire more assets. Property rights grew less secure. Inflation reached 26 percent in 1980 and over 50 percent in 1995. By 2000, Venezuela had slipped to 116th in economic freedom. 

In 1999, as the economy faltered, a frustrated electorate turned to an outsider, Hugo Chávez. Chávez had risen to fame seven years earlier when he led an unsuccessful coup d’état against the democratically elected government (ironically led by Andrés Pérez, who had returned as president in 1989). 

Though left-of-center, he did not begin as a radical. Instead, he positioned himself as a populist reformer who could steer a “Third Way” between socialism and capitalism. But he grew more radical after a failed coup attempt against him in 2002. By 2005 he had fully embraced the socialist label, recasting his movement as “Socialism of the 21st Century.” 

It wasn’t just branding. He nearly doubled transfers and subsidies and more than doubled government investment. He tightened control over the government-owned oil company and nationalized other industries, including steel, iron, mining, cement, farming, food distribution, grocery chains, hotels, telecommunications, and banking. The government stopped respecting and protecting private property. Annual inflation bounced around from 20 to 60 per cent. At the time of his death in 2013, Venezuela’s overall economic freedom was close to 3 on the 10-point scale, making it the least economically free country in the world. 

But as the government took, nature gave. The country’s massive Orinoco Oil Belt continued to churn out about 2.5 million barrels of oil every day. As a result, GDP per person recovered. 

Many Western observers, from Senator Bernie Sanders to director Oliver Stone, saw this as a sign that socialism works. But the reality is that Venezuela’s oil-fueled boom had only managed to bring incomes back to 1970s levels. Moreover, careful econometric analyses comparing Venezuela’s performance to that of other similarly situated countries, found that Venezuela consistently under-performed. 

Chávez died in 2013, leaving the country in the hands of his Vice President, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro clung fast to Chávez’s policies, but as global oil prices plummeted, Socialism of the 21st Century began to look a lot like socialism in the 20th century: incomes collapsed, poverty exploded, and inflation became hyper (reaching over one million percent in 2018). 

Maduro responded predictably, imposing price controls that produced massive shortages of household necessities. About a quarter of the population fled the country. 

But the cost was not merely economic. Which brings us to the final lesson. 

Lesson 3: Economic and Personal Freedom are Deeply Intertwined. 

Socialism is typically imposed at the point of a gun. But notwithstanding his attempted 1992 coup, Chávez had come to power through free and mostly fair elections. This seems to have been one reason why Western observers were so taken in by the regime. Writing in her 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein claimed that Venezuelan “citizens had renewed their faith in the power of democracy to improve their lives.”   

But if she had looked closer, she would have seen the early signs of Venezuela’s anti-democratic turn. The Human Freedom Index, co-published by the Fraser Institute and the Cato Institute, builds on the Economic Freedom of the World index by adding 7 additional areas of personal freedom. As the figure below shows, the regime cracked down on personal freedoms just as it limited economic freedoms. By the time Klein wrote her book, Venezuela had already severely restricted freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and the rule of law. 

This, unfortunately, is common. As we see in the final figure, most regimes that restrict economic freedom also tend to restrict personal freedom. It is easy to imagine why. People value their economic liberties, so regimes that seek to severely repress these liberties often cling to power by suppressing dissent. And because socialist regimes own the means of production — including media production like radio, print, and TV outlets — they have a handy tool at their disposal for suppression. 

What now? 

As the Cato Institute’s Marcos Falcone recently explained, one Venezuelan who seems to have internalized these lessons is María Corina Machado. As a decades-long leader of the opposition, she has consistently championed both personal and economic liberty. She traces much of the country’s corruption, mismanagement, and stagnation to its 1976 nationalization of the oil industry. 

And she is wildly popular. In the unified opposition primary of 2024, she ran on a platform of complete oil privatization and won 90 percent of the vote. Maduro refused to let her run in the general election, so she backed Edmundo González Urrutia and he is estimated to have won 70 percent of the vote. But Maduro refused to recognize the result and clung to power. 

Now, apparently, President Trump is in charge. But like Maduro before him, Trump refuses to recognize the results of the last election. He claims that Machado lacks the “respect” and “support” to lead. Polls, meanwhile, indicate that she is favored by more than 70 percent of the country. While accepting her re-gifted Nobel Prize, Mr. Trump has decided to give the reins to Maduro’s Vice President, the socialist Delcy Rodriguez, calling her a “terrific person” and predicting a great Venezuelan renaissance. 

As for privatization, Trump instead says “we’re going to keep the oil.” He claims that Rodriquez will be “turning over” up to 50 million barrels to the US, the proceeds of which will be “controlled by me, as President of the United States of America.” 

Meanwhile, he is strong-arming US oil companies to invest in the country, telling them that if they want to recover their property that was seized by President Andrés Pérez in 1976, they’d better cooperate in rebuilding Venezuela’s infrastructure. For their part, the companies have been reluctant to do so, citing the country’s poor track record of protecting private property. 

Like Andrés Pérez, Chávez, and Maduro, Trump seems to imagine that the right central plan will unlock the country’s vast oil wealth. But history teaches a different lesson.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/26/2026 - 06:30

Global Energy Transition Threatened By Critical Transformer Shortages

By Haley Zaremba of Oilprice.com

The global clean energy transition has passed a tipping point as renewable energies have simply become too cheap to fail. Worldwide, nations both rich and poor are rushing to install more and more wind and solar capacity to keep up with rising energy demand rates driven by global economic development and the age of AI. But while countries have been investing heavily into increased production capacity, investments in critical grid infrastructure have not kept pace, leading to a major energy transition bottleneck and a potential threat to energy security for an increasing number of countries.

The United States and Europe are both facing critical transformer shortages and aging and inadequate grid infrastructure, and the threat that this shortage poses to energy security is already being felt through historic blackouts such as last year’s cascading grid failure in Spain and Portugal. While these setbacks have raised the profile of infrastructure investing in European policy spheres, “ambition is not yet being matched by action from governments, policy-makers, investors and businesses,” according to a recent report from the World Economic Forum. 

In the United States, specialists foresee a yearslong transformer crunch, with little to no relief forthcoming. While companies have rushed to ramp up production of power transformers and distribution transformers, keeping up with skyrocketing demand is an impossibly tall order. Wood Mackenzie estimates that, since 2019, U.S. demand for power transformers has jumped by 116 percent, while demand for distribution transformers has shot up 41 percent. 

"This surging transformer demand has created a significant supply deficit, with domestic manufacturing capacity unable to keep pace," Wood Mackenzie Senior Analyst Ben Boucher. "Utilities are routinely turning to the import market to meet project timelines. In 2025, imports will account for an estimated 80% of US power transformer supply and 50% of the distribution transformer supply. This market imbalance is escalating costs and lead times and is delaying our ability to bring generating plants online in pace with the surging energy demand."

However, some experts disagree with this takeaway, arguing that the transformer “shortage” is overblown if not fabricated, and the issue lies in self-inflicted procurement problems. There’s room for debate because the issue is a complex one stretching over many different economic sectors and supply chains. Whether the problem is one of supply or one of procurement, however, the impact is the same – major bottlenecks for new electricity with potential pitfalls for national energy security. 

“Over the past few years, what started as a squeeze has gradually morphed into a crisis,” Power Magazine recently reported. The Power article contends that this growing crisis has been “furnished by years of underinvestment in domestic manufacturing, a sudden surge in post-pandemic construction and electrification, and volatility in grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) and copper markets, which steadily pushed lead times for large power and generator step-up (GSU) transformers beyond historical norms.”

And those driving factors are showing little signs of changing, indicating that delay times for transformer delivery are going to continue to stretch on. Even though demand for these products is now growing exponentially, this spike is coming in the wake of years of lackluster demand, and would-be investors are still warming up to the idea that they’ll get a return on their investment in the sector. 

Hitachi, one major producer of such transformers, for example, has strategically only invested in transformer development when the purchase of those components is already guaranteed and buyer-backed.  “Nobody wants to overinvest” in new production facilities, according to Hitachi Energy CEO Andreas Schierenbeck.

Through these kinds of up-front deals, Hitachi has planned $1 billion in new manufacturing capacity across the United States. However, Schierenbeck told news outlet Semafor this week that these deals are “probably not enough to close the gap between supply and demand… There are still customers who are just in the old world with transactional behavior, and they’ll have to be lucky to get a slot.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/26/2026 - 06:30

Ethereum Prepares For Quantum Era With New Security Team And Funding

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

The Ethereum Foundation has made post-quantum security a central focus of the network’s long-term roadmap, announcing the formation of a dedicated Post Quantum (PQ) team.

The new team will be led by Thomas Coratger, a cryptographic engineer at the Ethereum Foundation, with support from Emile, a cryptographer closely associated with leanVM, according to crypto researcher Justin Drake.

“After years of quiet R&D, EF management has officially declared PQ security a top strategic priority,” Drake said in a Saturday post on X. “It's now 2026, timelines are accelerating. Time to go full PQ.”

The researcher described leanVM, a specialized, minimalist zero-knowledge proof virtual machine (zkVM), as a potential building block of Ethereum’s post-quantum strategy.

EF backs post-quantum push with developer sessions, funding

Drake outlined several near-term steps aimed at preparing the ecosystem. A biweekly developer session focused on post-quantum transactions is set to begin next month, led by Ethereum researcher Antonio Sanso. The sessions will concentrate on user-facing protections, including protocol-level cryptographic tools, account abstraction pathways and longer-term work on aggregating transaction signatures using leanVM.

The Ethereum Foundation is also backing its push with new funding. Drake announced a $1 million Poseidon Prize to strengthen the Poseidon hash function, alongside another $1 million initiative known as the Proximity Prize, both aimed at advancing post-quantum cryptography.

Ethereum prepares for quantum era. Source: Justin Drake

On the engineering front, Drake said multi-client post-quantum consensus development networks are already live, with multiple teams participating and coordinating through weekly interoperability calls.

Furthermore, the foundation will host a dedicated post-quantum event in October, followed by a post-quantum day in late March ahead of EthCC. Educational efforts, including video content and materials aimed at enterprises, are also underway.

Coinbase forms board to assess quantum risks

The announcement comes amid growing sensitivity in crypto markets to quantum risk. On Wednesday, Coinbase revealed that it has established an independent advisory board to evaluate how advances in quantum computing could impact the cryptography securing major blockchain networks, including Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The board brings together experts from academia and industry in quantum computing, cryptography, and blockchain security, and will publish public research and guidance for developers, organizations, and users. Its first position paper is expected in early 2027.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/26/2026 - 03:30

JD Vance Notes Something Very Important About Minneapolis Chaos

Authored by 'sundance' via The Last Refuge,

Last week CPB commander Greg Bovino was asked what makes Minneapolis different from other cities where ICE enforcement operations have taken place. Bovino noted in the Minneapolis region there is no separation between the extremists on the ground and the people in local government.

Today, Vice President JD Vance concurs and expands on that sentiment:

[Source]

What Vice-President Vance says here is very important. 

The regional government is a stakeholder in maintaining the chaos on the streets. 

Why? 

Because for two decades a cancer of rampant financial fraud has been permitted to spread throughout the Minneapolis region and has now reached the stage of visible metastasis.

Shortly after the George Floyd shooting, some of us started looking into a background issue where it seemed like local police and Floyd had a knowledgeable relationship with each other prior to the encounter on the street.  The initial contact between Floyd and police was about Floyd passing off a counterfeit $20 bill to a business that was not part of the approved money laundering operation.

When you follow that trail, you end up in a really weird place where it seemed like millions of counterfeit dollars were entering the country through Mexico, going by rail into the U.S. mainland and then transitioning through the Minneapolis region. I stopped researching it {SEE HERE} when I discovered that Floyd and police officer Chauvin were friends, and worked together at one of the laundry businesses; a nightclub.

ICYMI: CBP officers discovered $900,000 in counterfeit US currency in a commercial rail shipment in International Falls, MN. The counterfeit currency was seized and will be turned over to @SecretService. Details: https://t.co/2xX7nd34Xx pic.twitter.com/eCi8WjN1so

— CBP (@CBP) January 28, 2020

The corrupt activity in the Minneapolis area has been going on for around two decades.  There are two basic components, local financial fraud and govt financial fraud. 

• The local fraud represented millions and involved counterfeit goods/money and laundering operations. 

• The government assisted financial fraud represents billions and involves abuses of federal tax monies.

After 20 years of this activity almost all elements of the economic and social structure are now compromised.  As we have seen in the last several weeks, the HHS/CMS fraud is extensive and that illegal activity is impossible to exist without the knowledge, aid and assistance of the regional and municipal government officials.

Fraudulent day cares, fraudulent healthcare services, fraudulent transport companies, fraudulent “Health Outreach Workers” and various governmental offices all involved in bilking taxpayers for billions upon billions.  At the same time there is a massive money laundering operation in the underground economy.

After two decades of this unchecked corruption, there’s no way to guess how much of the regional economic activity is actually dependent on the financial fraud.  My best estimate is that over fifty percent of all economic activity -in the entire region- is based on fraud.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions are the surface level issue for the regional and state government.  However, it is the widespread financial fraud that turns the activity of the leftist agitators on the street into a useful tool for the regional officials to manipulate in order to hide the true financial fraud that surrounds the area.

The “local authorities” are working with the “far left agitators” because the Minneapolis region is a network of codependent fraud.

The police are compromised. The judges and courts are compromised. The local municipal officials are compromised. The mayor’s office is compromised, and the corruption issue spreads out to the state level when Governor Tim Walz previously shut down audits of the financial crimes and then state officials ignored whistleblowers.

All of the private and public institutions -within the system of regional and state government- are connected to a statewide network of financial fraud, from counterfeit money laundering to exploitation of federal government benefits; it is all connected to the same network of fraud.

It was the ease and ability to conduct fraud that attracted the Somali migrants and the criminal aliens.  These people came for the money. ICE coming to arrest the aliens has put a spotlight on the reason why they aggregated in the Minneapolis region.

How this can be corrected is anyone’s guess.

Follow the money trail and you will discover this real reason for the state and local officials to support the anarchy in the streets.  They all want the federal government to leave.

Arrest Records Here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/25/2026 - 22:10

Centrus To Invest $560 Million for High-Rate Manufacturing Plan

Centrus Energy, which has long been one of our favorite stocks throughout 2025 and into 2026, is redirecting over 60% of the $900 million Department of Energy (DOE) funding award back into the economy to secure the US domestic nuclear fuel chain.

Centrus will invest $560 million into their Oak Ridge, Tennessee, centrifuge production facility to convert it to a high-rate manufacturing plant with the goal of quickly addressing the lack of domestic enrichment and get new centrifuge cascades online before 2029. The investment is expected to create over 400 jobs in Oak Ridge, and is likely only the first of many announcements.

Centrus centrifuges

Centrus has long differentiated itself from its competition in the uranium enrichment business by highlighting their all-American supply chain and production facility, which also enables them to produce the high-demand unobligated enriched uranium. This is often compared to the commercial-scale competition from Urenco, which has been operating for years out of New Mexico. Urenco uses European centrifuge technology developed by a consortium of the UK and Dutch governments, along with German utility companies.

The US still remains incapable of supporting even its current domestic commercial nuclear fleet, requiring imports of over 99% of raw uranium ore (U3O8) and about 75% of enrichment services.

Relying heavily on countries like Canada and Kazakhstan for U3O8, and a combination of Russia and Europe for enrichment services, this has led to the current table-pounding by Secretary Wright and President Trump to reinvigorate the nuclear fuel chain at every stage. The recent $2.7 billion enrichment award from the DOE is a major part of this effort.

As also noted by Goldman Sachs, the tightening of supply from Russia for U3O8 and conversion/enrichment services has sent prices almost straight up over the past few years since the start of the Ukraine-Russia war. 

The other two awardees of the recent enrichment contract, General Matter and Orano, have yet to provide explicit details as to where the $900 million will be spent.

Like USAR, which we learned had received a massive $1+ billion investment from the US government, Centrus (ticker LEU) is one of the most shorted names in the market, with 25% of its float shorted...

... and we expect to see a major squeeze when it opens for trading tomorrow, especially since it is one of the most popular retail-held stocks according to JPMorgan; in fact just on Friday we listed it as one of the 20 most likely stocks according to JPM to rip in a major short squeeze.

Tyler Durden Sun, 01/25/2026 - 21:35