My morning train WFH reads:

• Donald Trump vs. the World: “The bond market cannot be bullied, fooled, or bribed. It does not flatter or make deals. It reveals all.” (The Bulwark)

• Greenland Clash Risks Undermining America’s Place in World Economic Order: The U.S. has long been a beacon of safety when uncertainty reigns. That is changing. (Wall Street Journal) see also Canada Flexes on Global Stage: With an Eye to Its Own Survival Prime Minister Mark Carney got a standing ovation in Davos for starkly describing the end of Pax Americana. He is looking for new allies to help his country survive it. (New York Times)

• They quit their day jobs to bet on current events. A look inside the prediction market mania: Reminds me of people quitting their jobs to become Day-Traders in the 1990s — and we know how that worked out…. (NPR)

• Can America build beautiful places again? Ugliness has more to do with the housing crisis than you think. (Vox)

• Chinese EVs Blow Past Tesla and Tariffs En Route to Global Reign: U.S., European Union and Mexico try to quash accelerating demand for China’s hottest electric vehicles. (Wall Street Journal) see also BYD’s Cheap EVs Are Suddenly Everywhere in Mexico as Tariffs Take Hold: Chinese brands find growth in EV, plug-in segment other carmakers bypassed. (Bloomberg)

• Maybe we’re all doomed. Or maybe Japanese bonds are getting cheap: Japanese government bonds have been having a monumentally awful time. The yield on 40-year JGBs on Monday sailed clean through 4 per cent for the first time. Investors in ultra-long maturity JGBs have now lost a cool fifth of their money over the past year alone. (FT Alphaville)

• Apple lost the AI race — now the real challenge starts: It’s time to turn Apple Intelligence into something people actually care about. (The Verge)

• In the AI economy, the ‘weirdness premium’ will set you apart. Lean into it, says expert on tech change economics. The word “weird” didn’t always mean strange. In Old English, descended from a mix of Germanic and Norse concepts, it meant something closer to “destiny” or “becoming” or even “fate.” Once upon a time, human beings in that culture thought that the way someone’s life would turn out was unseverable from the fundamental weirdness of being alive. (Fortune)

• What Happened to Pam Bondi? How the attorney general became a person who loves telling Trump yes (also, she has been corrupt since the GFP, so we have that going for us, which is nice) (The Atlantic) see also Lindsey Halligan leaves DOJ as judge calls her use of title ‘charade’ Judges threatening actions against people INDIVIDUALLY— not against the office —is the best way to enforce Rule of Law. (USA Today)

• How Gen Z is making millennials look cool again: Gen Z is reimagining the trends of its elders, embracing low-rise baggy and flare jeans, baby doll tops, and sweatpants with numbers. (Washington Post)

Be sure to check out our bonus edition of Masters in Business interview with Cory Doctorow — science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger. We discuss the power of large companies over the Internet is “Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It.”

 

When Chaos Reigns, So Does Gold

Source: Bloomberg

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Thursday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Trump Unveils His Board Of Peace In Davos: A Replacement To The UN Or A US-Led Coalition Of The Willing?

On the second and final day of his visit on Jan. 22, U.S. President Donald Trump released the Board of Peace charter, which is part of the peace process between Israel and Hamas to end the war in Gaza.

The White House on Jan. 16 named several members of the Trump administration, as well as international leaders, to positions within the Board of Peace, which aims to provide strategic insight, mobilize international resources, and ensure accountability during Gaza’s transition and reconstruction.

Trump will chair the board, which will be tasked with overseeing the next phase in Gaza. Dozens of countries have been invited to join.

As Emel Akan reports for The Epoch Times, members will be tasked with managing the Gaza Strip’s “governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilization,” according to the White House.

During a Jan. 20 White House press conference, Trump said the Board of Peace might end up replacing the United Nations.

“I wish the United Nations could do more. I wish we didn’t need a Board of Peace,” Trump told reporters. 

“The U.N. just hasn’t been very helpful. I’m a big fan of the U.N. potential, but it has never lived up to its potential.”

Despite criticizing the U.N., Trump didn’t call for the dissolution of the international body.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair are among those tapped to serve on an executive board for the Board of Peace. Others on the executive board are private equity executive Marc Rowan, World Bank Group President Ajay Banga, and U.S. deputy national security adviser Robert Gabriel.

The Board of Peace will include a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, led by Palestinian Authority official Ali Abdel Hamid Shaath.

President Donald Trump speaks during a reception for business leaders at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Nikolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat and former U.N. envoy to the Middle East, has also been named to serve as the high representative for Gaza. This role entails acting as a link between the Board of Peace and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.

As part of the peace process, Hamas has agreed to disarm.

During his remarks to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump said failure to comply would result in severe consequences, saying Hamas will “be blown away.”

“We have 59 countries that are part of that whole peace deal,” Trump said during his speech.

“And they want to come in and take out Hamas. They want to come in. They want to do whatever they can. There’s a problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon. And we'll see what happens there.”

Additionally, as Andrew Korybko details below, Putin might accept Trump’s invitation to participate in order to avoid offending him and not lose a seat at the table where members provide input on US policy towards settling various conflicts.

Kremlin spokesmen Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the US invited Putin to join the Board of Peace, which refers to the UNSC-endorsed Trump-chaired group for implementing his Gaza peace plan.

Interestingly, Gaza isn’t mentioned anywhere in its charter, thus lending credence to some observers’ assessments that Trump envisages it de facto replacing the UN upon broadening its scope with time.

That same charter also grants enormous power to the group’s Chairman, the first of which will be Trump.

He’s the only one who can invite countries to join, terminate their membership, select the Executive Board, approve decisions (without which they won’t enter into force), veto decisions at any time even after they’re already being implemented, and has full power over subsidiary entities, et al.

Just as importantly, he also chooses his successor, who automatically replaces him once he ends his duties. Trump will basically run the Board of Peace like Mar-a-Lago, which has obvious pros and cons.

On the positive side, this group might actually get things done, unlike the UN. After all, Trump’s companies have a track record of tangible accomplishments, and taking full responsibility for everything motivates him to ensure that this effort doesn’t fail otherwise it’ll stain his legacy. On the negative side, all members have to defer to Trump, which some might consider humiliating. They might still tolerate it for the sake of rebuilding Gaza, however, but then leave after three years’ time.

The last point segues into the clause about how the invitees can serve for three years free of charge but then have to leave the group unless they pay $1 billion within the first year to become permanent members.

This money will go towards rebuilding Gaza. It’s also possible that the Board of Peace amends the charter to mandate a smaller amount with Trump’s approval. In any case, becoming a permanent member legally buys influence with Trump, but it doesn’t guarantee that he’ll do what’s asked of him.

There’s also the question of what would happen if the Republicans don’t keep the presidency.

The Board of Peace, whether still run by Trump or whoever his successor might be (perhaps one of his sons), would then lose the ability to influence the president and thus just become another international group. It could still foster dialogue among its members, but that’s not the same as shaping US policy towards Gaza in accordance with Trump’s vision with potential input from others like it’s presently poised to do.

For these reasons, the Board of Peace is less a replacement to the UN and more akin to a “coalition of the willing” therein which has the political will to facilitate US-led efforts to rebuild Gaza, but this “coalition” might also broaden its focus to tackle other conflicts in the future.

It’s with this in mind that those invitees embroiled in such conflicts which could occupy the Board of Peace’s attention before the end of Trump 2.0 might buy permanent membership in order to keep this influence channel open.

The aforesaid calculation would contextualize Russia’s possible participation on the Board of Peace, especially as a permanent member, which could even be for the simple purpose of not wanting to provoke Trump by risking him being offended by Putin’s rejection of his invitation into escalating.

A supplementary motive could be that this is a political insurance policy in the scenario, however far-fetched it might seem, that the Board of Peace ultimately de facto replaces some of the UN’s functions.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 06:30

Cocoa Prices Set For Worst Monthly Drop On Record As Demand Craters

Cocoa futures in New York tumbled to two-year lows as fresh grinding data confirmed that consumers are balking at high chocolate prices.

Contracts are now down more than 28.5% on the month, and if the decline holds through the end of next week, January would register the largest monthly percentage drop on record, with Bloomberg data going back to 1970.

The great cocoa panic of 2023-24, which sent prices from $2,190 a ton to as high as $13,000 a ton by December 2024, has now retraced nearly the entire bull move to the 76.4% Fibonacci level. This latest downward pressure comes as new grinding data in Europe, cited by Bloomberg, shows clear demand deterioration:

• Demand is deteriorating: European cocoa grindings fell to the lowest quarterly level since 2013, Asia also declined, while North America was roughly flat.

• Reduced grindings have hit processors hard: Barry Callebaut AG reported a 22% drop in cocoa division volumes and nearly 10% lower overall sales volumes.

Goldman analyst Natasha de la Grense provided clients with more color on Barry Callebaut's earnings, which showed negative market demand for chocolate:

Barry Callebaut – Q1 volumes in line (-9.9%) with a better outcome in Gourmet (-3.6% vs -5.5%) and Food Manufacturers (-7.4% vs -8.0%) offset by worse volumes in Cocoa Products (-22% vs -16.5%). The miss at the latter was impacted by negative market demand notably in AMEA and the prioritisation of volume towards higher return segments. Pricing was +19% YoY (vs +40% last quarter) so sequentially improving and now passed its peak. They say that global chocolate volumes were -6.8%. No change to FY26 outlook but they note lower bean prices are encouraging for chocolate market stabilisation. With this release, a new CEO has been announced which is a bit of a surprise (and Mr Feld is leaving almost immediately). However, the newly appointed Mr Schumacher is former CEO of Unilever and well-liked by investors. On the call, the Chairman suggested there will be no major change in strategy or need for reinvestment under new management. Note that BC also said it is committed to its integrated business model which should pour cold water on speculation around a split.

Barry Callebaut CFO Peter Vanneste told investors on an earnings call, "We believe consumers will adapt and adjust to these new price levels and ultimately continue to buy chocolate given the high engagement of the category."

We told readers in December that sliding cocoa prices would produce "Tailwinds" for the badly beaten-down Hershey stock ...

Read the note here.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 05:45

UK Data Center Planning Hits Record High Amid Scramble For AI Infrastructure

Via City AM,

• Data centre planning applications in England and Wales jumped 63% in 2025, driven largely by AI-related demand and investor enthusiasm.

• Developers are increasingly targeting unconventional sites, from abandoned hotels to former coal mines and landfills, to secure planning approval.

• Power availability and grid constraints are likely to limit how many approved projects are ultimately built, encouraging “bring your own power” models.

Data centre planning applications hit an all-time high in the UK in 2025, City AM can reveal, as investors rushed to gain a foothold in the burgeoning AI market.

More than 60 separate planning applications for the construction of new data centres were filed in England and Wales over the course of the year, according to a City AM analysis of more than 300 local authority planning databases, representing an increase of 63 per cent compared to 2024.

The analysis excluded extensions to existing data centre sites, revisions to past applications  and applications for other developments which included a data centre as part of the plans, meaning the true figure for the number of data centres seeking planning approval is likely to be significantly higher.

The surge in applications lays bare the scale of the demand for compute by the nascent AI industry, with large language models requiring more and more power to operate, and property businesses racing to re-invent themselves as data centre developers to cash in on investor appetite.

Dame Dawn Childs, chief executive of Pure Data Centres, told City AM: “With this AI bubble that everyone’s talking about…because of the increased valuations for powered land, everyone’s trying to get a piece of the pie, and that creates a bunch of fizziness.

“We’re seeing lots of people who are sending out on a daily basis: ‘we’ve got this significant plot of land with all of these megawatts of power in the middle of nowhere, it’ll be an AI gigafactory, buy it for a gazillion pounds’ – they’re absolutely trying to get increased valuations for scrappy industrial land.”

The lion’s share of the demand came from AI applications by Magnificent 7 firms, Childs said, but added that even without AI, there would likely have been a significant increase in applications due to increased cloud computing adoption across the British economy.

The analysis found that around half of the planning applications were situated in London and the South East, regions known as a European hotspot for data centres, though there were also signs of a growing number of data centres being constructed across different parts of the UK. Seven different applications were submitted in Wales during the year, along with another seven in the East Midlands, four in the North West and four in Yorkshire.

The analysis also found property firms becoming more and more creative over the sites chosen to redevelop into data centres in a scramble to gain planning approval. In Watford, developers picked the site of an abandoned Mercure hotel to build a data centre, while in Hackney, the old Truman brewery has been earmarked for conversion. In Nottinghamshire, a shuttered coal mine could be turned into a data centre, while in Chesterfield, a former landfill site could find a new lease of life churning out AI content.

These more ambitious developments were being led by technological advances by data centre hyperscalers, Childs said.

“Previously they needed their cloud regions to be within a certain geography, driven by the cost of power, the availability of power and the price of land,” Childs said.

“They’ve extended that margin now and for some of them they’ve actually doubled the circumference within which they’d be happy to have a child data centre site linked back to their central hub in a cloud region.”

The surge in data centre planning applications is also thought to have been propelled by the launch of the government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan just under a year ago, in which it called for the creation of ‘AI Growth Zones’ – areas designed to build AI infrastructure and attract outside investment and expertise. To date more than 200 submissions for AI Growth Zones have been made by local authorities across the UK.

Planning and power challenges

But the total number of AI data centres ultimately built is likely to be substantially lower than the number of planning applications filed, amid competition for investment and a scarcity of power supplies.

Google’s first UK owned and operated data centre, which opened last year, suffered a series of setbacks before it was ultimately completed.

When the first planning application for the site was submitted in 2018, Thames Water warned it had “identified an inability of the existing water network infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal”, while a utilities report found the local power supply was inadequate and a new 6km-long cable would have to be dug underground (including drilling under the M25) to connect up to a second National Grid substation.

As a result of power constraints, the “bring your own power” model is also being seen more and more across Europe, in which data centre developers partner with energy specialists to ensure power demands can be met, Childs said.

“Investors are either cautious and savvy and really understand the market… or they are new entrants who are just throwing their hat in the ring to jump on the bandwagon.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 05:00

US Lawmakers Push $2.5B Plan To Break China’s Grip On Critical Minerals

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed creating a new $2.5 billion agency to accelerate U.S. production of rare earths and other critical minerals, according to AP and MSN. 

The effort comes as the Trump administration has already taken aggressive steps to weaken China’s control over materials vital to high-tech products, electric vehicles, and advanced weapons systems.

While it remains unclear how the legislation would align with White House policy, pressure is growing to cut U.S. dependence on China after Beijing used its dominance in the critical minerals market during the trade war. Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping agreed last October to a one-year truce under which China would continue exports while the U.S. eased some technology restrictions.

The Pentagon has spent nearly $5 billion over the past year to secure access to these materials, highlighting how reliant the U.S. remains on China, which processes more than 90% of the world’s critical minerals. To counter that dominance, Washington has begun taking equity stakes in mining companies and, in some cases, guaranteeing prices—an approach more commonly associated with China’s industrial policy.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Todd Young of Indiana, would establish an independent agency to build mineral stockpiles, stabilize prices, and encourage production in the U.S. and allied countries to support both national defense and the broader economy.

Shaheen called the legislation “a historic investment” to strengthen the U.S. economy against China’s leverage, while Young said the proposal is “a much-needed, aggressive step to protect our national and economic security.” Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia introduced a companion bill in the House.

The AP report says that the urgency escalated after China imposed export restrictions last spring in response to U.S. tariffs, forcing Washington to seek a truce. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon has recently “deployed over $4.5 billion in capital commitments” to close deals that will “help free the United States from market manipulation.”

Those efforts include investments in domestic alumina, gallium, and rare earth production, as well as partnerships to strengthen the supply chain for rare earth magnets. Trump reinforced the strategy this week, declaring the U.S. is “too reliant” on foreign critical minerals and ordering negotiations for stronger supply terms.

“Reshoring manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security is a top priority for the Trump administration,” a White House spokesperson said.

Some analysts view the strategy as a shift toward state-backed industrial policy. “Despite the dangers of political interference, the strategic logic is compelling,” wrote Elly Rostoum, adding that it could be “a prudent way for the U.S. to ensure strategic autonomy and industrial sovereignty.”

Industry leaders have largely welcomed the approach. “He is playing three-dimensional chess on critical minerals like no previous president has done. It's about time too, given the military and strategic vulnerability we face,” said Jim Sims of NioCorp.

Alongside domestic investment, the administration is also working with allies, including major mining agreements with Australia and coordinated discussions among G7 finance ministers on supply chain resilience.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 04:15

Despite Rapes And Violence, Netherlands To Keep Migrant-Student Integration Project Alive

Via Remix News,

Despite sparking global news coverage documenting violence, sexual assaults, and drug-related crimes in the shared living integration project “Stek Oost,” the city of Amsterdam refuses to shut the project down.

According to public broadcaster BNNVARA, the municipality has rejected calls to shutter the facility early and plans to run the project until its scheduled end in April 2028.

The project, which launched in 2018, was the subject of a recent NPO 2 report where residents detailed an environment of frequent violence. Records indicate that the housing association responsible for the site, Stadgenoot, had requested an intervention plan from police and city officials as early as 2019 to address sexual abuse.

The news report highlighted serious cases and interviewed the victims in some instances, which has been translated by Remix News.

A Syrian resident was linked to a rape in 2019, but the case was initially closed due to insufficient evidence. However, the individual remained at the dormitory until March 2022, when a second sexual offense led to his expulsion and a subsequent prison sentence.

The former resident said that a Syrian raped her after she went to his room to watch a film and he would not let her leave.

He then raped her.

The woman, Amanda, said: “He wanted to learn Dutch, to get an education. I wanted to help him.”

In addition, students living in the shared spaces reported being threatened with kitchen knives. One student described a 20-centimeter-long blade.

Stadgenoot reportedly considered pulling out of the project in 2023 after its own employees faced threats.

“Stek Oost” was designed to foster social cohesion by housing asylum seekers and Dutch students together.

Initially, the 250 apartments were split in half between the two groups, so 125 places for each group. However, the ratio of asylum seekers was later reduced to 30 percent.

A “buddy system” was implemented to connect the groups and promote integration.

Despite the controversies, the City of Amsterdam has blocked attempts to close the project. District President Carolien de Heer (PvdA) defended the decision to the broadcaster, stating that “250 people could not be put on the streets at once.”

However, what he does not note is that the refugees could simply be removed to another facility, which would not total 250 people.

The project has long been a source of political friction. In 2022, Green Mayor Femke Halsema acknowledged she was aware of the ongoing problems. By 2024, parties including the VVD and JA21 called for the project’s termination.

A scheduled debate on the facility was recently removed from the Municipal Council’s agenda, despite a request for discussion from Anton van Schijndel of the nationalist FvD party (Forum for Democracy).

Now, there are potential political implications to closing the project early, which could be seen as a failure of integration, even when forced and facilitated by the state in a controlled environment.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 03:30

Tesla Cuts Berlin Gigafactory Workforce By 1,700 Employees

Tesla’s workforce at its Gigafactory near Berlin has fallen by about 1,700 employees, according to a report by Germany’s Handelsblatt.

An internal document cited by the paper shows the Gruenheide site—Tesla’s only European production hub—now employs 10,703 people, a decline of roughly 14% from staffing levels disclosed ahead of works council elections in 2024. The company did not immediately comment, according to Handelsblatt.

The reduction follows CEO Elon Musk’s April 2024 announcement that Tesla would cut more than 10% of its global workforce to curb costs and boost productivity.

The move also fits a broader pattern in early 2026, as manufacturers and technology firms continue to streamline operations amid slower demand growth, tighter financing conditions, and a push to protect margins after several years of aggressive expansion.

In 2025, Tesla spent much of the year shifting from rapid expansion to consolidation. Management emphasized cost control, factory efficiency, and cash preservation as aggressive price cuts and softer demand compressed automotive margins.

Even as its traditional auto operations lost momentum, Tesla’s stock has been relatively resilient. Investors have increasingly focused on the company’s longer-term ambitions in robotaxi services, autonomous driving software, and artificial intelligence, viewing these as potential high-margin growth engines.

That optimism has helped support the share price despite slowing vehicle sales and a wider backdrop of job cuts across manufacturing and technology in 2026, as companies adjust to weaker growth and higher financing costs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 02:45

Should India Be Concerned About Poland's Close Ties With Pakistan

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Pakistan’s reported indirect arming of Ukraine through Poland might expand into direct military cooperation between them that could then also elicit concern from Russia...

Top Indian diplomat Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said during a press conference with his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski that he wants to discuss the latter’s “recent travels to the region” in an allusion to his trip to Pakistan last fall after spring’s Indo-Pak clashes.

He also said that “Poland should display zero tolerance for terrorism and not help fuel the terrorist infrastructure in our neighbourhood.”

Sikorski later abruptly ended an interview when asked about Pakistani terrorism against India.

India has good reason to be concerned about Poland’s close ties with Pakistan, not just due to Sikorski’s suspicious behavior during the aforesaid interview which hinted at a seemingly inexplicable fear of offending that country, but because of reports that Poland aids Pakistan’s indirect arming of Ukraine.

Although the Russian Ambassador to Pakistan dismissed them as lacking evidence, perhaps in order to not derail their big-ticket energy and infrastructure talks, it’s likely that India believes them.

After all, it wasn’t only Indian media that reported on Pakistan’s indirect arming of Ukraine, but also French media and The Intercept.

The second’s report alleged that “U.S. Helped Pakistan Get IMF Bailout With Secret Arms Deal For Ukraine, Leaked Documents Reveal”, which is believable given Pakistan’s financial problems and the US’ former interest in arming Ukraine to the teeth against Russia.

Pakistan also has a sizeable defense industry and is a “Major Non-NATO Ally” so this alleged deal is reasonable.

Lending credence to this claim was Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar declaring after last fall’s talks with Sikorski that “We agreed to expand bilateral cooperation in trade, energy, infrastructure, defence, counter-terrorism, science and technology and education.”

Their defense cooperation might eventually expand beyond Pakistan indirectly arming Ukraine to it directly arming Poland given the latter’s unprecedented military buildup that’s sold to the public on the pretext of defending against Russia.

The lion’s share of its military-technical equipment comes from the US and South Korea due to how embarrassingly underdeveloped its domestic military-industrial complex is, but it would make sense for Poland to pragmatically diversify suppliers by exploring related options with Pakistan.

This is especially so if they’ve already been cooperating on indirectly arming Ukraine and Pakistan took the opportunity to market its other military-technical equipment to Poland. Any such deal would bother Russia and India.

Russia would dislike Pakistan arming Poland amidst their talks on big-ticket deals, which arguably require the US’ approval that Trump might not provide in order for US companies to take advantage of these opportunities instead, while India would object to Poland financing its rival through weapons deals.

Pakistan and Poland are also nowadays the US’ top partners in their home regions so each might lobby their shared US patron in support of the other’s interests as a goodwill gesture for bolstering their ties.

It’s therefore not just India which has good reason to be concerned about Poland’s close ties with Pakistan but also Russia, whose associated concerns could be exacerbated if India shares any intelligence with Russia that it might have obtained about their planned defense cooperation.

In that scenario, Russia would still be unlikely to end its energy and infrastructure talks with Pakistan since that’s not its diplomatic style, but it might become reluctant to further expand bilateral ties in other spheres.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 02:00

No White Men Need Apply

Authored by Judge Glock & Christopher F. Rufo via City Journal,

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to end federal spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Yet the government has continued to award contracts based on race and sex. Despite rampant fraud and multiple court rulings against the practice, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has used “disadvantage” essays from business owners to skirt the rules and continue discriminatory programs that dole out billions in government contracts.

For decades, the federal government has awarded certain special contracts exclusively to so-called disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses. Until 2023, SBA presumed that racial minorities were “disadvantaged.” The resulting discrimination was absolute: according to an analysis conducted between 2020 and 2023, these programs made not a single award to white men.

Though the second Trump administration has taken steps to limit these contracts, the largest disadvantaged-business initiative—the SBA’s 8(a) program—is thriving. The program “is still one of the most lucrative and sought after” SBA certificates, one contracting lawyer said in November. In fact, fiscal year 2025 saw the largest 8(a) spending on record, totaling $26 billion.

President Trump signed an executive order forbidding federal DEI discrimination, and a federal district court struck down the SBA’s presumption that minorities are disadvantaged. How, then, has 8(a) survived?

Much as colleges have used personal essays to evade affirmative-action bans, the Small Business Administration has asked companies to submit “social disadvantage narratives” to qualify for the 8(a) program. These allow business owners to establish minority status through descriptions of racial taunts or alleged discrimination. Applicants might not check a racial box, but the implication is clear: no white men need apply.

The SBA’s “Guide for Demonstrating Social Disadvantage” reveals how the shell game works. The guide teaches applicants how to play the system, featuring examples of potential “disadvantage.” It gives minorities and women the magic words: “I believe my application [for a bank loan] was denied due to bias toward my race” and “I believe my request [to declare a business major] was denied based on sex bias.” Once the agency approves the application, the contracts can start flowing—no real evidence required.

Are these applicants always disadvantaged? No. Consider Earl Stafford Jr., a black contractor who wrote an essay to apply for the 8(a) program. The Washington Business Journal reported on Stafford’s “painstaking” ordeal of writing the essay, in which he described unspecified acts of discrimination that made him think that he did not have “what it took to be in business.” Yet his father, Earl Stafford Sr., founded a successful defense firm and started his own private foundation—hardly the background of a disadvantaged person.

As with any racialized initiative, the 8(a) program is ripe for fraud. White business owners can find a minority front man or a woman to head a nominally disadvantaged or woman-owned firm, which the white man continues to run behind the scenes. Another option is for minority-owned firms to receive the government contract but act as “pass through,” taking a cut off the top and paying another firm to do the contracted work. The Supreme Court ruled last year against a “disadvantaged” company that provided none of the required paint for a Philadelphia bridge and train station and passed the work to other firms.

Out-and-out dishonesty is also common. In 2023, Margarita Howard and her companies HX5 and HX5 Sierra were forced to pay the government almost $8 million for lying about Howard’s assets in order to participate in 8(a). At the time she claimed to be disadvantaged, Howard was living in a 14,000-square-foot waterside Florida mansion featured on HGTV’s Extreme Homes, the complaint against her alleges. Howard is still the CEO of HX5 (a “woman-owned small business”) and applies for federal money. The Trump administration awarded her company millions last year.

Other aspiring federal contractors have pretended to be Native American or embezzled funds intended for Natives. ProPublica recently highlighted the case of Charles Dawson, a contractor whose companies won hundreds of millions of dollars on a promise to use his profits to help “Native Hawaiians.” He funneled some of the money into private jets, Porsches, and polo. Even after a federal raid on Dawson’s house, the companies continued to win federal support.

Everyone within the system knows such fraud is rampant. A 2018 government audit reviewed 25 8(a) recipient firms which together received more than $100 million. Of these, 20 “should have been removed from the . . . program” due to ineligibility.

The Trump administration has taken important steps to address these problems. Late Friday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced he was ordering a “line by line” investigation of 8(a) contracts. President Biden’s SBA sought to award 15 percent of all federal contracts to disadvantaged firms. Trump SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler has reduced the goal to the law’s actual standard of 5 percent. Her administration has also demanded financial records from 8(a) businesses to weed out fraud.

But the core problem with these programs is not fraud. It is that they systematically discriminate against one group: white men.

Instead of trying to reform 8(a), the Trump administration should abolish it. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the administration would be within its rights to stop all contracting based on race and sex, even if such contracting were justified under the fig leaf of a “disadvantage” essay. The White House could also support Senator Joni Ernst’s “Stop 8(a) Contracting Fraud Act,” which would pause 8(a) contracting until a thorough audit is completed, or call on Congress to end the program altogether.

When the administration says, “no DEI,” it should mean it. In federal contracting, that’s also what the Constitution requires.

Judge Glock is director of research at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Dead Pledge: The Origins of the Mortgage Market and Federal Bailouts, 1913–1939. Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 23:25

How Canada's Only Leverage Over America Disappeared In An Instant

Authored by E.J. Antoni via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

I’d like to talk today about the recent events in Venezuela, specifically from an economic point of view, and who are the real winners and losers.

An aerial photo shows the Nave Photon crude oil tanker, carrying a shipment of Venezuelan oil, docked in Freeport, Texas, on Jan. 16, 2026. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

Let’s start with the obvious. The Venezuela operation is a win for America and the Venezuelan people. American consumers and businesses will benefit from lower prices while oil companies have a chance for bigger profits.

Venezuelans will benefit from increased investment, jobs, and profits in their country as well. This is why their stock market jumped 50, 60, 70, 80 percent after the U.S. takeover.

And if we recall that economic security is national security, then the new order in South America also simultaneously supports U.S. national security while undermining our greatest rival, China. In war, dependable access to oil is as important as dependable access to kinetic arms.

Access to ample, reliable flows of oil represents a key strategic interest. Removing one such flow from the Chinese sphere of influence and bringing it into our own is tremendous progress toward this goal. But the biggest loser of all isn’t China or Russia, it’s Canada.

Western Canada sends over four million barrels a day of heavy crude to American refiners that are equipped to handle this type of oil. But now, with access to the massive flows of Venezuelan crude, which is similar to the Canadian flavor, the United States no longer needs to rely on Canada to keep the refineries on the Gulf of America running at full capacity.

Instead, the oil shipments that previously went to China are already being redirected to American refiners—tens of millions of barrels worth just days after Maduro’s capture. And while the United States is paying full market price for that oil, don’t be surprised if oil prices start coming down because of this redirection.

After all, increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. As American investment rebuilds Venezuela’s severely neglected oil infrastructure, we can expect production and exports to the United States to only increase, simultaneously benefiting the American and Venezuelan people.

That’s why this is such a massive economic win for American families and businesses who will benefit from lower prices, courtesy of more energy supplies. And since energy affects the price of everything else in an economy, lower prices for products like gasoline will put downward pressure on countless other prices, providing relief after four years of inflation under the Biden administration.

Consider when you go to a grocery store how much of the price of food you’re buying is dependent on energy prices. First off, farmers and ranchers are fueling their tractors and other vehicles with diesel and gas. They’re also using synthetic fertilizers created with natural gas.

But how did the gallon of milk, the carton of eggs, or the bag of bread get to grocery store in the first place? It got there on a trunk. Fueled by oil. What I’m getting at here is that we seriously underestimate just how much the price of energy affects everything we do and everything we buy.

Bring down energy prices, and you put downward pressure on prices throughout the economy. That’s a win for American consumers and businesses alike.

And U.S. control of Venezuela is also a second chance for jilted American oil companies to again profit from nearly one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.

Years ago, those American companies poured investment into Venezuela to essentially modernize the entire industry there. For their troubles, these oil firms had their physical property confiscated and their intellectual property copied as the communists “nationalized” Venezuelan oil.

Of course, communist rule there was a disaster, as it has been everywhere, and the oil industry languished as infrastructure decayed, investment lagged, and production fell well below its potential. Venezuela pumps much less oil today than they did a quarter century ago. But this is poised to reverse.

Venezuela will now assuredly receive billions of dollars of investment from American oil companies, many of whom are champing at the bit to regain access to the largest reserves in the world. That will mean a windfall of jobs and income for the Venezuelan people, all of which could have been Canada’s, bringing us back to the story of the biggest economic loser here.

It didn’t have to be this way for the fifty-first state. But instead of welcoming oil and gas investment from the United States and building valuable infrastructure like pipelines, Canada has preferred to prioritize far-Left causes and an anti-energy agenda.

After recent events, not only is Canada losing its biggest crude customer, but it’s also losing its only real leverage in trade talks with the United States. This is an economic reality that few professional pundits seem to have grasped.

To be clear, the flood of cheap Venezuelan crude will not arrive in the United States overnight. It will take time, years in fact, to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and really ramp up production to replace most Canadian crude imports. But the writing is on the wall.

The United States, for a change, is firmly in the driver’s seat and master of its own destiny—and hemisphere.

The economic story here also goes well beyond oil too, although that’s what has gotten most of the attention. Venezuela is a veritable goldmine of other natural resources like rare earth minerals, lumber, bauxite (the primary source of aluminum), natural gas, and more. Canada just lost not only its leverage with oil, but just about every other one of its exports too.

Since the Canadian economy is much more dependent on exports than the U.S. economy is, and since nearly all Canadian exports come to the United States while relative few of ours go to Canada, the slowdown in trade between our two countries has very unequal effects.

In short, this has been very harmful to Canada and will be devastating in the long run. But it’s little more than a speedbump here in America.

President Donald Trump has effectively barred the door on Canada, and the latter will have few alternatives to completely opening every one of its markets to free and fair competition.

Of course, Canada can always choose to fall further into irrelevance and economic impoverishment by stubbornly continuing to snub American manufacturers, farmers, and workers.

Let me close by saying that if the Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans to stay out of the Western Hemisphere and the Roosevelt corollary established American intervention therein, then the Trump corollary has put a finer, and more economic, point on the matter that’s best summed up in two words: America first.

Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ZeroHedge. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:35

Iran Vows Prolonged All-Out War If Attacked As Trump Still Seeks 'Options'

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday warning the United States that Tehran will be "firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack" - following President Trump reiterating threats against the Islamic Republic.

"Our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack," he wrote in reference to the 12-day war of last June.

AFP/Getty Images: Iran is prepared for war but ready to negotiate, Iran's FM has made clear.

The top Iranian diplomat stated that this was not a "threat" but a "reality I feel I need to convey explicitly, because as a diplomat and a veteran, I abhor war."

Araghchi said his country is ready for all-out war, describing that "an all-out confrontation will certainly be ferocious and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House. It will certainly engulf the wider region and have an impact on ordinary people around the globe."

What's more is he described the most violent part of protests in Iran, which were met with vehement denunciations and warnings by Trump, in reality the result of an anti-Tehran conspiracy and effort by externally supported groups to sow chaos, destabilization, and to begin an insurgency:

As black-clad groups of masked terrorists used rifles and handguns to infiltrate protests and mow down innocent demonstrators on our streets, reports emerged in various media claiming that big cities in Iran had “fallen.” Other reports alleged the continuation of widespread armed violence. In reality, the violent phase of the unrest lasted less than 72 hours.

By many accounts, the ballistic and even hypersonic missiles which fell on Israel last June did significant damage, and put fear into Israeli leadership given just how many among the hundreds of projectiles sent, including drones, were able to evade Israel's anti-air defenses.

Iran's foreign ministry is issuing such forceful warnings given the crisis between Tehran and Washington doesn't appear fully over, at a moment a US carrier group and additional military assets are headed to the Middle East region. WSJ notes that 'options' are still being weighed by the administration:

After pulling back from strikes on Iran last week, President Trump is still pressing aides for what he terms “decisive” military options, U.S. officials said, as Iran appears to have tightened its control of the country and targets protesters through a crackdown that has killed thousands.

Meanwhile the WSJ, along with others among the mainstream media, is questioning where Trump the hawk is and why he's exercised restrained on the Iran question - in the typical fashion of the warmongering media. WSJ's editorial board wrote:

Araghchi’s not-so-implicit threat of war if President Trump orders help for the protesters... This is a threat against Americans, an attempt to intimidate the Trump Administration. We wonder how President Trump sees this threat, especially since the regime so clearly crossed his “red line” against shooting protesters.

Regardless, the American public won't stomach yet another drawn out forever war in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein is among the most deeply unpopular US military actions in history.

The dust has barely settled on 20+ year fruitless and deadly occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the severe limitations of US empire were confirmed (also as the Taliban remains in Kabul, and Shia pro-Iran governance is stronger than ever in Baghdad), and yet already the armchair interventionist chickenhawks in the media are eyeing another regime change war.

WOW. Strategic advisor to Iran's Parliament Speaker, Mahdi Mohammadi:

"We know that we are facing a regime-change war in which the only way to achieve victory is to make credible the threat that, during the 12-day war, although it was ready, did not get the opportunity to be…

— Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) January 19, 2026

Probably (or rather, hopefully) Trump senses this, and is seeking de-escalation, also perhaps knowing there will be other future Iran protests and 'opportunities' to pull the trigger against Tehran. But it won't be some kind of easy in, easy out Venezuela scenario - and American troops might die.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 22:10

Somalia And The High Cost Of Low Trust

Authored by Mitzi Perdue via RealClearPolitics,

When news broke of the massive child nutrition fraud in Minnesota, many Americans reacted with disbelief. During the pandemic, roughly $250 million intended to feed hungry children was siphoned off, prosecutors say, and spent on luxury cars, real estate, and other indulgences. To most people, it appeared to be a shocking betrayal of public trust.

To me, it felt unsettlingly familiar.

Decades ago, long before Minnesota became synonymous with one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history, I had an experience in Somalia that permanently altered my perspective on aid, trust, and good intentions. It is why I read the indictments differently, not with surprise so much as recognition.

What struck me most about the Minnesota case was not only the scale of the theft but the silence surrounding it. The fraud appears to have operated in plain sight within tightly knit circles, yet few people spoke out.  

More than 40 years ago, when I was a rice farmer in California, American rice growers learned of famine conditions in Somalia. Competitors set aside their rivalry and donated an entire shipload of rice for humanitarian relief. I later traveled to Somalia, expecting to see that food had reached people on the brink of starvation.

It had not.

A powerful clan had taken control of the shipment. Once its own members’ needs were met, the remaining rice did not go to feed other Somalis. Instead, it was used to feed animals, while those outside the clan continued to go hungry.

At the time, I tried to explain what I had seen by blaming corruption, weak oversight, or a few bad actors. None of those explanations captured the deeper pattern. The behavior made sense only when I began to understand how differently trust and obligation were organized.

That realization came rushing back as I read about the Minnesota fraud.

According to federal indictments, the stolen money flowed through networks bound by kinship and loyalty. The theft was large, coordinated, and sustained. What stood out was not only who took the money, but who stayed silent. In societies with strong civic norms, whistleblowing is often praised, or at least protected. In tightly bound clan systems, speaking out can mean punishment.

Over time, I found language for what I had observed: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept from game theory that explains how cooperation and trust either compound or collapse. When two parties cooperate, both benefit and trust grows. When one cheats while the other cooperates, the cheater prospers and the cooperator becomes the loser. When both are defective, everyone loses.

High-trust societies solve this dilemma by extending cooperation beyond family and tribe. Laws, institutions, and norms reinforce the idea that cheating ultimately harms everyone, including oneself. Low-trust societies work differently. Trust is reserved for kin. Outsiders are assumed to cheat. In that environment, cheating is not necessarily immoral. It is often rational, expected, and even applauded.

Seen through this lens, both my experience in Somalia and the Minnesota scandal follow the same pattern. Institutions cooperated in good faith. Clan-based networks exploited that trust. Children and taxpayers paid the price.

Somalia represents the most destructive version of this equilibrium. When trust does not extend beyond blood ties, cooperation cannot scale. Investment dries up. Contracts mean little without enforcement beyond kinship. When everyone expects everyone else to cheat, no one can afford to cooperate.

In that context, Somalia’s ranking of 213th out of 215 countries in per-capita income is not shocking. It is almost inevitable. This is not an indictment of individual Somalis. We know that many, many Somalis live honest, productive lives, raise families, and contribute positively wherever they reside. Individuals can transcend the cultures they are born into. Social systems, however, change slowly and are likely to shape behavior.

Somalia sits at the end of a continuum, but the underlying dynamic is not unique to it. Whenever loyalty to the group eclipses loyalty to shared rules, corruption flourishes. The Minnesota scandal was not an aberration so much as a warning: When institutions assume trust without enforcing it, low-trust behavior fills the vacuum. Somalia shows what happens when that low-trust approach is entrenched.

Mitzi Perdue is a fellow at the Institute of World Politics and the co-founder of Mental Help Global, a philanthropy that uses AI to support mental health.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:45

Alberta Sees Large Turnout For Petition To Separate From Canada

Crowds of Canadian citizens stood in long lines across Alberta for hours this week to sign a petition for a referendum on leaving Canada - officially titled "A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence."  The petition requires at least 177,000 signatures in order to trigger the referendum, which would ultimately decide if the province will separate.

Petitions have 120 days to collect the signatures needed.  Pro-separation groups say they could get as many as 1 million signatures, which would be a clear indication that Alberta will leave Canada.  Alberta's population is currently 5 million people.

Some petition locations reported as many as 10,000 signatures in a day and the public response is described as "concerning" by critics who want to remain part of Canada's "constitutional monarchy."  Alberta is widely considered the most conservative province in the country and has been at odds with the far-left Canadian government (ruled by Ontario progressives). 

The referendum would mean a simply Yes/No question for voters on separation.  A majority (51% or more) would then lead to a legal process overseen by the Canadian federal government.  Come polls indicate that 60% of Albertan citizens are still opposed to the measure, however, the recent turnout for the petition suggests the tide is turning.  Recent conflicts with progressive elites in the Canadian government have driven Albertans to question their relationship. 

Alberta fought against the leftist government's pandemic lockdowns, church and business closures and draconian vaccination requirements.  They remain in opposition to Canada's new gun laws which are incrementally removing all firearms from private hands.  They have also been at odds with the federal government over resource development, energy policy, carbon taxation and economic marginalization. 

Essentially, Alberta is a different nation when compared to the Canadian norm.  It is also a commodity treasure trove that Canada exploits to feed its coffers while rarely giving anything back to provincial citizens. 

Wow, an absolute insane lineup of people - that goes entire city blocks - of people in Calgary waiting to sign a petition to make Alberta an independent sovereign nation. pic.twitter.com/HqB1xaJRs8

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 11, 2026

Canadian courts initially blocked a referendum question on separation, asserting that the implications of the question were too vague and did not align with constitutional requirements.  Instead of appealing the decision, Alberta turned to the legislature. Within days, the legislature passed Bill 14, amending the Referendum Act to remove the requirement that referendum questions align with the Constitution.  Separatists quickly got a revised referendum question approved, and the petition process resumed

Another obstacle to the separation is a lawsuit brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation goes far beyond provincial politics. The First Nation is seeking an urgent injunction to stop Alberta’s petition process.  They say a separation would be in violation of their original treaty with the Crown.  The claim sets up a possible loophole allowing the federal government to deny separation, but the notion that a Native treaty supersedes provincial law is rather thin.  Alberta's separation would simply mean that the Cree would have to negotiate a new treaty.

Arguments against the referendum say that Alberta is "landlocked", which would make its separation economically disastrous.  This is not entirely true.  Their shared border with the US and newfound sovereignty would allow the province to establish more significant oil pipelines (pipelines which the Canadian government has consistently blocked in the past).  This development along with greater resource exploration and an alliance with American interests would make Alberta one of the wealthiest regions in the western hemisphere.

Furthermore, Alberta stretches within 700 miles of the arctic, an area of the world which is quickly becoming central to geopolitics.  Early warning systems and NORAD bases in Alberta are integral to US security.  These bases could be shut down in the event that conflicts between Canada and the US escalate.  A free Alberta could become vital to US defense.

The debate over US ownership of Greenland is only one element of a larger global shift to the North.  Alberta's exit from Canada and potential alliance with the US could have vast implications for international relations.       

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 21:20

Under The Bus You Go, Kurds

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With the fighting continue to rage and north and northeast Syria between central government forces and the nation’s Kurdish minority, the US government appears to have decided that they are backing the former, and that US military support for the Syrian Kurds is over.

US envoy Tom Barrack declared the Kurds to have a "great opportunity" to be taken over by the Islamist central government of Syria, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He assured that the Kurds would definitely be offered "equal rights" under the law in this scenario.

AFP/Getty Images

In many ways, Barrack's comments were less about why they are no longer backing the Kurds than why they did in the past, saying at one point in the fight against ISIS, the US didn't consider the Assad government a "viable partner" so they backed the Kurds instead. Now, with the US seeing the HTS as aligned with their interest, that’s no longer the case, so they'll be backing the HTS instead.

Syrian Kurdish officials and locals have expressed disappointment with this turn of events, saying that after more than a decade of being aligned with the US they are being effectively "abandoned" at the exact moment the HTS has begun launching military offensives against Kurdish-controlled territory that the US helped the Kurds gain in the first place.

Though the US has broadly supported the Kurds through the Syrian proxy war and after, it has not been uniform. In 2019, Turkey launched an offensive against the Syrian Kurds and the Trump Administration at the time similarly (and controversially) withdrew backing for the Kurds, with President Trump famously claiming it was because he had just learned that the Kurds were not present at the Normandy Invasion during WW2.

This move may similarly be controversial, even if Normandy isn’t invoked as a justification this time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) had warned the HTS against continuing attacks on the Kurds and had warned that the US might reimpose sanctions against Syria if the attacks continued.

That position may have some support in the Senate, though it plainly does not within the White House, as President Trump has been loudly enamored with HTS leader and former al-Qaeda in Iraq figure Ahmed al-Sharaa, praising him as "young, attractive tough guy." When push came to shove, it was perhaps unsurprising that the administration chose Sharaa over the Kurds when the two sides were at odds.

The US has been expressing annoyance with the Kurds for not quietly submitting to Sharaa’s rule for months now, with Barrack, as the representative of the US Federal Government, declaring that they had learned "federalism doesn’t work" and that the Kurds should abandon any hope of autonomy within Syria.

Sharaa, for his part, has given the Kurds a four-day ultimatum to accept his terms for integration into the Syrian state. Since Sharaa had previously denied the Kurds a single spot in his cabinet and postponed parliamentary elections in Kurdish parts of the country, what if any representation that will actually entail remains unclear.

I am sorry to say I can confirm this https://t.co/1dP0yp2C1O

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

Whatever it is, however, the US clearly views it as sufficient.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:55

Justice Jackson Cites Racist 'Black Codes' As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” - a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms - could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026

Justice Jackson has never distinguished herself on the bench for her bright legal mind, but it was frankly remarkable to see her treating some of the most overtly racist laws in American history as potentially valid reference points for modern gun control. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:30

New Jersey Governor Orders State To Accelerate Solar, Storage And Virtual Power Plants

By Robert Walton of Utility Dive

On her first day in office Tuesday, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed executive orders seeking to freeze electricity cost increases, issue ratepayer relief in the form of bill credits, and increase distributed energy resources, including utility-scale solar and battery storage.

One order directed the state’s Board of Public Utilities to ensure bill credits by July 1 and to “consider pursuing a pause, abeyance, or modification of the schedule governing any proceedings in which electric distribution utilities seek approvals for rate increases or cost recoveries.” It also ordered the board to publish a study within 180 days of how to “modernize” the traditional electric utility business model, including opportunities to make utility revenue models “less dependent on capital spending.”

Another order focused on growing the state’s electricity supply and increasing efficiency. It directed regulators to initiate solicitations for solar and transmission-scale battery storage and to begin development of a virtual power plant program to be administered by electric distribution utilities and third-party suppliers in the state.

Sherrill, who made affordability and rising energy prices a focus of her campaign, said in her inaugural speech that the orders “will deliver relief to consumers and stop rate hikes.” 

“This will also create the conditions to massively expand New Jersey’s power generation, because more power in-state will help lower costs,” she said. 

Electric rates were a key issue in the governor’s race, particularly after bills spiked as much as 20% last year. Another increase is slated to go into effect this summer. The increases are a result of higher capacity prices in PJM’s recent auctions, which are held several years in advance and reflect both current and projected power demand. 

Residential bill credits will rely on the same or similar funding sources used in August 2025 to provide credits, according to Sherrill’s first executive order. Last year, the BPU said all 3.9 million New Jersey residential ratepayers of Public Service Electric and Gas, Atlantic City Electric, Jersey Central Power and Light, and Rockland Electric would receive $100 in direct bill assistance.

PSE&G emailed a statement responding to Sherrill’s orders, saying “steps must be taken to safeguard long-term energy reliability and cost effectiveness for residents as New Jersey relies on imported electricity for more than 40% of its power.”

“We are confident that open dialogue and information sharing will lead to workable solutions,” the utility said.

Grid advocates hailed the governor’s focus on developing new sources of energy.

“These executive orders are tackling peak demand, unlocking customer-sited resources, and speeding deployment of solar and storage,” Katie Mettle, New Jersey state lead at Advanced Energy United, said in a statement.

According to the second executive order, the BPU has 45 days to initiate a solicitation “for qualifying solar facilities or solar facilities in combination with storage” under the state’s Competitive Solar Incentive program. Within the same timeframe, the BPU must also open 3 GW of capacity for registration under New Jersey’s Community Solar Energy Program, “endeavoring to expedite the registration process by any necessary and appropriate means.”

Regulators must also accelerate the development of grid-scale storage through the Garden State Energy Storage Program by holding a solicitation within 45 days, launching Phase 2 of the program within 90 days, and “thereafter establishing a specific tranche of capacity for electric distribution utilities to develop to support interconnection of distributed energy resources and grid stability.”

And, within 180 days, the BPU must begin development of a virtual power plant program that aims “to drive down peak demand by aggregating behind-the-meter distributed energy resources.”

“Virtual power plants are a proven, cost-effective way to lower peak demand, improve reliability, and put downward pressure on energy bills,” AEU’s Mettle said.

Allison McLeod, interim executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, said the group was “particularly encouraged” by the actions aimed at solar and battery storage development.

“These are two of the fastest, most affordable tools we have to bring energy online and stabilize our grid,” McLeod said in a statement. “While taking some pragmatic steps to lower emissions and increase efficiencies in the near term with our existing fleet, New Jersey is continuing to lay the groundwork for a truly clean energy future.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 20:05

Second Biggest Australian Pension Fund Trimming US Dollar Exposure

It's not just the Danes who are virtue signaling their adherence to a dying globalist world order by loudly liquidating their tiny allocation of US Treasuries, which as Scott Bessent correctly pointed out they were already selling anyway and amount to a rounding error in terms of total US holdings...

When U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked how concerned he is about European investors pulling out of treasuries, Bessent said at a press conference at the World Economic Forum: “Denmark’s investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”… pic.twitter.com/CP7ULKtzps

— CNBC (@CNBC) January 21, 2026

... overnight Australia's second-biggest ​pension fund also said it is reducing its exposure to the US dollar through currency ‌hedging as falling interest rates and ongoing global volatility have investors around the world reassessing their U.S. allocations.

Andrew Fisher, Australian Retirement Trust's (ART) general manager of total portfolio management and resilience, told Reuters that the prospect of US rate cuts while some other major economies were expected to lift rates would weaken the dollar this ‌year. Financial markets have already priced in 50 basis points worth of interest rate ​by the Fed in 2026, whereas rates are expected to rise in Japan and Australia and remain steady in Europe.

ART has A$353 billion ($237.39 billion) of funds under management and is the second-largest fund in Australia's ‍A$4.5 trillion pension system, known as superannuation.

Fisher said while ART was not reducing its U.S stock holdings, it was increasing its currency hedging position to reduce exposure to a forecast weakening greenback.

"The U.S. dollar seems to be the ⁠one place where I think the U.S. administration is going to get what it wants, which ‍is a weaker dollar," Fisher told Reuters in an interview on Monday.

"They made it clear they want the dollar ‌to ‌weaken. It's hurting US competitiveness, and I think they're going to succeed."

Previously, almost all pension fund investors in U.S. equities would have very little currency hedging because the dollar was expected to rise on negative shocks.

A low-hedging strategy would insulate a fund because if the value of its U.S. stocks ⁠fell, it would be cushioned ⁠by the dollar also ​going down. ART holds about A$53 billion of U.S. stocks, according to the fund's figures.

"We're not going to change our allocation to U.S. equities, we're just going hedge more of the U.S. equities and unhedge more of the ‍other equities," Fisher said.

"Our Japanese exposure might be fully unhedged and our U.S. exposure might be much more hedged than it has been in the past to try and get that balance right," he said.

While the dollar traded ​near a six-week high last week, the currency has eased ‍this week against the safe-haven yen and Swiss franc after US President Donald Trump threatened additional tariffs on goods imported from European nations ​that oppose his planned takeover of Greenland.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:40

Waste Of The Day: Texas Southern Univ. Spending, Inventory In Shambles

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Texas Southern University has no idea where most of its inventory is located, ignored safeguards meant to prevent overspending, and reported inaccurate information to the Texas Comptroller, according to a state audit released Dec. 31. 

Key facts: University policy requires inventory to be physically counted every year, but a count has not happened since 2019, according to the audit.

Auditors randomly selected 60 pieces of property owned by TSU, and university employees were unable to locate 50 of them. 

Every piece of property must have a “custodian” responsible for its care. Half of the university’s property either had no custodian or had a custodian who no longer worked for TSU.

The university’s purchasing system was equally disastrous. Employees need signed approval before making purchases to ensure the school does not spend more than its budget allows. But auditors reviewed 60 random purchases and found that not a single one had approval.

Purchases over $25,000 must include a written contract, but 77% of a random sample of purchases had no contract. When contracts did exist, they could often only be located after “extensive research,” and 97% of them had incorrect information.

The school’s reported expenses were “significantly inflated” because school employees recorded many purchases twice in the university’s accounting software.

The university’s financial statements from 2023 and 2024 were completed months after the state deadline and contained “significant errors,” including misstating how much the school spent paying back bond debt.

In a written response, TSU President J.W. Crawford III agreed with all of the audit’s findings. 

Background: TSU is one of the nation’s largest public, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs. It received $111 million in state funding and $130 million in federal grants and contracts in fiscal year 2025. 

TSU had not been audited since 2006, according to Crawford.

Both the auditors and Crawford blamed some of the issues on staffing vacancies in warehouses and the Information Technology department.

Financial records support that claim. Payroll data obtained by Open the Books and university financial statements both show the school’s payroll expense decreased between 2019 and 2024 — a rarity for any college or public entity.  The nearby University of Texas at Austin, for example, increased its payroll by more than $500 million in the same timeframe.

Open the Books has not yet obtained Crawford’s salary. His predecessor, Lesia Crumpton-Young, made up to $434,000 in a single year.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Critical quote: “The results of the State Auditor’s report released today on Texas Southern University are beyond disturbing,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement. “The Governor, Speaker, and I have already taken action by putting a stop to any spending on any contracts other than ongoing university expenses to keep the school open. 

“It is my hope, for the sake of the students at the university, that TSU can continue. However, to do so, dramatic and permanent changes must occur immediately to comply with state standards.”

Patrick also directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate any potential criminal wrongdoing at TSU.

Summary: Any entity receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding should be able to track how the money is being spent.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 19:15

Operation Of Australia's Largest Coal Power Station Extended To 2029

Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The 2,880-megawatt Eraring coal-fired power station will continue to operate until 2029, operator Origin Energy has announced.

Eraring coal-fired power station, the largest in Australia, on the shores of Lake Macquarie southeast of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia. Nick Pitsas/CSIRO

The facility is the country’s largest power station by output and is situated on the banks of Lake Macquarie, north of Sydney in New South Wales (NSW).

In an announcement to the ASX (pdf), Origin said the move would reduce risks to system security, highlighted by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in its recent Transition Plan for System Security.

That report warned that, in NSW alternative energy assets required to “maintain system security are not currently scheduled to be operational before the announced retirement date of Eraring Power Station.”

“We’ve taken the decision to extend Eraring’s operations after assessing a range of factors, including the needs of our customers, market conditions and the important role the plant plays in the NSW energy system,” Origin CEO Frank Calabria said.

“Good progress has been made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure, including major transmission works and projects like our large-scale battery at Eraring, but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support [a] secure and stable power supply.”

The decision is aimed at providing more time for the delivery of renewables, storage, and transmission projects, he said. It also reflected uncertainty about the reliability of Australia’s ageing coal and gas fleet.

The company originally planned to close it in 2025, then extended it to August 2027 after the NSW Labor government struck a $450 million risk-sharing deal for the ageing facility, which committed the state to covering a percentage of losses up to $225 million per year if given advance notice by Origin.

About half of Australia’s national electricity grid is powered by black coal-fired power stations such as Eraring.

Government Welcomes Extension

The state’s Minister for Energy Penny Sharpe welcomed the announcement in a statement.

“My number one job is keeping the lights on and putting downward pressure on power prices. NSW is making real progress in replacing ageing coal-fired power stations. Since the election, we have increased the amount of renewable energy capacity in operation by almost 70 percent. That’s equivalent to Eraring’s capacity,” Sharpe said.

“Current energy security projections show NSW is expected to have sufficient energy supply when Eraring closes in 2029, thanks to new renewable generation and storage coming online.

“The agreement reached with Origin in 2024 gets the balance right and has so far not cost NSW taxpayers a single dollar.”

The guarantee is due to expire in August 2027.

Extending Eraring’s life is not expected to affect Origin’s 2030 emissions reduction targets or its long-term ambition to achieve net zero by 2050, the company said.

Beyond 2029, Eraring will remain a part of the National Electricity Market thanks to its battery, the first stage of which commenced commercial operation in 2025, with the final stages expected to come online in the first quarter of 2027. Once all stages are complete, the battery will deliver 700MW, providing an average storage capacity of 4.5 hours.

The power station first started operating in 1984, and Origin paid $75 million to take it over when it was privatised in 2013.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:25

Oklo Upgraded At BofA On Meta Deal

Bank of America upgraded Oklo from Neutral to Buy following Meta’s recent, massive nuclear deal. According to the BofA report (available to pro subs), Meta's agreement with the hyperscaler provides investors with “tangible evidence advanced nuclear is moving from concept to execution.”

Meta prepaid $25 million for Phase 1 of Oklo‘s nuclear campus construction in Ohio for approximately 150 MW of energy. The funding is expected to be used for fuel procurement, site preparation, and early development ahead of final PPAs.

With 16 reactors expected to come online between 2030 and 2036, this drives BofA’s 2036 targets to $5.9 billion in revenue (vs. $5.5 billion prior), 117 units (vs. 111 prior), and 6.7 GW deployed (vs. 6.3 GW prior), leading to a price target of $127, up from $111 prior.

BofA analyst Dimple Gosai, who covers US cleantech at the bank, highlights the sequencing of a ramp to 1.2 GW thanks to the Meta deal, which moves “Oklo‘s opportunity set from ‘conceptual’ to ‘actively financed’ development.”

The bank also expects longer-dated cashflow thanks to continued progress on fuel supply and licensing. Specifically for the Ohio nuclear campus, Phase 1 is projected at 150 MW from two reactors online in 2030/31, Phase 2 adding two more reactors in 2032/33, Phase 3 adding four reactors in 2033/34, and finally Phase 4 adding eight reactors in 2035/36.

BofA has yet to take into account any of the fuel recycling potential with regards to the mega-project announced for Tennessee. The campus in Tennessee is expected to include recycling and reprocessing facilities to convert used nuclear fuel from traditional reactors into fuel for Oklo‘s fast-spectrum Aurora reactors, as well as process plutonium for use in their Pluto reactor design. Pluto reactors are expected to be deployed at the recycling site in Tennessee as well.

Oklo also has multiple other projects, including the Air Force has in Alaska and likely many other hyperscaler deals on the horizon.

Not long ago, OpenAI boss Sam Altman left Oklo's board to preclude any conflicts of interest, hinting at a possible deal on the horizon with OpenAI.

The positive news still need to be counterbalanced with potential construction and operation headaches of these novel reactor designs. While it is not the first time the US has constructed sodium reactors, the time it takes to achieve operational proficiency and maintain availability greater than 90%, similar to the current commercial fleet, could take years or even decades.

More in the full note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/21/2026 - 18:00