Beijing Prepares Its Own $70 Billion Chips Act

News earlier this week reported that President Trump had approved exports of Nvidia’s AI H200 chips to China. Shortly afterward, however, reports emerged that Beijing plans to limit access to those advanced chips as it pushes to strengthen domestic chip innovation and production and reduce reliance on U.S. technology.

Both the U.S. and China are deploying national strategies through a whole-of-government approach to bolster key industries. In the U.S., Trump has developed a national strategy around chips, rare earths, and revitalizing manufacturing, and could soon announce a new strategy focused on humanoid robots.

In China, Beijing is set to unveil a massive incentive package worth up to $70 billion to bolster the domestic chipmaking industry, Bloomberg reported, citing sources familiar with ongoing discussions.

Even at the low end, the massive incentive package would rival the U.S. Chips Act. At the top end, it would represent the most extensive state-backed semiconductor program China has ever put forward.

Here are more details from the report:

• The new semiconductor support package is worth between $28 billion and $70 billion.

• The package would involve subsidies and financing support separate from existing vehicles like the $50 billion Big Fund III.

• Beijing aims to reduce reliance on foreign chipmakers such as Nvidia and to accelerate the rise of domestic champions like Huawei, SMIC, Cambricon, and Moore Threads.

Beijing’s “whole nation” strategy under President Xi Jinping is another clear signal that the US and China are locked in a broadening superpower rivalry race...

This rivalry is not a traditional shooting war, at least for now. Instead, it is being fought across technology, economics, military power, finance, and competing economic systems. It is a new Cold War that has been unfolding for more than a decade.

President Trump is the first US president to directly confront this uncomfortable reality through a Make America Great Again framework, centered on reshoring critical industries, rebuilding manufacturing, and preparing the country for an increasingly volatile 2030s.

Democrats, on the other hand, have responded to the MAGA agenda with lawfare and pressure campaigns driven by far-left activist groups, raising a more fundamental question about where the modern left-wing party, increasingly embracing socialist and Marxist ideas, places its allegiance.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 08:05

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: 2nd Look at Local Housing Markets in November

A brief excerpt:

Tracking local data gives an early look at what happened the previous month and also reveals regional differences in both sales and inventory.

November sales will be mostly for contracts signed in September and October, and mortgage rates averaged 6.35% in September and 6.25% in October (lower than for closed sales in October).

In November, sales in these markets were down 5.7% YoY. Last month, in October, these same markets were up 2.8% year-over-year Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA).

Important: There was one fewer working days in November 2025 (18) as in November 2024 (19). So, the year-over-year change in the headline SA data will be more than the change in NSA data (there are other seasonal factors).
...
This was just several more early reporting markets. Many more local markets to come!

There is much more in the article.

Nuclear Reactors For Investors

Submitted by Steffan Szumowski from The Nuclear Review

“We’re designing a Liquid Metal Reactor”

“Our design will utilize proven technologies”

“The design makes our reactor ‘walk-away safe’”

There’s a growing list of public and private companies that are working to build reactors for various purposes. These reactors vary widely in their design, size, output, and potential purpose. Everything is on the table: from using the same designs we've used for decades to novel ideas still only on the drawing board.

This article is designed to serve as a point of reference when reading about a new company and the reactor they’re designing. Some of the features companies discuss are less novel than they sound, and vice versa. Hopefully, the information provided here can provide a more clear picture for the investor to make an informed decision.

Reactor Designs Features

Skipping the nuclear physics details, since the basic principles are consistent across the designs we’ll explore, a nuclear reactor facilitates the controlled fission of uranium atoms, harnessing the resulting energy for various applications. After that, the differences we see in reactor designs are mostly in the choice of the fuel, moderator, and coolant.

If we include all the variations that have been used over time and the novel ideas yet to be produced, this will get out of hand. We’ll only be focusing on the most common options.

Fuel

Uranium is king when it comes to fuel for nuclear reactors. Compared to the other fuel options, thorium and plutonium, uranium wins out mostly due to natural abundance and path dependence. You don’t just drop in a chunk of uranium from the ground though. It’s often enriched and comes in a few different forms:

• Uranium Oxide (UO2) - The most common fuel for water-cooled reactors. The pellets are stacked inside fuel rods and loaded into the reactor core, and then replaced about every two years. The design holds major historical preference, but is less useful in high temperature applications, such as in reactors intended for industrial heat processes.

• Uranium Zirconium (U-Zr) - This alloy improves on the UO2 fuel design in respect to thermal conductivity. U-Zr has improved conductivity and no oxygen, which makes it ideal for use in reactors with liquid sodium. But, with a lower melting point, it isn’t able to be used in gas-cooled reactors.
   
• Uranium Zirconium Hydride (U-ZrH) - This fuel is unique with its addition of hydrogen. The hydrogen acts as a balance to help shutdown reactors when temperature gets out of control and spikes up. This is why U-ZrH is typically found in research reactors at universities and national laboratories; when combined with additional cooling measures and engineered hydrogen management, the fuel offers a near “walk-away safe” capability.
   
• Mixed Oxide (MOX) - Plutonium Oxide (PuO2) can be mixed with UO2 to create MOX for use in many types of reactors, including those that would normally operate on UO2 pellets. MOX is not widely used in the US, and is instead more extensively used in the French commercial fleet. It enables useful consumption of old nuclear weapons materials and recycling of spent nuclear fuel.
   
• Tri-structural Isotropic (TRISO) - The “Cadillac” of reactor fuel is the newer TRISO design, which is a spherical UO2 pellet encased in layers of pyrolytic carbon and silicon carbide. This provides enhanced durability for fuel failures. Its costs are comparatively high, considering the overall fuel density is only 5% that of UO2 fuel, but this is potentially countered by reduced protective design features of the reactor plant due to the fuel’s superior integrity.

A frequent topic of discussion is also the enrichment levels of fuel, especially with some of the newer reactor designs requiring more highly enriched fuel than has traditionally been used in the commercial fleet. The enrichment in nuclear fuel refers to the percentage of fissionable, or fissile, material in the fuel. This fissile material is the uranium isotope U-235, with the majority of the rest of the uranium in the fuel being non-fissile U-238. Enriched fuel is usually required, since natural uranium mined from the ground is around 0.7% U-235, and most reactors need enrichment levels around 3-5%. The sub-5% enrichment level is referred to as Low Enriched Uranium (LEU). Some of the newer commercial reactors though require High-Assay LEU (HALEU), which is enriched to around 15-20% U-235. There are even higher levels of enrichment, usually reserved for government-sponsored research and military use due to proliferation concerns.

Moderator

The moderator is used in “thermal” reactors to slow down the neutrons flying around in the core, which allows them to more easily interact with uranium and cause fission. Most of the current global fleet operates on this principle. Moderators have typically been:

• Light water (H2O) - This is just normal water with additional filtering and chemistry controls. Abundant, cheap, and excellent for slowing down neutrons given hydrogen has similar mass to the fission-inducing neutrons.
   
• Heavy water (D2O) - Better suited for moderating than H2O due to the deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) having a significantly smaller chance of absorbing one of those fission-inducing neutrons. It’s not used as much in the global reactor fleet (mostly used in Canadian reactors) due to its complicated and expensive production process.
   
• Graphite - Used as a moderator in the form of solid blocks. Use of graphite also means a second material will need to be used for the coolant, compared to H2O/D2O that fill both the moderator and coolant roles. Graphite holds a heat tolerance advantage over water moderators, enabling higher core temperatures and better thermal efficiency.

Compared to thermal reactors, “fast” reactors operate without a moderator, allowing neutrons to maintain their higher, “fast” energy. This enables the use of a broader range of fuels, while also offering the potential for reactors to breed more fuel than they consume. They can also operate at higher temperatures than most thermal reactors, enabling additional potential applications. Fast reactors aren’t without their disadvantages though, as most of them intend to use HALEU, contributing to higher start up costs and a growing concern for a current lack of that fuel’s supply chain. Lastly, there are engineering and operational challenges with handling high-energy neutrons and materials, some of which may be unquantifiable until actual system operation can be further observed.

Coolant

All reactors have a coolant to meet two main objectives: first, to get the energy from fission out of the core to prevent overheating, and second, to transfer that heat to the secondary system for electrical generation or other industrial purposes. Coolants are usually:

• H2O or D2O - The most frequently used coolant for the current global fleet. The material is cheap and abundant, but requires high pressurization to prevent boiling for non-BWRs, and its moderation ability is a downside for fast reactor applications.
   
• Liquid Sodium - Significantly higher boiling point and thermal conductivity compared to water. This enables lower operating pressures and higher thermal efficiencies. There’s a horrible potential downside though, as sodium reacts violently when exposed to water or air.
   
• Molten Salt - Similar to sodium with its higher thermal conductivity, but with an advantage of a melting point almost twice as high as sodium. The downsides are less precedence in nuclear history and a much higher melting point, leading to solidification concerns. Molten salt also has a complex structure, such as toxic and expensive beryllium, the requirement for enriched lithium, and tritium production concerns. Tritium in particular has received significant attention in recent years, as it is one of the main points of contention for how to handle the cooling water used during and after the Fukushima disaster.
   
• Inert Gas - Helium and carbon dioxide have been used in gas-cooled reactors with graphite as the moderator. The balance here is less corrosion and radiation than sodium and salt reactors while still gaining high thermal efficiency, but the smaller power density leads to the requirement of having to construct much larger reactor cores.

Reactor Design Combinations

Put all these different fuels, coolants, and moderators together, and what do you get? The four major reactor designs that most investors will come across when evaluating companies in the nuclear industry:

Light Water Reactor (LWR)

The US’s current fleet is made of two subsets of the LWR category: the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR). Both of these designs use light water as the coolant and moderator, with UO2 as the fuel. LWRs have the most reactor-years of operation and experience, with no close second.

PWRs use a pressurized system to enable higher operating temperatures without boiling the coolant. The water passes through the core (primary loop) to take away fission heat and transfer that energy through a heat exchanger to the secondary water system (secondary loop). There, the water is allowed to boil so the steam can drive a turbine for electricity production. Radiological concerns are therefore minimized to the primary loop, but additional systems are needed to maintain pressure and obvious concerns come with operating at significantly higher pressures.

BWRs operate by letting the water boil in the core and using that steam to directly spin a turbine. This enables the BWR to have a simpler system, but radiological concerns now include all the way out to the electrical generation system, versus just within the primary loop.

Companies building/developing LWRs: Cameco (Westinghouse), NuScale, GE Vernova, Holtec, Hadron, Rolls-Royce

Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)

These reactors gained runtime under multiple test reactors, including Phénix and Superphénix in France, Joyo and Monju in Japan, and the FFTF and EBR-II reactors in the US. Unmoderated and liquid sodium cooled, SFRs can use multiple types of fuel, such as U-Zr and MOX. Their initial operations were marred most notably by difficult-to-repair leaks, leading Admiral Rickover to shun one of the earliest sodium reactors in favor of PWRs for his nuclear submarine program. SFRs offer potential benefits though with higher temperatures and thermal efficiencies, which leads to additional use cases in industrial applications. Lastly, there is potential for them to act as breeder reactors which can produce more fuel than they consume.

Companies building/developing SFRs: TerraPower, Oklo, Aalo 

Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

These reactors have the least experience among current reactor designs. MSRs can operate as thermal reactors with almost any fuel, a graphite moderator, and molten salt as the coolant. Newer designs also have the MSRs operating as fast reactors. These designs can even have a novel fuel dissolved directly into the molten salt coolant itself with no moderator. The thermal reactor version has similar use cases to SFRs, due to the high operating temperature.

Companies building/developing MSRs: Kairos, Terrestrial, Natura

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR)

It is important to note that HTGRs are different from their predecessors, the Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR). The older GCRs were only focused on generating electrical power for commercial grids. They had to be significantly larger than PWRs due to using less-enriched uranium and poor energy density of the coolant, usually carbon dioxide. The newer HTGRs are designed to use enriched uranium, usually TRISO fuel, with graphite moderation and helium cooling. Precedence for HTGRs can be found in reactors like Fort St. Vrain in the US and the Thorium High-Temperature Reactor-300 (THTR-300) in Germany. The current designs being developed haven’t varied much from previous HTGRs, which may yield easier licensing processes. The higher operational temperatures of HTGRs will allow for more uses than just electricity.

Companies building/developing HTGRs: X-energy, Radiant, Valar, Terra Innovatum, Nano Nuclear, BWXT

Considerations for the Potential Investor

The likely question an investor would ask at this point is: which one is best? Unfortunately there is no good answer to this question. They all have distinct advantages and disadvantages that need to be compared to the company’s intended market, and then backtested to try and infer the reactor’s chance of success. Here are a few topics to help evaluate a company’s project:

Capacity Factor

The capacity factor is a measure of how consistently a reactor achieves its maximum rated output. The champions of the capacity factor are large LWRs, with a well-documented recent history of over 90%. This contrasts greatly with some of the other reactor designs, such as SFRs that saw significantly lower capacity factors due to ongoing material management issues, such as leaks. A lower capacity factor will mean operational delays, additional costs, and less revenue. HTGRs are better off than SFRs, however still not as consistently high as LWRs, and MSRs are still relatively untested.

Important to additionally note is the time it takes to achieve a high capacity factor. LWRs did not achieve a 90% capacity factor in their first year of operation. Some new reactors struggled to achieve capacity factors in the teens in their first years of testing. It took multiple decades of experience to gain the capacity factors that we see today. Also, the experience that has been gained is on the equipment and designs we currently use, not what is still on the drawing board. It is almost inappropriate to assume that a reactor that has never been operated can achieve a high capacity factor on its first day of operation.

Of particular concern should be when a company describes a feature of their reactor as novel. This can directly translate to future engineering and licensing issues, in addition to operational concerns (likely unaccounted for), leading to new costs.

Power Rating

A more minor, yet still important, point to be mindful of; particularly when evaluating the intended market for a reactor. The term for describing the output of a reactor goes by multiple names, including power rating, nameplate rating, thermal power (MWt or MWth, interchangeable), and electric power (MWe).

The number to be asking and looking for is the MWe, as this number describes the actual energy that a commercial reactor would output to a connected load or electrical grid, and could be used for revenue projections based on electricity rates. The number frequently given in lieu of the MWe is MWt, which is a measure of the power generated inside the reactor core. This number does not reflect what the usable output of the reactor will be, and is a poor gauge of the reactor’s potential application.

While not exact, as efficiency varies based on reactor design, a rule of thumb for converting MWt to MWe is to divide the MWt by three. So, a reactor marketed as rated to 300 MWt is about 100 MWe. This MWe number could then be taken and compared to the output of a diesel generator or coal/gas/solar/wind system, to see where replacement opportunities may exist.

The Small Modular Reactor (SMR)

The term used to have some definition to it, with the hallmarks of a small footprint and lower power output. The SMR also offered a wide range of new possible applications, including, but not limited to: remote communities, process heat, mining operations, military installations, marine propulsion, disaster response, and desalination.

But recently, some of the designs claiming the SMR label have swelled in size and rating, while the large reactor designs have gained modularity features. This has led to a loss of significance of the term SMR, as it now applies to an ever-widening array of designs. At this point, it seems to be mostly used as a marketing tactic, with its mention still catching the attention of most investors.

While some companies have progressed through the licensing process, none of them have actually successfully built and operated their SMR. This means there is no means of projecting potential engineering, licensing, construction, or testing problems that should be very reasonably expected. The only example to extrapolate potential issues from is the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors. They had the most experienced reactor planning, engineering, and construction teams they could ask for, and yet through a combination of regulatory struggles, engineering complications, and construction management failures, they were built at a miserably slower speed than projected and at a dramatically higher cost.

Even with this recent example on full display for everyone, most new reactor production companies promise commercialization of their designs within the next five years. This is likely beyond achievable for many.

Precedence vs Innovation

This has arguably been one of the more divisive approaches to the development of newer and smaller reactors. Should the team pursue a more advanced reactor with innovative design aspects and novel safety features? Or, should they stick to what works, not fix what isn’t broken, and try not to reinvent the wheel?

Precedence offers familiarity. LWR designs benefit from decades of operational history. This reduces uncertainty in licensing, construction, and operation. These designs still face problems, as discussed above, but due to recently completed construction and testing programs, uncertainties have been greatly diminished. It’s no coincidence the most recently certified reactor designs are LWRs from NuScale and Cameco’s Westinghouse.

On the other hand, innovation brings the potential of disruptive advancements. Designs like SFRs, MSRs, and HTGRs promise higher thermal efficiencies, broader fuel flexibility, and potential new applications beyond electricity generation. Yet, innovation also brings uncertainty. The NRC is still unfamiliar with these designs, leading to prolonged approval times and rejection in some cases such as with the Aurora SFR from Oklo. Engineering and construction challenges will likely reveal themselves later in the process, resulting in cost overruns. The argument can be further tipped back in favor of novel designs though, as more safe design features like TRISO fuel could increase chances of licensing success.

For investors, this balance demands careful evaluation. A company pursuing innovation should have strong partnerships, a credible roadmap, and a clear path to de-risk novel aspects. Conversely, companies relying on precedence must show a competitive edge in cost, efficiency, or scalability compared to peers.

Conclusion

Investing in the next generation of nuclear reactor technologies is about as exciting as it gets. The spectrum of designs from tried-and-true LWRs to innovative MSRs offers opportunities to shape the future of energy. Yet, diversity in a highly technical industry brings an equally high degree of difficulty when it comes to choosing which company to invest in.

Successful investments in this space demand more than enthusiasm; they require discernment. The key lies in understanding concepts like capacity factor, licensing hurdles, construction timelines, and operational precedents. Companies championing well-understood designs bring the advantage of reduced uncertainty, but may face limitations in application and heavier competition. Meanwhile, pioneers of novel reactor concepts promise groundbreaking advancements but must navigate uncharted engineering, regulatory, and market waters.

Ultimately, the winners in this field will be those who can bridge the gap between vision and execution, and manage expectations. Serious advantages are also held by companies with operational test reactors at national laboratories and universities. They’re gaining the actual runtime needed to improve their designs and manage future risks. For investors, due diligence is paramount. Look for companies with clear roadmaps, realistic timelines, and strategic partnerships that can mitigate risks while capitalizing on opportunities.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 07:20

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

• Howard Marks: Is It a Bubble? Ours is a remarkable moment in world history. A transformative technology is ascending, and its supporters claim it will forever change the world. To build it requires companies to invest a sum of money unlike anything in living memory. News reports are filled with widespread fears that America’s biggest corporations are propping up a bubble that will soon pop. (Oaktree Capital)

• The Collapse of Human Knowledge: And why you should create more in the age of AI. (Grant Varner’s Almanack) see also Teaching when to trust: As fake news accelerates, we need to teach our children how to think critically. Finnish schools are leading the charge. (New Humanist) 

• The Five Things Luxury Shoppers Want Right Now: Jean-Marc Mansvelt, CEO of LVMH’s leather house Berluti, explains what consumers are looking for from the industry. (Bloomberg)

• Crypto’s rocky year: The industry was hugely optimistic when Donald Trump returned to the White House. But bitcoin has fallen by a quarter in two months. (Financial Times)

• How DoorDash became an $85 billion behemoth and won the delivery wars: The company has more than twice the U.S. market share of the next competitor, Uber Eats—but that’s just the beginning, says CEO Tony Xu. (Fortune)

• Why ‘job hugging’ can be worse than quitting: In a low-hire labor market, clinging to a current role—however unsatisfying it is—may seem logical. But there’s a psychological impact to feeling stuck. (Fast Company)

• What True Wealth Looks Like: Money can make you happier, but only if you don’t care about it. (The Atlantic)

• The quest to slow aging leads scientists into the powerhouse of cells: Texas A&M researchers create mini mitochondria factories using tiny nanoflowers. (Washington Post)

• Want This Hearing Aid? Well, Who Do You Know? AI-powered startup Fortell has become a secret handshake for the privileged hearing-impaired crowd who swear by the product. Now, it wants to be in your ears. (Wired)

• The ‘Race Against Time’ to Save Music Legends’ Decaying Tapes: New problems are plaguing old reels, putting decades of history at risk. One man, armed with hair dryers and a love of tinkering, is leading the charge to rescue them. Much of America’s musical heritage is stored on artists’ studio tapes. But as they age, many of those reels are slowly deteriorating … … putting work by 20th-century masters like Bob Dylan, Fleetwood Mac and Bruce Springsteen at risk. One audio engineer, armed with unconventional machinery, is trying to solve that problem before it’s too late. (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Stephen Cohen, BlackRock Chief Product Officer and Head of Global Product Solutions. He is a member of BlackRock’s Global Executive Committee. Previously, he was Global Head of Fixed Income Indexing (iShares); and Chief Investment Strategist for International Fixed Income and iShares. Blackrock manages $13.5 trillion in AUM; its iShares division is over $5 trillion.

Boom or Bubble? The open-ended nature of the AI capex boom is good to see; Bubbles are not formed when investors think critically.

Source: Jurrien Timmer, Fidelity

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

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

Delivery Theft And Scams Are Reshaping Holiday Shopping Decisions In 2025

Americans may be preparing for holiday sales and gift lists, but a new survey shows that growing anxiety over safety and scams is shaping how they shop in 2025. Concerns about home security, crowded retail environments, and package theft are pushing changes in buying behavior, from delivery choices to how—and when—people visit stores, according to a study from Hanwah Vision. The key findings were:

• 62% of Americans are concerned about porch pirates this year.
• 59.5% would pay more for secure delivery options.
• 40.5% of Americans say that safety concerns influenced their decision to shop online or in-store this year. That share rises to 61% among Gen Z.
• 31% of Americans lack confidence that retailers provide adequate security during the holidays.
• 35.5% often avoid crowded stores or peak hours because of safety concerns.
• 40% of Gen Zers plan to do most of their holiday shopping online.
• 21% say they feel less safe in stores this year compared to last.
• 42% of men would buy from a website they’ve never heard of if it offered a big discount, compared to 32% of women.
• Only 31% expect their overall holiday spending to rise.

The study found that fear of package theft remains one of the biggest concerns of the season. Sixty-two percent of shoppers worry about porch pirates, and nearly 60 percent say they are willing to pay extra for delivery options that promise greater protection. Those worries are driving homeowners to beef up security with cameras, motion-sensing lights, doorbell alerts and locked delivery boxes. Shoppers are no longer just hoping their gifts arrive—they want assurance that they will arrive safely.

Safety is also influencing where people shop. Forty-point-five percent of Americans say concerns about crime, scams or crowded stores played a role in whether they chose in-person shopping or online purchasing this year. Among Gen Z shoppers, that figure climbs to 61 percent, with 40 percent planning to do most of their holiday shopping online. Younger shoppers are especially wary of in-store risks, with one in five saying they feel less safe in shops this year than last. Their shift online might protect them from in-store theft or crowds, but it brings new vulnerabilities such as phishing scams and counterfeit retailers.

The study says that security doubts extend to brick-and-mortar stores. Nearly a third of shoppers say they don’t trust retailers to provide adequate protection during the holidays, and more than a third say they avoid crowded stores or peak hours because of safety concerns. For retailers already battling competition from e-commerce, a sense of insecurity could become another reason customers choose to shop elsewhere. Shoppers want visible signs that stores are investing in protection, whether through trained staff, monitoring systems or stronger cybersecurity for payment data.

Meanwhile, financial pressure is pushing many consumers to take risks they might normally avoid. Only 31 percent expect to spend more on gifts this year, suggesting that tight budgets are pushing shoppers toward steep discounts and unfamiliar online sellers. That desire for bargains has a cost: 42 percent of men and nearly a third of women say they would purchase from a site they’ve never heard of if the deal was compelling enough. Temptation fuels vulnerability, making scams and fraudulent sites more effective at a time when shoppers are more focused on savings than verification.

With budgets stretched and more consumers modifying their traditions, every purchase carries a little more weight. Losing a gift to theft, fraud or delivery issues isn’t just frustrating—it represents money carefully saved and spent. This year’s Holiday Security Sentiment Index suggests that the season has two priorities: what people buy, and how safe they feel buying it.

The findings are based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 adults conducted ahead of the 2025 holiday season. Participants were asked how worries about theft, scams and personal safety are influencing where they shop, how much they spend and what precautions they take at home and in stores. Responses were analyzed across age groups, gender and income to identify emerging trends that link security and spending behavior.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 05:45

The Trans-Siberian Railway Is Poised To Play A Pivotal Role In Joint Russian-US Projects

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Unlocking this mutually profitable opportunity requires the US to first successfully manage the Turkish-Russian tensions in Central Asia that it’s responsible for exacerbating through TRIPP.

The US’ management of Turkish-Russian tensions in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which was proposed here as part of a larger NATO-Russian Non-Aggression Pact, could lead to the merger of its planned rare earth mineral (REM) investments in Central Asia and related post-Ukraine joint projects in Russia. Regarding the first, Trump clinched such deals with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan during the latest C5+1 Summit in DC, while the second were described by the Wall Street Journal in a recent report.

If Turkish-Russian tensions worsen in Central Asia and the Ukrainian Conflict continues raging, thus delaying the US’ joint REM projects in Russia, then the US will be fully dependent on Turkiye for importing its REMs from Central Asia. That’s because the Afghan and Iranian routes are unviable for security and political reasons, so the only realistic one is from Turkiye, the western anchor of the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) across Armenia to Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

TRIPP will gradually replace Russia’s regional influence with Turkish-led Western influence, but this will also turbocharge Turkiye’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power, which might empower it to defy the US even more than it already does. The forms that this could take include cooperating more closely with China in Central Asia to break the US’ planned containment of the latter, funding more (possibly US terrorist-designated) Muslim Brotherhood chapters, and weaponizing its pivotal role in TRIPP to blackmail the US.

These dark scenarios can be averted if the US manages Turkish-Russian tensions and brokers an end to the Ukrainian Conflict. In that event, the US could diversify from its dependence on TRIPP and therefore Turkiye for importing its REMs from Central Asia by relying on Russia’s nearby Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR), which can conveniently deliver these resources to Vladivostok from where they can then be shipped to the US’ Californian tech hub. This can then lead to the merger of its two REM investments.

Not only would joint REM projects with Russia be unlocked, but the same US companies investing in Central Asian ones could then more easily scale their regional operations northward, with resources from both projects being shipped to the Pacific via the TSR. The increased logistical and resource importance of Siberia and the Russian Far East for the US could then lay the basis for more joint projects there and in the neighboring Arctic, thus advancing Putin’s master development plan for these regions.

The US and others who invest in Mongolia’s mineral sector might also begin rerouting exports through the TSR instead of continuing to rely on the US’ systemic Chinese rival. The gradual result could be the creation of complex strategic interdependence between the US and Russia, which was non-existent prior to the special operation, for reducing the risk of another crisis. The US would also establish a strategic economic presence along China’s western and northern peripheries that could be flaunted for prestige.

Amidst the Sino-US rivalry, the US has an interest in obtaining access to Russian resources that ipso facto denies them to China, whose superpower trajectory would be turbocharged by unlimited access at bargain-basement prices like would otherwise be the case without robust US competition. This makes the proposed arrangement of grand strategic importance to the US, which is why it should broker an end to the Ukrainian Conflict and then manage Turkish-Russian tensions in Central Asia without delay.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 05:00

Chinese Drone "Mothership" Capable Of Swarm Attack Takes Flight

Whether launched from shipping containers, robotic arms, commercial box trucks, or delivered by heavyweight jet-powered mothership drones, the creativity of military technology developers in designing and deploying loitering-munition swarms has been remarkable to watch.

The latest piece of military hardware to hit our radar is China's Jiutian ("Nine Heavens") unmanned aerial mothership, capable of hauling up to six tons of guided bombs, air-to-air and anti-ship missiles, or entire racks of kamikaze drones.

Jiutian's internal bay can deploy up to 100 kamikaze drones for a saturation-swarm attack, flying in coordinated patterns to strike targets simultaneously and overwhelm defenses.

Jiutian was first revealed at the air show in Zhuhai, in China's southern Guangdong province near the border with Macau, last year. Now footage has surfaced of the mothership drone taking off for the first time.

The short footage on Weibo (11 December 2025) pic.twitter.com/yYm5MtU5vZ

— Dragon Wong 黄龙 (@DragonWong2024) December 11, 2025

Military and defense-related:

• Did China Trigger A "DeepSeek Moment" In Hypersonic Missiles 

Remember one year ago when New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Republican, speculated the mysterious drone sightings in the Northeast U.S. could be coming from an Iranian "mothership"... 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 04:15

Battle For Rare Earths And Recognition: Germany's Wadephul Arrives In China As A Supplicant

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

After German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul was forced to cancel his October trip to China due to a lack of scheduled meetings, he has now finally met with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Commerce Minister Wang Wentao. At the center of the talks was one issue with immense strategic weight for Germany and Europe: the future handling of critical raw materials—above all rare earths.

The relationship between Germany and the EU on the one hand and China’s political leadership on the other is clearly creaking. The growing trade tensions between both sides have become impossible to ignore.

In October, rising diplomatic friction culminated in China’s export halt on rare earth elements.

Rare earths, put simply, are a foundational pillar of modern industrial production and high-end technology. Without them, production stalls—and China’s sudden export freeze sent shockwaves through the executive floors of German industry, especially the automakers, prompting warnings of immediate production shutdowns.

Raw Materials and China’s Leverage in Ukraine

Pressure was therefore immense ahead of Wadephul’s visit. His originally planned trip had been scrapped after Beijing denied him meetings with the key ministers he needed—his counterpart Wang Yi and Commerce Minister Wang Wentao. It was a humiliation that exposed the real power imbalance between Berlin and Beijing.

Wadephul also witnessed firsthand that Beijing is deadly serious about using its geopolitical levers—partly as a way to counter U.S. tariffs and rising trade pressure.

Europe is trapped: on the one hand, it suffers from China’s dumping exports that hollow out European industry. On the other hand, it relies heavily on Chinese rare earths, 90% of which are refined and exported under Chinese licensing authority.

Second Attempt

Thus, on December 8 and 9, the German delegation attempted a second round of engagement with Beijing. Central to the agenda: access to rare earths, chips, raw materials—and China’s stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine. Wadephul described the exchanges as “open and intensive,” with progress on economic issues and some signs of de-escalation in the raw materials dispute. He insisted it had been wise to pause, regroup, and attempt talks once more—talks that should also help pave the way for the German Chancellor’s upcoming visit.

Berlin wants to stay engaged, possibly even through a broader European mission, in order to shore up supply security for its industrial base.

But a genuine thaw between Berlin, Brussels, and Beijing remains nowhere in sight. Wadephul’s vague assessment that Beijing, like Germany, was interested in “serious and concrete” dialogue remains noncommittal.

For now, Wadephul leaves with Beijing’s signal that export licenses for rare earths may be issued more readily. But he emphasized that much work remains before supply can be considered truly secure.

China and the U.S. Play Their Cards

Germany imports around two-thirds of its rare earths from China. For key magnet metals—like neodymium, praseodymium, and samarium—the dependence is nearly total. The EU’s strategy to reduce this dependency remains limited to recycling and attempts at building partnerships in South America—none of which have delivered meaningful results.

China’s licensing strategy mirrors Washington’s latest move in the chip war. The U.S. this week unveiled a model under which Nvidia’s H200 chips may be exported to China—provided Beijing pays a 25% levy.

Both superpowers are ruthlessly leveraging their strategic advantages to reorder global trade and secure long-term dominance.

Brussels, meanwhile, must bend, concede, and build new trade alliances. The EU’s failure—after years of talks—to finalize the Mercosur agreement shows Brussels’ inability to compromise, tripping over its own feet even in an area of existential importance.

Europe Caught Between Weakness and Geopolitical Pressure

Brussels and Berlin would have been wise to realign strategically with Washington, drop their resentment toward President Trump, accept U.S. frameworks, and leverage America’s geopolitical umbrella for their own advantage. Europe’s resource and energy dependency is fast becoming its Achilles heel in this global contest for power, markets, and influence.

This makes Wadephul’s largely fruitless visit all the more troubling—German industry is desperate for clarity on rare earth supply security.

It may also have been tactically unwise for Wadephul to press Beijing to use its influence on Moscow and bring Russia back to the negotiating table over Ukraine. Beijing surely noticed that it has been European governments, not China, who have opposed any negotiation track with maximalist rigidity.

In contrast to most assessments of this unimpressive trip, Reuters reported that China may offer priority access to rare earths for European manufacturers as part of a supply-chain stabilization effort. Diversion tactic—or a genuine first step toward rapprochement? The coming weeks will tell.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years 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 Fri, 12/12/2025 - 03:30

Who's Glued To The 'Telly'?

The United Kingdom has a particularly strong culture of television viewership.

As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, according to a survey by Statista Consumer Insights, almost a third of UK respondents watch at least 11 hours of television per week.

You will find more infographics at Statista

This is slightly higher than other European nations such as France at 29 percent, or Germany at 28 percent.

By contrast, China has a far lower share of heavy TV users, at just 16 percent.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 02:45

Brussels Bureaucrats Push For Expanded Legal Migration Routes Into Europe To Help Those Who 'Dream Of A Better Life'

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The European Union must expand legal migration channels and intensify pressure on the criminal networks behind illegal border crossings, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday at a global migration conference in Brussels.

Von der Leyen argued that creating structured, regulated routes into the EU is essential if the bloc wants to reduce reliance on smuggling networks.

“We must open more safe pathways, legal pathways to Europe,” she said, urging closer cooperation between Europe and partner countries, including the G7.

“We must make sure that people can find a job where their talent is needed … bring skills across our borders.”

The Commission president highlighted the EU’s new “talent partnerships” — arrangements that allow non-EU citizens to work legally in Europe — saying five countries have already joined and that Brussels hopes more will follow.

She said a newly established “talent pool” would match European employers with qualified workers from outside the bloc, with a pilot “gateway office” in India launching to help jobseekers access legal routes.

If successful, she said, it could become “a blueprint for partnership with other countries.”

NEW - Ursula von der Leyen says that to prevent illegal border crossings, "we must open more safe and legal pathways to Europe," and announces, as part of the new "talent partnerships," an office opening in India to connect European employers with non-European jobseekers. pic.twitter.com/UMnxqKIKSc

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 10, 2025

She portrayed these initiatives as beneficial to both Europe and partner states through developing skills, creating opportunities, and keeping young people engaged. “By working in partnerships, we have found safe alternatives to the lethal criminal smuggling networks,” she added.

Alongside legal pathways, von der Leyen announced a significant escalation in the EU’s enforcement strategy. Brussels is preparing a new sanctions regime aimed directly at migrant smugglers and the financial channels that sustain them. “We need stronger legal tools to dismantle this criminal business,” she said. “This is why Europe is developing a stringent new sanctions regime against smugglers … Our goal is simple. We want to bankrupt their businesses through all means available.”

The Commission chief said the measures could include travel bans and asset seizures, developed in coordination with G7 partners. She argued that migrants who enter the EU illegally often fall prey to “networks of modern slavery,” and said that expanding legal migration routes was essential to cutting these groups out.

The president also called for a major expansion of the EU’s border agency, Frontex, which she said should be tripled to 30,000 staff as part of wider efforts to reinforce border management and combat illegal immigration. According to von der Leyen, irregular entries have fallen by 37 percent this year, with a 26 percent decline on the most frequently used routes.

Her remarks came amid continued controversy over the EU’s recently adopted Asylum and Migration Pact, which includes faster procedures for returning people without authorization to stay and a mandatory solidarity mechanism. Under the system, member states must accept relocated migrants or make a “solidarity payment” of €20,000 per person if they refuse. Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia have all declared their opposition, while countries such as Poland will receive temporary adjustments to their quotas due to the high number of Ukrainian refugees already hosted.

Von der Leyen acknowledged the political challenges but said the EU’s overarching principle must remain clear: “Europeans decide who crosses the borders and under what conditions, not the smugglers.”

“We all have one common goal,” she told delegates.

“The common goal is to drive the smugglers out of business. To save the lives of thousands of people who dream of a better life.”

At no point in her speech did she mention the effect that illegal immigration has on European citizens. She did not refer to the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by migrants across the bloc, nor the plummeting levels of security felt among citizens.

Instead, she told attendees, “We must create more bridges between our continents. We must make sure that people can find a job where their talent is needed, match the skills, and bring skills across our borders.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/12/2025 - 02:00

NYT Editorial Board Urges US To Prepare For Future War With China

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The New York Times editorial board released a video this week calling for the US to "prepare for the future of war" and urged the Pentagon to take drastic steps to be better prepared for a potential fight with China, a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.

"US politicians often boast that America has the ‘Strongest and most powerful military in the history of the world’ but behind closed doors, they’re being told a different story," the editorial board said. "New York Times Opinion has learned that the Pentagon has been delivering a classified, comprehensive overview of US military power called the Overmatch brief. The report shows what could happen if a war were to break out between China and the United States. The results are alarming."

The video said that a war with China might seem "purely hypothetical," but claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese military to be ready to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027. However, that timeline is based on claims from the CIA and has never been confirmed by Chinese officials. Xi reportedly told President Biden last year that there were "no such plans" to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.

US Navy image

The Times editorial board said that defending Taiwan “won’t be easy” and called on the US to invest more in new technologies, such as drones, rather than “symbols of might,” referring to large aircraft and warships.

“America must prepare for the future of war. This is the opinion of The New York Times editorial board. You might be thinking America should focus on peace, not war. But one of the most effective ways to prevent a war is to be strong enough to win it. That’s why it’s imperative that we change,” the board said.

The board suggested several steps for the US to take to prepare for war with China, including building “new autonomous weapons and leading the world in controlling them” and relaxing rules on purchasing weapons to “make bets on young companies.”

The video comes after Congress unveiled a $901 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that, when added to a supplemental spending bill passed earlier this year, will bring the official US military budget to over $1 trillion.

“It’s been nearly 10 years since the Overmatch brief was first delivered. Its warnings have been updated and delivered again to the new Trump administration. We’ve been warned about the urgent need for change. The question is whether we’ll change in time,” the video concluded.

This refers to this NYT story (https://t.co/rdFRYttqF9) in which they reveal there now exists an "overmatch brief" at the Pentagon that details China vs US military power. The name says it all...

Apparently when a senior US official read the brief he “turned pale” as he realized… https://t.co/fJBKMKzR08

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) December 11, 2025

For years now, the Pentagon has named China as the top “pacing threat” facing the US and has been openly preparing for war with China. President Trump’s War Department is expected to prioritize the Homeland and the Western Hemisphere in its coming National Defense Strategy, as outlined by the recently released National Security Strategy, but it will still be putting a focus on a military buildup in the Asia Pacific to get ready for a future clash with China, while stressing that US allies in the region should spend more on their militaries.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 23:25

Gaming The System: Huge Proportion Of 'Elite' University Students Claiming Disabilities

Just when you thought the ongoing cultivation of weakness in American youth couldn't get much worse, huge proportions of the student bodies at US universities are enrolling with official disability designations that bestow various accommodations upon the students who claim them. As you may have expected, the alarming trend is most pronounced at what are supposed to be the most "elite" institutions. 

We're not talking about people in wheelchairs, but rather students snagging diagnoses for ADHD, anxiety and depression from indulgent doctors. "It’s rich kids getting extra time on tests," an un-tenured professor at a selective university told The Atlantic's Rose Horowitch. Apparently fearing backlash, he requested anonymity. 

The numbers are jarring. Harvard and Brown's undergraduate student body is 20% "disabled." Amherst has hit 34%, while Stanford's disability rate is a head-shaking 38%. At one unidentified law school, 45% of students have been awarded academic accommodations. In stark contrast, only 3 to 4% of students at public two-year colleges get disability accommodations. 

"Obviously, something is off here," observes Emma Camp at Reason. "The idea that some of the most elite, selective universities in America—schools that require 99th percentile SATs and sterling essays—would be educating large numbers of genuinely learning disabled students is clearly bogus."

Disabled students are often given time-and-a-half or double-time to finish a test, and the freedom to turn in papers well beyond the given due date. However, extra time isn't the only benefit. At Carnegie-Mellon, a social-anxiety disorder can ensure a student isn't called upon by a professor without advance notice.

Schools also let supposedly learning-disabled students take tests in "reduced distraction testing environments," as being in a room with 80 other people is apparently just too taxing for them. However, a University of Chicago professor told the Atlantic that a deluge of students taking tests in the "reduced distraction testing environments" means those rooms are pretty much as "distracting" as a conventional classroom supposedly is.   

In what may be the most darkly amusing accommodation, a public college in California allowed a student to bring her mother to class -- which backfired when the mother went beyond whatever role she was expected to play and eagerly participated in the discussions, tuition-free.  

Professor Paul Graham Fisher, who'd previously co-chaired Stanford's disability task force, told the Atlantic:   

“I have had conversations with people in the Stanford administration. They’ve talked about at what point can we say no? What if it hits 50 or 60 percent? At what point do you just say ‘We can’t do this’?”

 

Plenty of these students are likely motivated by a cut-throat desire to gain advantage. However, equally bad, it's possible a majority of these students sincerely consider themselves disabled. "Over the past few years, there's been a rising push to see mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions as not just a medical fact, but an identity marker," writes Reason's Camp, who notes that social media and other factors foster a rush to attribute common human fallibilities as some kind of medical condition. "The result is a deeply distorted view of 'normal,'" says Camp. "If ever struggling to focus or experiencing boredom is a sign you have ADHD, the implication is that a 'normal,' nondisabled person has essentially no problems." 

The disability rush isn't limited to elite college campuses. High school students are using disability designations to score extra time on SAT and ACT tests. "We are also well aware of fliers in the district circulating among parents of doctors in the area who are known to hand out ADHD diagnoses," a high school teacher at an affluent public school told We Are Teachers. "In some cases, I think what’s happening is a pay-to-play situation.”

And the decline of the West proceeds apace...

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 23:00

FDA Investigating Deaths Potentially Linked To COVID-19 Vaccines Across Age Ranges

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is looking into the potential links between COVID-19 vaccination and deaths in various age groups, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

A nurse holds a COVID-19 vaccine in Miami, Fla., in this undated file photograph. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The FDA investigation is being carried out as part of a safety review, a HHS spokesperson said on Dec. 9.

The probe follows a Nov. 28 memo by Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which revealed that COVID-19 vaccines were likely implicated in the deaths of at least 10 children.

The spokesperson did not provide details on which age groups will be covered or what criteria the FDA will use to determine which cases fall within the scope of the investigation.

Data published by the World Health Organization showed that more than 700 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered in the United States since December 2020.

The Epoch Times reached out to the HHS for further comment, but did not hear back by publication time.

Prasad said in the memo that the findings were based on a review of 96 death reports voluntarily submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between 2021 and 2024. The memo did not disclose the health conditions of the children or the vaccine manufacturers involved.

“If anything, this represents conservative coding, where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicted in cases of ambiguity. The real number is higher,” he stated in the memo. “This is a profound revelation.”

Prasad, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was one of the early opponents of keeping COVID-19 vaccines available for younger people. He has has supported COVID-19 vaccination for seniors and younger people with underlying conditions.

The investigation was spurred by concerns that the previous administration misled the public about harms COVID-19 vaccines can cause, including myocarditis, or heart inflammation, Prasad indicated in the memo.

The memo states that the FDA never required manufacturers to demonstrate—through randomized controlled trials—that vaccinating children reduced hospitalization or death. Available data, Prasad wrote, are deeply limited, rely on methods with notorious biases, and fail to establish whether the vaccine saved more children than it harmed.

Prasad criticized common assertions that COVID-19 infection posed a greater myocarditis risk than vaccination, saying that this claim is wrong, that existing studies use “a false denominator,” and fail to evaluate risk-benefit trade-offs for healthy adolescents and young adults.

“Finally, the FDA has failed to properly enforce many required post market commitments for COVID-19 vaccines, including for pregnant women and to document subclinical myocarditis,” he wrote.

Prasad said that CBER will take swift action on the safety concerns and will no longer grant marketing authorization for vaccines in pregnant women based on “unproven” surrogate antibody endpoints.

He added that the agency will shift vaccine regulation toward evidence-based standards and revise its annual flu vaccine framework.

Tom Ozimek, Zachary Stieber and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 22:35

Jordan Peterson Out Of Hospital But Still "Very Unwell", Daughter Says

Authored by Jennifer Cowan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Canadian psychologist and public speaker Jordan Peterson is continuing to fight an uphill battle with his health but has returned home after spending several months in the hospital, his daughter says.

Author, media commentator, and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson addresses the 5th Demographic Summit in the Fine Arts Museum in Budapest on Sept. 14, 2023. Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images

Mikhaila Peterson shared an update on social media this week—her first since October—to announce her father’s return home after spending time in an intensive care unit this fall, where he was treated for pneumonia and sepsis. Those conditions appeared after mold exposure this summer led to a “severe” flare-up of a chronic illness he has been battling since 2017, she said.

Specialists are continuing to work on determining the underlying cause of his illness and are considering a complex array of possibilities from neurological, to autoimmune, to a mixture of both.

Mikhaila said no answers have emerged thus far and he remains “very unwell.”

“I’m hopeful he will recover with time,” she said in a Dec. 9 video post. “When I posted the last video, I didn’t know if he would recover at all. It was really scary and I’m hopeful now, but it’s still early on.”

Her father’s prognosis remains uncertain, but Mikhaila said she is hopeful he is on the road to recovery.

“Things are really bad, but they’re not as bad as they were a month ago or two months ago,” she said.

Mikhaila first announced her father’s health crisis in an August social media post, saying he had been forced to postpone his podcasts and reschedule his European tour due to a “severe” onset of symptoms she said is linked to chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS).

“Jordan Peterson is taking some time off of everything,” she wrote in an Aug. 13 X post, saying he has a “genetic predisposition” that results in the immune system’s inability to detect and detoxify mould or bacteria in indoor air.

She noted that her father has been battling CIRS since 2017, but the family didn’t know what the problem was at the time. CIRS is a long-term condition triggered by exposure to biotoxins in water-damaged buildings that can result in a variety of debilitating symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and changes in appetite, according to the National Library of Medicine.

She said his struggles with the condition had intensified over the past year but a recent large mould exposure while helping to clean out her grandfathers’ basement had pushed his symptoms over the edge.

He was taken to the hospital by ambulance later that same month and Mikhaila said in an October social media post that her father had spent nearly a month in the ICU before being moved to “a less urgent floor.”

The family was unable to communicate with Peterson throughout the majority of September, his daughter said in a video accompanying the post. He was diagnosed with critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) toward the end of his bout with pneumonia. CIP is nerve damage causing severe, symmetrical weakness in critically ill patients, a common complication from sepsis.

Peterson’s situation is further complicated by his inability to take most medications without experiencing “severe paradoxical reactions,” thereby restricting his treatment options, his daughter said.

Stressful Time

Mikhaila said her father’s increased health issues came during a stressful period for her family after she struggled with a difficult pregnancy and then her infant daughter fell ill in June. The six-week-old Audrey suffered a nearly fatal episode of heart failure in June and was then hospitalized again just hours after her father was taken to the hospital in August.

The married mom of three said Audrey is now seven months old and doing “really well” after suffering what now appears to be a “one off freak incident that hasn’t repeated.”

Between her youngest daughter’s health scares and her dad’s condition the 33-year-old has been mostly offline for several months, saying she was feeling “too stressed out” to keep up with The Mikhaila Peterson Podcast.

“I wish things would just go back to normal, but they’re not there yet,” she said in her most recent video update. “Thank you so much for your prayers. We need them. I'll let you guys know as soon as I can if anything changes, hopefully he’s on the road to recovery.”

Peterson, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto in psychology, rose to fame through his YouTube lectures, his successful self-help book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” and his criticism of the federal government’s Bill C-16, which added the protection of gender identity and expression to the Human Rights Code and Criminal Code. The bill received royal assent in June 2017.

The author announced last December his relocation to the United States due to his regulatory battles with the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario (CPBAO), also citing the political climate in Canada. He and his wife settled in Arizona, where his daughter resides with her family.

The CPBAO, the governing body for psychologists in Ontario, ordered him in 2022 to undergo social media training for comments he made online about a plus-sized model, transgender actor Elliot Page, and a number of politicians.

The well-known author refuted the college’s assertions, saying his comments were not expressed in his professional capacity as a clinical psychologist.

Peterson legally challenged the order but ultimately failed in his attempt after the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear his case last summer and dismissed it “with costs.” He had promised in a column earlier that year not only to dive into the social media training prescribed by the college if he lost the case, but to “publicize every single bit of it.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 21:45

US Solar Installations Soar As Developers Rush To Secure Tax Credits

The U.S. solar market saw a significant jump in capacity installations in the third quarter as developers ramp up activity and construction to qualify for the last investment tax credits that are being phased out by the Trump Administration.

As OilPrice reported, the industry added 11.7 gigawatts direct current (GWdc) of solar power capacity in the third quarter of 2025, up by 20% from a year earlier and a massive 49% surge compared to the second quarter. That was the third-largest quarter for deployment in the industry’s history, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie said in the U.S. Solar Market Insight Q4 2025 report.  

 

After the tumult caused by the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in the summer, the robust third quarter largely reflects utility-scale solar projects that were mostly complete in the second quarter, the report noted.

Under the Trump Administration’s OBBBA, wind and solar projects must begin construction no later than July 4, 2026, to qualify for Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or Production Tax Credit (PTC). Projects that miss this deadline must be fully placed in service by December 31, 2027, to remain eligible for tax credits.

While utility-scale solar installations hit a third-quarter record, the federal permitting freeze presents uncertainty and risk to the industry going forward, SEIA and WoodMac said.

Still, one thing seems certain: the earlier a project could come online or meet the legal requirements for “starting construction,” the better. As a result, Wood Mackenzie predicted there would be a rush of activity to execute on well-positioned projects.

Despite the assault on renewable energy, solar and storage accounted for 85% of all new power added to the grid in the first nine months of the Trump Administration, SEIA said.

A total of 73% of all solar capacity installed this year has been built in states won by President Trump, including 8 of the top 10 states for new installations: Texas, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, and Arkansas.  

Despite the remarkable growth so far, “unless this administration reverses course, the future of clean, affordable, and reliable solar and storage will be frozen by uncertainty and Americans will continue to see their energy bills go up,” SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 21:20

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Friday:
• No major economic releases scheduled.

The Million Petty Annoyances Of California's Regulatory State

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

The litany of reasons California is broken is well documented. The highest cost of living and the highest taxes. The highest percentages of homeless people and people living in poverty. Unaffordable homes and unaffordable rent. High crime and failing schools. A hostile business climate and record migration out of state as people and businesses flee.

But not often enough are we reminded of the countless small things that have gone wrong. Small things that add up to a big problem: a state legislature that is out of touch with the people it represents; a state legislature that, for all practical purposes, holds its constituents in contempt; a state legislature that is doing everything in its power to make life difficult.

Just a few days ago, the latest in this long train of abuses arrived. No more plastic bags. Although 2026 is still a few weeks away, this grocery store has already converted to paper only—heavy, fragile paper bags with handles that tear off under the slightest stress. Everything was double-bagged just to lower the probability of catastrophic failure of the handles.

The problems with this are more than the inconvenience of having to pay 20 cents for every double-bagged bag full of groceries. With plastic bags, you could loop their handles around your fingers and carry several of them securely in one hand. Try that with a paper bag. And there are no uses after the first use for a paper bag. Shall we use paper bags for cat litter? Trash can liners? Maybe, but they won’t work very well. And storing them uses up space fast.

So what’s the advantage? Are we saving oil? Certainly not much. And if savings are what we’re after, why did they ever force us in 2014 to stop using ultra-thin plastic bags in favor of “reusable” bags that nobody reuses for groceries, yet have 10-15 times as much plastic in them per bag? Funny how the plastic industry rolled over on that one. “Please don’t regulate us” morphed into “Never mind, we’ll split with the state that dime we’re charging now per bag.” Corporation wins. State wins. Misanthropic regulations abuse the rest of us.

Now the plastic bags are gone. But the dime per paper bag? That stays.

Does this law reduce the “footprint” of plastic? Yes. Marginally. Meanwhile, it increases the footprint of paper bags, which are actually worse for the environment. And maybe that’s the biggest problem here: California’s corporate special interests, their lobbyists, and their fanatic green marionettes are all too ready to force “solutions” onto the public before the technology has caught up.

Are there bags that look like plastic bags and work like plastic bags—convenient to use and durable—but aren’t made of plastic? That’s certainly possible, but could we wait? No, of course not. We had to let the special interests consolidate their power and profit, while the usual crowd of useful fanatics beat their chests and crow about how they’re saving the planet. What would we do without them to rescue us all?

When taken to such extremes, these laws have little to do with the environment. It’s about control. It’s about money. It’s a shakedown.

Last weekend I had to refill the gas tank in my rototiller. Could I just uncap my gasoline can and fill it up? That would be too easy. The State of California mandates “automatic sealing nozzles” on five-gallon gasoline cans. Have you ever tried to fill the tank of a small engine tool with gasoline out of one of these overdesigned, utterly dysfunctional cans? To save time, you’re better off removing the entire nozzle assembly, as if you’re at the gas station refilling your can from the pump, and then pouring from the nearly two-inch diameter opening in your partially disassembled gasoline can into a funnel you have inserted in the tank of, in this case, a rototiller. It’s messy and time-consuming. And that’s just another example of the idiocy our supposed representatives force us to endure.

Do you want to install new windows on your house? Not cutting a new window where there once was a wall. No. Just replace an existing old window with a new one. Guess what: you need a permit. You have to submit plans to the city or county bureaucracy. Are you kidding?

Read this summary of the steps you have to take to get a window replaced in a California home:

Step-by-step procedure for replacing old windows with new ones without changing the opening size (most common, fewer forms).
Gather the required documents and use the online portal to submit the application.
Plans: Drawings showing window location, size, and framing (if structural changes).
Window Specs: Manufacturer cut sheets, energy efficiency ratings.
Title 24 Compliance: Documentation showing energy efficiency.
Contractor Info: License details if using a contractor.
Lead Paint Info: If your home was built before 1978, be prepared for lead-safe work requirements and paperwork.
Create an online account with the county and submit your application and documents electronically.
Plan Review: County staff will review for code compliance (Structural, Life Safety, Energy, etc.). You’ll be notified of any needed corrections.
Permit Issuance & Inspection: Once approved, pay fees and get your permit. Schedule required inspections through the portal as work progresses.

The same goes for all of these and more: ceiling fans, patio covers, carports, water heaters, retaining walls, landscape irrigation, and shower or tub replacements. What percent of people doing these jobs get these permits? How many? I’m waiting. How many? Who was that Russian who said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime”? Welcome to California.

Let’s be clear. The time it takes to fulfill all these steps is often greater than the amount of time that it takes to do the actual work. In many cases, the expense for the excessive designs and disclosures and fees also adds up to more than the actual labor and materials.

This petty tyranny extends to almost everything in California. Do you have a pool? Better put a permanent fence around the entire pool and alarms on any doors that open into that enclosure, or you have not complied. Do you have a gate into your pool enclosure? It has to be “self-closing,” or you did not comply. Make sure the enclosure’s fencing is at least 60 inches high (60 inches! five feet!). Is there a latch on your self-closing gate? Better make sure it is at least 54 inches off the ground, and no plants are allowed, not even in planters, within five feet of the enclosure. New pools even have to have “an approved cover.” Because that’s safe! I’ll never forget the time I saw a grown man, overwhelmed with grief, carrying his soaking wet dead dog into the waiting room at a local veterinary hospital. The poor animal got trapped under their pool cover.

It’s not just bags and buildings where the long arm of California’s regulatory state interferes with your life and induces honest citizens to reluctantly become petty criminals. It also tempts honest contractors who just want to do good work for a fair price, instead of charging three times as much, to spend more than half their time on “compliance.” We aren’t talking about new homes or major remodels, where obviously some regulations are called for, although nothing like what the California legislature has done to basically kill the home building industry. We’re talking about windows. Who do you trust more? The guy with good references who will just replace your window with no fuss? Or the guy who wants to charge you triple and jump through every regulatory hoop? And why should any of us—vendor or customer—have to be put in such a tough position? Get it done efficiently and be a crook, or take three times as long and pay three times as much and be a sucker?

Consider the new law governing kitchen waste. Residents are now required to save their kitchen waste—oops, their “organics”—and discard it in their green waste containers, along with grass cuttings and leaves. Don’t bag it up and put it in the trash, because that increases the quantity of methane that comes out of landfills. Never mind that landfills are still going to emit methane, with or without kitchen scraps, or that methane rapidly degrades in the atmosphere, or that its alleged impact on the global climate is based on theories still wide open to debate, or that even if you are desperately concerned about methane emissions, there are far more cost-effective and less intrusive ways to capture it.

Some of these laws are literally unbelievable, but they’re all too real. According to a thoroughly house-broken reporter for the Sacramento Bee, the potential fine of up to $5,000—five thousand dollars—for someone who, say, repeatedly fails to put their empty pizza box in the right container, “speaks to the seriousness of the matter.” This is pure corruption, meant to enrich public sector unions who get to staff up to implement these laws, and sold to brainwashed “environmentalist” advocates, many of them masquerading as objective journalists who actually think they’re helping the good guys.

California’s intrusive laws are far too numerous to catalog. They are selectively enforced, for the simple reason that the quantity of violations in this supposedly enlightened state numbers in the hundreds of millions. And if you have a business open to the public? Then you may expect the intrusive government regulations to multiply by orders of magnitude. No wonder so many people are leaving, heartbroken that they and their children live in a place where the government is doing everything it can to drive them out. A government that has made the state they love a state they can’t stand to live in anymore.

California’s policymakers aren’t technically criminals—or at least not all of them are. But what they’re doing to the people who live here is a crime. A crime that is split into so many thousands of petty offenses that it is sometimes hard for us to realize how truly monstrous it has become.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 20:05

Blue State Governors Are Refusing To Implement Trump's 'No Tax On Tips'

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to end federal taxes on tips and overtime. Democrats dismissed it as an election-year ploy to win votes, but Trump delivered on that promise when he signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which eliminated taxes on tips and overtime for service and hospitality workers.

However, blue-state Democrats like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis are, in the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “deliberately blocking their own residents” from accessing the “historic benefits” promised under the law.

“President Trump’s tax cuts bill is the most pro-worker, pro-family legislation in a generation,” Bessent said. “It puts more money directly into the pockets of hardworking Americans through No Tax on Tips for dedicated service industry staff, No Tax on Overtime for linemen and factory workers, and a new tax deduction for seniors who depend on Social Security.”

 Bessent continued, “This partisan stonewalling is a direct assault on the very families and workers liberal politicians claim to champion. By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households.”

Bessent demands that these holdouts conform immediately and quit punishing citizens for political spite. 

“President Trump’s vision is clear: real relief for the forgotten men and women of America, certainty for businesses, and momentum for growth,” Bessent added. “The American people voted for bold change, not bureaucratic roadblocks.”

Bessent also hinted that there would be consequences for states that refuse to comply with the law.

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

Bessent doubled down in a post on X, and compared Govs. Hochul, Pritzker, and Polis to the Dr. Seuss character, the Grinch.

“Courtesy of their Scrooge-like tendencies, America’s seniors, along with all workers who would benefit from No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime, will be robbed of the tax relief they deserve,” he wrote. “The Christmas season should be a time of great cheer. But due to the Trump Derangement Syndrome of these Governors and other radical leftists, too many low- and middle-income households will receive nothing but coal in their state tax stockings.”

Thanks to @POTUS, ‘tis the season to be jolly – unless you’re a taxpayer in New York, Colorado, Illinois, or the District of Columbia.

For millions of hardworking Americans, @GovKathyHochul, @GovofCO @jaredpolis, and @GovPritzker are The Grinches Who Stole Christmas.

Courtesy… pic.twitter.com/eVtKYcHc4w

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) December 10, 2025

Ironically, Trump wasn’t the only one who wanted to relieve service and hospitality workers of paying taxes on tips and overtime. Two months after he proposed his No Tax on Tips plan, Kamala Harris pitched her own version of the idea at a rally in Las Vegas in August 202. She pledged, “It is my promise to everyone here when I am president, we will continue our fighting for working families of America including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” 

While many Democrats were already on the record opposing Trump’s plan, Harris’s proposal had the backing of both of Nevada’s Democratic U.S. Senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto. Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre even said that if such a proposal to eliminate taxes on tips had passed Congress, Joe Biden would have signed it.

Trump, however, called Harris out immediately for stealing his proposal.

“Kamala Harris, whose ‘Honeymoon’ period is ENDING, and is starting to get hammered in the Polls, just copied my NO TAXES ON TIPS Policy,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social at the time. The difference is, she won’t do it, she just wants it for Political Purposes! This was a TRUMP idea - She has no ideas, she can only steal from me. Remember, Kamala has proposed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY - It won’t happen. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

The Trump administration sees the new law as a straightforward win for workers, yet this standoff with blue states ensures the debate is far from over.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 19:40

What Is Really Happening With Vaccination Policy?

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The national press was overtaken with hullabaloo following the recent meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This is a committee that serves under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), providing a check of outside expertise on what would otherwise be a bureaucratic edict.

Dr. Robert Malone speaks during a meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in Atlanta, Ga., on Dec. 5, 2025. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

It brings together outside experts from academia and medicine to provide guidance on how the CDC should advise doctors and parents on vaccines. As part of the new committee formed by Health and Human Services director Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., there are strict rules against conflict of interest.

The new committee has voted to make a small, common-sense change in the childhood vaccination schedule. It is seen as hugely significant because it has taken issue with a particular shot that has been on the schedule since 1991.

The shot concerns Hepatitis B. Instead of a universal recommendation, the committee suggested that it should not pertain in the first months of life provided the birthing mother has tested negative for the disease. After that time, the shot should only be given when there is informed consent.

Stated that way, it does not seem even slightly controversial. Indeed, one wonders why the shot was ever on the schedule, especially given the paltry data on effectiveness and safety. On March 1, 1991, the New York Times reported on its addition to the childhood schedule: “If adults won’t go for the shots, then give them to babies.”

As part of the childhood schedule, they are automatically granted immunity from liability, as legislated in 1986 on fear that lawsuits could bankrupt the whole industry. With such a shield in place, there was a gold rush to move shots from targeting adults to being given to children. Most kids in the United States since those days have taken the shot, even those at no risk of the disease in question.

That it should be removed from the schedule for mothers testing negative would seem entirely non-controversial. It certainly does not warrant panic that the entire schedule is being shredded or that the industry will collapse. The response of the industry is entirely disproportionate to the threat. In addition, the committee had open public debate for two full days. It was hardly ill-considered.

The committee had invited a variety of perspectives. One was from a schedule skeptic, attorney Aaron Siri, who is a lawyer and author who has testified widely on the topic. To balance that out, ACIP invited Paul Offit, of the Vaccine Education Center in Philadelphia, and Peter Hotez of Texas Children’s Hospital. Both are famous for their uncritical attitude.

The trouble is that Drs. Offit and Hotez refused the invitation. That is strange. They were invited to speak for up to 45 minutes without interruption to the entire world because the meeting was livestreamed. This was the perfect opportunity for them to make their case to the committee, to the CDC, and to the world. They said, each in his own way, that they did not want to legitimize the committee by honoring it with their testimony.

This is taking place even as a coalition of coastal states have pushed a secessionist measure to impose their own vaccine schedule against the efforts of the HHS, CDC, and ACIP to pare back some recommendations to pre-1986 levels.

Donald Trump has meanwhile weighed in on the controversies.

“Today, the CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles. The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary. In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I! That is why I have just signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘FAST TRACK’ a comprehensive evaluation of Vaccine Schedules from other Countries around the World, and better align the U.S. Vaccine Schedule, so it is finally rooted in the Gold Standard of Science and COMMON SENSE! I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children.”

Thus can we see that Trump himself wants to go much further.

We are confronted with a fascinating historical paradox here. Trump has said many times that he is very proud of Operation Warp Speed that brought a shot for COVID to market in record time. Many of his supporters, however, do not agree with this opinion. And to be sure, the effectiveness and safety of this injection has not scored high marks on anyone’s scale.

That said, Trump is now leading the charge for a full rethinking of the place of vaccines and shot mandates in national life. His own Food and Drug Administration has sounded the alarm on the COVID shots for kids, which were never necessary in the first place. They were often mandated for school attendance. It turns out that there were at least 10 deaths definitively traceable to this shot and probably many more. People are understandably scandalized.

Beneath all this debate, there is a much broader meta-narrative at work. Vaccines had long expanded in use without too much public debate. It was the COVID response and the mandates for millions to accept an untested technology (modified mRNA) else lose their jobs. This was a bridge too far. To top it off, the shot did not stop transmission or infection and has revealed a poor safety profile.

As a result, many aspects of the entire system of public health have come into question. What’s on trial here is not just one shot or the childhood schedule or even vaccines only. What’s come into question is the credibility of the expert class of medicine men who shepherded this entire regime into operational legitimacy. If anyone believes that there would be a return to the status quo ante following all of this, that person is woefully naive about the relationship between the public mind and structures of governance.

What is unfolding right now is the consequence of a loss of trust. That does not mean that everything government has said is thus rejected. What this does mean is a dramatic shift in the burden of proof. The Hepatitis B shot needed to prove that it was necessary, safe, and effective for all newborn children, even those of mothers who have tested negative. Under that standard, the shot simply could not survive.

As we look at the entire schedule, it is true that there are other formulas and diseases that will be subjected to what is called shared decision-making between parents and medical doctors. Which is to say: We are watching the emergence of choice and volunteerism to primacy of place where they should have been all along.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 19:15

Letitia James Off The Hook Again As 2nd Grand Jury Refuses To Indict

New York Attorney General Letitia James has dodged yet another bullet from the Trump DOJ, after a second federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia declined to indict her on mortgage fraud charges for the second time in a week, after their first case against James was dismissed because a federal judge ruled that Halligan's appointment as interim US attorney was invalid under federal law because she took office after the statutory 120-day interim appointment period had expired. 

Apparently "any good prosecutor" cannot get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Or we're not dealing with "any" good prosecutors - as a decision like this from a grand jury is rare due to the fact that only prosecutors appear before them and defendants do not get to offer evidence to rebut the charges. 

"For the second time in seven days, the Department of Justice has failed in its clear attempt to fulfill President Trump’s political vendetta against Attorney General James. This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day," said Abbe Lowell, a lawyer representing James. "This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice."

James was charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement in 2020 connected to a home in Norfolk, Virginia. She is accused of indicating on mortgage paperwork that the purchase would be her second home - except she then rented it out and/or let her niece live in it. James denies wrongdoing. 

The initial case was prosecuted by Lindsey Halligan, who Trump installed as the acting US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. While Halligan was able to get a grand jury to indict James, a federal judge dismissed the case - ruling that she was improperly appointed to the post. The effect of the ruling also resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey. 

Nothing is stopping the DOJ from taking another bite at the apple and refiling the case against James. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/11/2025 - 18:50