2026 Earnings Outlook: Another Year Of Optimism

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Wall Street consensus forecast for 2026 earnings growth is strong by historical standards. Analysts are giddy and projecting another year of double-digit growth in S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS). FactSet’s most recent data showed an expected 2026 earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 of about 15 percent. That is well above the long‑term average of roughly 8–9 percent. If FactSet is correct, such would mark a third consecutive year of double‑digit earnings gains.

Notably, the 2026 earnings assumptions are driven by the continued strength in the large technology and communications sectors. With those sectors dominated by the “Magnificent Seven,” it is hoped that they continue to contribute disproportionately to earnings growth. Those seven companies alone are forecast to grow earnings strongly once again. As shown, since 2018, there has been very little earnings growth from the bottom 493 companies.

Furthermore, despite the exuberance from Wall Street analysts regarding the overall index, expectations for 2026 earnings improved only for the top seven companies, while estimates for the bottom 493 have seen virtually no change since April.

Notably, these 2026 earnings forecasts are influenced by broader market return expectations. For example, many sell‑side strategists are assigning S&P 500 price targets that embed this earnings growth outlook. For example, as shown, current analysts’ forecasts imply that the index could rise between 8% and 17% in 2026. However, to justify that price increase (P), they assume an earnings (E) rate that keeps valuations (P/E) stable.

In other words, Wall Street hopes that earnings expansion rather than valuation multiples will drive market gains. However, over the last 5 years, multiple expansions led the charge as earnings growth failed to keep pace.

This optimism currently comes against a backdrop of a resilient U.S. economy. GDP growth forecasts center on continued expansion, albeit modest, with some estimates indicating annual growth of around 2 percent. That stability reinforces the case for continued corporate profitability. One support is fiscal policy from the recently passed OBBB, which provides tax relief and deregulation. Still, this type of projected growth is not guaranteed. As such, investors should recognize that earnings forecasts reflect analysts’ estimates at a given moment, which is always “bullish” to ensure that Wall Street can sell you products.

As we previously reported, the accuracy of analysts’ estimates is far down their list of concerns.

However, instead of focusing on Wall Street estimates, which will likely be revised lower in the future, investors should pay closer attention to what will drive 2026 earnings growth.

The Link Between Economic Growth, Profit Margins, and Earnings

Earnings growth does not occur in a vacuum. Corporate profits are inherently a function of economic growth, pricing power, input costs, and labor dynamics. If the economy grows at a moderate pace, as most anticipate, corporate revenues are expected to expand in line with broader demand. Many forecasts for GDP growth in 2026 hover around the 1.8% to 3% range. Those estimates are driven partly by fiscal support and ongoing investment in sectors such as technology and infrastructure. This modest expansion provides a supportive backdrop for 2026 earnings, as historical correlations suggest. (Outliers are historically a function of recovery or impact from a crisis or recession)

At the same time, corporate profit margins in the S&P 500 are currently very high relative to historical norms. According to FactSet, the estimated net profit margin for the index is near its highest level since tracking began in 2008, at around 13.9%, compared to a ten-year average of 11%. We also see this in corporate profits as a percentage of real economic growth, which is at its highest deviation from the long-term profit growth trend in history.

Elevated margins suggest companies have maintained pricing power and cost control, even amid inflationary pressures. But these high margins raise questions about sustainability. Given the supply-demand imbalances (more demand than supply), which allow for elevated margins, it is worth noting that as the economy returns to more normalized growth rates, profit margins tend to follow. Such is particularly the case as inflation pressures subside, employment weakens, and competitive forces erode pricing power. Margin compression has historically dampened earnings growth. Even if revenues are rising, if rising costs cannot be passed on to consumers, they eat into profits.

Valuations also matter. As noted above, the current price-to-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 remains above historical averages, at approximately 22x forward earnings. Those valuation levels are also well above the five- and ten-year averages. In other words, the market is pricing in continued earnings momentum. Therefore, if growth slows toward historical norms or margins compress, elevated valuations will mean even modest earnings disappointments could result in share price declines rather than gains.

The most considerable risk to investors is that the 2026 earnings estimates, which are the most deviated above its 125-year growth trend, disappoint, and the markets reprice lower. As shown, historically, when earnings become deviated from actual economic activity, the mean reversion process is not kind to investors.

In this context, understanding the mechanics behind earnings expectations becomes critical. Analysts’ expectations for robust earnings growth assume that these economic and profit margin conditions remain supportive; however, any divergence from this script increases the risk of downward earnings revisions, valuation compression, and market volatility.

Analyst Optimism, Valuation Risk, and Structural Challenges

One of the enduring themes in earnings forecasting is the bias toward optimism early in the forecast cycle. Analysts typically issue forward earnings estimates at the start of a year and revise them lower later as actual economic and corporate results become available.

As noted above, such optimism is partly behavioral and partly structural; analysts often have incentives tied to institutional clients who favor growth narratives. When growth assumptions falter due to weaker demand, rising costs, or unforeseen macroeconomic shocks, analysts will typically revise their estimates downward. This creates the familiar pattern of “estimates drifting lower” over the course of the reporting year.

The current earnings growth consensus for 2026 is no exception. While forecasts indicate roughly 12.5–15% EPS growth, several structural vulnerabilities underpin these expectations. As discussed, profit margins are at elevated levels, which makes sustaining margin levels challenging in an environment where employment is declining.

Given that full-time employment is declining, which correlates with the reversal of economic growth rates, it is unsurprising that inflation and personal consumption are also trending lower. This is because employment, particularly full-time employment, supports economic supply and demand.

Second, sector concentration risk is significant. A significant portion of projected 2026 earnings growth stems from a small group of mega-cap technology companies. If these firms underperform or face regulatory, competitive, or macroeconomic headwinds, the impact on aggregate earnings could be disproportionately large. A concentrated earnings base magnifies downside risk because fewer companies are carrying the growth load. As we noted previously:

“While technology and AI-driven firms have recently become bright spots, their strength cannot offset broader corporate margin pressures. In Q2, S&P 500 earnings grew 6.4%, with 80 percent of companies beating estimates. But this masks a weakening breadth of growth, where earnings beats are concentrated in essentially just two sectors. There would have been no earnings growth without Megacap Technology and major Wall Street banks.”

Lastly, valuations remain historically high. Elevated price‑to‑earnings ratios reflect market confidence in future earnings growth. But high valuations also reduce the margin for error. If growth falls short of expectations, a multiple contraction is a likely outcome, resulting in stock price declines even if earnings do grow. Several market strategists caution that nearly all favorable assumptions must materialize for current valuations to be justified.

While analysts note that policy factors, such as deregulation and potential tax incentives, are a tailwind for earnings, their actual impact remains uncertain. Policy implementation timing, regulatory uncertainties, and shifting political landscapes can blunt or delay these effects. Investors should note that fiscal tailwinds often operate with lags and can be offset by rising costs elsewhere in the economy.

As such, investors should consider several key factors in 2026.

• Expect Earnings Revisions: Analysts are historically optimistic in their early forecasts, and downward revisions are standard. Investors should monitor quarterly earnings guidance and track earnings revisions as one of the earliest indicators that actual performance may diverge from consensus. Early downward revisions often precede broader market corrections, so maintaining a disciplined watch on guidance can help you adjust risk exposure sooner.

• Focus on Quality Over Momentum: Higher‑quality companies—those with strong balance sheets, consistent free cash flow, stable profit margins, and resilient business models—tend to outperform during periods of earnings disappointment. When consensus growth slows, lower‑quality or speculative names typically experience sharper drawdowns. Allocating capital toward quality can reduce downside risk.

• Manage Valuation Risk: With forward price-to-earnings ratios above long-term averages, it is crucial to stay mindful of valuations. Avoid chasing valuations that imply perfect outcomes. If earnings growth disappoints, valuation compression is likely to occur. Use valuation metrics, such as the PEG ratio, to assess whether growth prospects justify current prices.

• Monitor Economic Indicators: Keep a close eye on key macroeconomic data, including GDP growth, inflation trends, and labor market indicators. These indicators directly influence corporate revenues and margins. Early signs of a slowing economy or rising inflation pressures should prompt reevaluation of equity risk exposure.

• Diversify Beyond the U.S. Market: The U.S. market valuations are high and heavily concentrated in a handful of mega‑cap tech names. Diversifying into international equities or sectors less dependent on narrow profit drivers can reduce concentration risk. Other markets may offer stronger valuations and more attractive earnings prospects if the U.S. slows.

• Use Defensive Instruments Appropriately: In periods of earnings uncertainty, adding defensive instruments—such as high-quality bonds, low-volatility equities, or hedging strategies—can help mitigate downside risk. These positions typically underperform during strong rallies but provide ballast when earnings or economic data disappoint.

• Prepare for Volatility: Volatility increases when analysts reduce earnings forecasts, and uncertainties mount. Investors should adopt a tactical approach that accounts for higher volatility, utilizing position sizing and stop-loss discipline to protect their capital. Volatility indicators such as the VIX can serve as early warning signals.

• Revisit Fiscal and Policy Tailwinds: Assess how fiscal policy changes—such as tax incentives or deregulation—are actually impacting corporate profitability. If intended policy benefits fail to meet expectations, earnings momentum may weaken. Staying attuned to policy developments helps recalibrate expectations and positions.

Just remember, while all analysts are very bullish about 2026, there is no guarantee.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 07:20

2026 Earnings Outlook: Another Year Of Optimism

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Wall Street consensus forecast for 2026 earnings growth is strong by historical standards. Analysts are giddy and projecting another year of double-digit growth in S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS). FactSet’s most recent data showed an expected 2026 earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 of about 15 percent. That is well above the long‑term average of roughly 8–9 percent. If FactSet is correct, such would mark a third consecutive year of double‑digit earnings gains.

Notably, the 2026 earnings assumptions are driven by the continued strength in the large technology and communications sectors. With those sectors dominated by the “Magnificent Seven,” it is hoped that they continue to contribute disproportionately to earnings growth. Those seven companies alone are forecast to grow earnings strongly once again. As shown, since 2018, there has been very little earnings growth from the bottom 493 companies.

Furthermore, despite the exuberance from Wall Street analysts regarding the overall index, expectations for 2026 earnings improved only for the top seven companies, while estimates for the bottom 493 have seen virtually no change since April.

Notably, these 2026 earnings forecasts are influenced by broader market return expectations. For example, many sell‑side strategists are assigning S&P 500 price targets that embed this earnings growth outlook. For example, as shown, current analysts’ forecasts imply that the index could rise between 8% and 17% in 2026. However, to justify that price increase (P), they assume an earnings (E) rate that keeps valuations (P/E) stable.

In other words, Wall Street hopes that earnings expansion rather than valuation multiples will drive market gains. However, over the last 5 years, multiple expansions led the charge as earnings growth failed to keep pace.

This optimism currently comes against a backdrop of a resilient U.S. economy. GDP growth forecasts center on continued expansion, albeit modest, with some estimates indicating annual growth of around 2 percent. That stability reinforces the case for continued corporate profitability. One support is fiscal policy from the recently passed OBBB, which provides tax relief and deregulation. Still, this type of projected growth is not guaranteed. As such, investors should recognize that earnings forecasts reflect analysts’ estimates at a given moment, which is always “bullish” to ensure that Wall Street can sell you products.

As we previously reported, the accuracy of analysts’ estimates is far down their list of concerns.

However, instead of focusing on Wall Street estimates, which will likely be revised lower in the future, investors should pay closer attention to what will drive 2026 earnings growth.

The Link Between Economic Growth, Profit Margins, and Earnings

Earnings growth does not occur in a vacuum. Corporate profits are inherently a function of economic growth, pricing power, input costs, and labor dynamics. If the economy grows at a moderate pace, as most anticipate, corporate revenues are expected to expand in line with broader demand. Many forecasts for GDP growth in 2026 hover around the 1.8% to 3% range. Those estimates are driven partly by fiscal support and ongoing investment in sectors such as technology and infrastructure. This modest expansion provides a supportive backdrop for 2026 earnings, as historical correlations suggest. (Outliers are historically a function of recovery or impact from a crisis or recession)

At the same time, corporate profit margins in the S&P 500 are currently very high relative to historical norms. According to FactSet, the estimated net profit margin for the index is near its highest level since tracking began in 2008, at around 13.9%, compared to a ten-year average of 11%. We also see this in corporate profits as a percentage of real economic growth, which is at its highest deviation from the long-term profit growth trend in history.

Elevated margins suggest companies have maintained pricing power and cost control, even amid inflationary pressures. But these high margins raise questions about sustainability. Given the supply-demand imbalances (more demand than supply), which allow for elevated margins, it is worth noting that as the economy returns to more normalized growth rates, profit margins tend to follow. Such is particularly the case as inflation pressures subside, employment weakens, and competitive forces erode pricing power. Margin compression has historically dampened earnings growth. Even if revenues are rising, if rising costs cannot be passed on to consumers, they eat into profits.

Valuations also matter. As noted above, the current price-to-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 remains above historical averages, at approximately 22x forward earnings. Those valuation levels are also well above the five- and ten-year averages. In other words, the market is pricing in continued earnings momentum. Therefore, if growth slows toward historical norms or margins compress, elevated valuations will mean even modest earnings disappointments could result in share price declines rather than gains.

The most considerable risk to investors is that the 2026 earnings estimates, which are the most deviated above its 125-year growth trend, disappoint, and the markets reprice lower. As shown, historically, when earnings become deviated from actual economic activity, the mean reversion process is not kind to investors.

In this context, understanding the mechanics behind earnings expectations becomes critical. Analysts’ expectations for robust earnings growth assume that these economic and profit margin conditions remain supportive; however, any divergence from this script increases the risk of downward earnings revisions, valuation compression, and market volatility.

Analyst Optimism, Valuation Risk, and Structural Challenges

One of the enduring themes in earnings forecasting is the bias toward optimism early in the forecast cycle. Analysts typically issue forward earnings estimates at the start of a year and revise them lower later as actual economic and corporate results become available.

As noted above, such optimism is partly behavioral and partly structural; analysts often have incentives tied to institutional clients who favor growth narratives. When growth assumptions falter due to weaker demand, rising costs, or unforeseen macroeconomic shocks, analysts will typically revise their estimates downward. This creates the familiar pattern of “estimates drifting lower” over the course of the reporting year.

The current earnings growth consensus for 2026 is no exception. While forecasts indicate roughly 12.5–15% EPS growth, several structural vulnerabilities underpin these expectations. As discussed, profit margins are at elevated levels, which makes sustaining margin levels challenging in an environment where employment is declining.

Given that full-time employment is declining, which correlates with the reversal of economic growth rates, it is unsurprising that inflation and personal consumption are also trending lower. This is because employment, particularly full-time employment, supports economic supply and demand.

Second, sector concentration risk is significant. A significant portion of projected 2026 earnings growth stems from a small group of mega-cap technology companies. If these firms underperform or face regulatory, competitive, or macroeconomic headwinds, the impact on aggregate earnings could be disproportionately large. A concentrated earnings base magnifies downside risk because fewer companies are carrying the growth load. As we noted previously:

“While technology and AI-driven firms have recently become bright spots, their strength cannot offset broader corporate margin pressures. In Q2, S&P 500 earnings grew 6.4%, with 80 percent of companies beating estimates. But this masks a weakening breadth of growth, where earnings beats are concentrated in essentially just two sectors. There would have been no earnings growth without Megacap Technology and major Wall Street banks.”

Lastly, valuations remain historically high. Elevated price‑to‑earnings ratios reflect market confidence in future earnings growth. But high valuations also reduce the margin for error. If growth falls short of expectations, a multiple contraction is a likely outcome, resulting in stock price declines even if earnings do grow. Several market strategists caution that nearly all favorable assumptions must materialize for current valuations to be justified.

While analysts note that policy factors, such as deregulation and potential tax incentives, are a tailwind for earnings, their actual impact remains uncertain. Policy implementation timing, regulatory uncertainties, and shifting political landscapes can blunt or delay these effects. Investors should note that fiscal tailwinds often operate with lags and can be offset by rising costs elsewhere in the economy.

As such, investors should consider several key factors in 2026.

• Expect Earnings Revisions: Analysts are historically optimistic in their early forecasts, and downward revisions are standard. Investors should monitor quarterly earnings guidance and track earnings revisions as one of the earliest indicators that actual performance may diverge from consensus. Early downward revisions often precede broader market corrections, so maintaining a disciplined watch on guidance can help you adjust risk exposure sooner.

• Focus on Quality Over Momentum: Higher‑quality companies—those with strong balance sheets, consistent free cash flow, stable profit margins, and resilient business models—tend to outperform during periods of earnings disappointment. When consensus growth slows, lower‑quality or speculative names typically experience sharper drawdowns. Allocating capital toward quality can reduce downside risk.

• Manage Valuation Risk: With forward price-to-earnings ratios above long-term averages, it is crucial to stay mindful of valuations. Avoid chasing valuations that imply perfect outcomes. If earnings growth disappoints, valuation compression is likely to occur. Use valuation metrics, such as the PEG ratio, to assess whether growth prospects justify current prices.

• Monitor Economic Indicators: Keep a close eye on key macroeconomic data, including GDP growth, inflation trends, and labor market indicators. These indicators directly influence corporate revenues and margins. Early signs of a slowing economy or rising inflation pressures should prompt reevaluation of equity risk exposure.

• Diversify Beyond the U.S. Market: The U.S. market valuations are high and heavily concentrated in a handful of mega‑cap tech names. Diversifying into international equities or sectors less dependent on narrow profit drivers can reduce concentration risk. Other markets may offer stronger valuations and more attractive earnings prospects if the U.S. slows.

• Use Defensive Instruments Appropriately: In periods of earnings uncertainty, adding defensive instruments—such as high-quality bonds, low-volatility equities, or hedging strategies—can help mitigate downside risk. These positions typically underperform during strong rallies but provide ballast when earnings or economic data disappoint.

• Prepare for Volatility: Volatility increases when analysts reduce earnings forecasts, and uncertainties mount. Investors should adopt a tactical approach that accounts for higher volatility, utilizing position sizing and stop-loss discipline to protect their capital. Volatility indicators such as the VIX can serve as early warning signals.

• Revisit Fiscal and Policy Tailwinds: Assess how fiscal policy changes—such as tax incentives or deregulation—are actually impacting corporate profitability. If intended policy benefits fail to meet expectations, earnings momentum may weaken. Staying attuned to policy developments helps recalibrate expectations and positions.

Just remember, while all analysts are very bullish about 2026, there is no guarantee.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 07:20

My morning train reads:

• Bill Pulte: Agent of Chaos: In an administration hardly known for competence, coherence and subtlety, Pulte stands out. When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly threatened to punch Pulte “in your fucking face” and to “fucking beat your ass”, it was mostly notable for how many people both inside and outside the administration were seemingly #TeamBessent. (Financial Times)

• Is the Iranian Regime About to Collapse? Five conditions determine whether revolutions succeed. For the first time since 1979, Iran meets nearly all of them. (The Atlantic) see also Weakened by War, Iran’s Regime Faces Its Toughest Challenge Yet: Iranian leaders’ last claim to legitimacy was shattered in the war with Israel (Wall Street Journal) see also Death Toll in Iran May Already Be in the Thousands: To account for what it called a “significant” death toll, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Sunday raised the specter of ISIS, claiming in a statement that slain protesters were terrorists hired by Israel and the U.S. (Time)

• How Google Got Its Groove Back and Edged Ahead of OpenAI: After ChatGPT dominated early chatbot market, Google staged comeback with powerful AI model; biggest search-engine overhaul in years. (Wall Street Journal)

• GE’s CEO Has Saved the House That Jack Welch Built: Shares of General Electric Co. have jumped out of the gate this year faster than the gains of the S&P 500 Index. That doesn’t sound like a stellar achievement unless you consider that the stock has already surged sixfold in the last three years. The fact that GE’s turnaround still has legs is testament to the talent of Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp, who took over a legendary company that was in deep trouble in 2018 and rescued it. (Bloomberg)

• Big Oil Knows That Trump’s Venezuela Plans Are Delusional: The president’s thinking is stuck in the 1980s. (The Atlantic)

• Americans Predict Challenging 2026 Across 13 Dimensions: Only the stock market evokes optimism from a majority in the U.S. (Gallup)

• Why Trump wants Greenland and what’s standing in his way: Denmark’s leader warned that any use of force by Washington to seize Greenland, as Trump officials have suggested, would render the postwar NATO alliance defunct. (Washington Post)

• My Playdate With the Watch Nerds: 48 Hours at the Watch Convention: A Casio man in a Rolex world crashes the convention where guys trade six-figure grails for fun. (The Cut)

• Grok Is Generating Sexual Content Far More Graphic Than What’s on X: A review of outputs hosted on Grok’s official website shows it’s being used to create violent sexual images and videos, as well as content that includes apparent minors. (Wired)

• How Amy Poehler’s ‘Good Hang’ broke through celebrity podcast fatigue: The market was saturated with stars chatting with other stars. But the ‘SNL’ veteran channeled the old magic of late-night TV talk shows. Now she’s a favorite in a new Golden Globe category. (Washington Post)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Ben Hunt, founder of Perscient, a firm that studies how narratives and stories shape markets, investing, and social behavior through the lens of information theory, game theory, and unstructured data analysis. His work analyzes the language, story arcs, and viral spread of explanations in media.

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

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

Eastern Mediterranean Geopolitics Are Becoming More Complex

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Tensions are growing between Turkiye-Pakistan and Israel-Cyprus-Greece...

Stability in the Eastern Mediterranean can no longer be taken for granted as a result of three recent developments:

1) the growing Turkish-Israeli rivalry in post-Assad Syria;

2) Israel’s reported plans to establish a rapid response force with Cyprus and Greece; and

3) Turkish ally Pakistan’s new military ties with Eastern Libya’s General Khalifa Haftar. The aforesaid are unfolding amidst Israel’s plans for an underwater EastMed gas pipeline to Greece and Turkiye’s maritime claims that cut right across its route.

The reported rapid response force could accordingly be assembled to defend the EastMed if construction on it were to begin while Pakistan might establish a military presence in Eastern Libya under the cover of training Haftar’s forces for complementing Turkiye’s in Western Libya so as to help Ankara counter this. Unaware observers should review this article here to learn more about the rapprochement between Turkiye and Haftar, previously enemies, which advances the former’s abovementioned maritime claims.

The Turkish-Pakistani Tandem (TPT) might not directly clash with Israel over the EastMed, at least not at first, since it’s much more likely that Turkiye would initially pressure it in Syria while Pakistan stirs trouble on its behalf at sea (perhaps with drones) through its potential military presence in Eastern Libya. The purpose would be to keep tensions manageable and “plausibly deniable”. That would be difficult to do if they targeted NATO member Greece, however, which could backfire by rallying the bloc around it.

For that reason, TPT would probably employ low-level and “plausibly deniable” hybrid provocations against Israel in the first stage, though Israel would be expected to call them out on this if it happens. It’s not possible to accurately forecast what might follow but it’s sufficient to predict that Israel likely wouldn’t back down since it rarely does so under military pressure. A conventional escalation might therefore be in the cards and that could in turn set the entire region aflame if it spirals out of control.

Turkiye’s interest in involving Pakistan in this dispute wouldn’t just be to diffuse responsibility for any escalation over its maritime claims but to have the support of the only Muslim nuclear power in order to deter Israel from responding in a way that risks a war between them. For its part, Pakistan would probably be happy to saber-rattle against Israel since this would play well domestically, but it understandably wouldn’t want Israel to force its hand into fighting a conventional war or backing down.

Any serious escalation between TPT and Israel would assuredly lead to an American diplomatic intervention given that all three are its close partners. Which side the US would support, however, remains unclear. While Israel is one of its most special partners, the EastMed pipeline could challenge the US’ newfound energy hegemony over the EU, so the argument can be made that it might prefer to impose a compromise whereby Israel supplies Turkiye with gas just like it’s poised to supply Egypt.

If Syria joins the Abraham Accords, then a pipeline could be built across its territory from Israel to Turkiye, while Lebanon could be involved as well if it too signs onto the accords. Even without that happening, an underwater pipeline could connect Israel’s offshore gas fields with Turkiye, which would strengthen their complex interdependence for reducing the risk of conflict.

That would be the best-case scenario from the US’ perspective for resolving Turkish-Israeli tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 05:00

Le Pen's Political Future Hangs In The Balance As Appeal Begins This Week

The political future of Marine Le Pen hinges on a crucial appeal in Paris this week that will determine whether she can run in the 2027 presidential election, after she was barred from public office over misusing 4 million euros of EU funds. 

Marine Le Pen, pictured in Dec. 2024 at her party's offices in the National Assembly. (via El Pais)

Le Pen, who leads France's populist National Rally (RN) party, was sentenced to four years in prison (two suspended, two under house arrest which are on hold during her appeal) and banned from political office for five years, effectively disqualifying her from the 2027 election. She was also fined €100,000. In last March's ruling, Le Pen and her co-defendants were convicted of using funds meant for the European Parliament to pay staff that were working for RN.

RN is the largest opposition party in France, which poses a major threat to President Emmanuel Macron in next year's election - as the party enjoys widespread support throughout the country due to a pendulum shift back to conservative policies and anti-immigration views. 

Le Pen's appeal is scheduled to run from January 13th through February 12th, with a final ruling expected by this summer. If unsuccessful, Le Pen says her protege, 30-year-old party president Jordan Bardella, will run in her place. 

US President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration have voice support for Le Pen following her conviction, who will undoubtedly use her as an example of a weaponized judicial system in Europe that seeks to unfairly block right-wing politicians who oppose immigration from taking power. 

German magazine Der Spiegel claims that the Trump administration held internal discussions about sanctioning French prosecutors and judges involved in barring Le Pen, however US Under Secretary of State Sara B. Rogers denied the report as a "fake story."

Understand that this fake story is making the rounds in France, so I thought I’d do my part to counter foreign “misinformation”: the purported leak is stale and false. https://t.co/ixAzJY06mF

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) January 7, 2026

That said, Reuters notes that "over the past year, the U.S. has imposed sanctions against 11 International Criminal Court judges involved in cases against Israel.

Le Pen has accused the judiciary of politically motivated targeting, telling French TV channel TF1 at the time "In the country of human rights, judges have implemented practices that we thought were reserved for authoritarian regimes."

Meanwhile, the European Parliament's lawyer Patrick Maisonneuve says he hopes Le Pen and her co-defendants' convictions would be upheld, including over 3 million in euro awarded in damages to the European Parliament. RN was also ordered to pay a 2 million fine, with half of the amount having been suspended. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 04:15

EU Official Plotted To 'Organize Resistance' Against Hungary's Orban, Files Show

Authored by Kit Klarenberg via The GrayZone,

A senior European Union official has been secretly seeking to remove Hungarian President Viktor Orban since at least 2019, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The files show in January 2019, the EU’s International Coordinator for the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Marton Benedek, authored a “project proposal” aimed at “developing a permanent coordination forum to organize resistance against the Orban regime.” In addition to his role at the European border control agency, Benedek currently heads Brussels’ “cooperation” with Libya.

The impetus for Benedek’s plot was “an unprecedented set of anti-regime demonstrations in Hungary and among expat Hungarians” over controversial proposed legislation allowing businesses to compel employees to work overtime, and delay payment of their wages for an extended period. Thousands took to the streets before and after its implementation.

According to Benedek, outrage over what he referred to as “the slave law” had “compelled a small group of some 30 political, trade union and civic leaders to coordinate their activities, agree on a set of minimum objectives and funding principles, and jointly plan future action.” This had given birth to “an ad hoc coordination forum… which could develop, over time, into an incipient political coordinating body that could credibly challenge” Orban’s rule.

Benedek’s proposal to harness resistance to the so-called “slave law” and bring its opponents into a single political movement was likely a reaction to the pro-sovereignty positions pursued by Orban and his Fidesz party, which has consistently sought to maintain national veto power for member states and to prevent the bloc from enlarging further, to the great chagrin of Brussels.

Participating in the “ad hoc coordination forum” were a variety of NGOs, many of which have been acccused of receiving funds from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. OSF relocated its Hungarian office to Berlin in April 2018, due to Orban’s government undertaking numerous measures to curb the activities and influence of foreign-financed NGOs locally. OSF activities in Budapest have been a closely-guarded secret ever since. Nonetheless, the most recent available figures indicate Soros’ personal regime change operation pumped $8.9 million into Hungary in 2021 alone.

The source who obtained the files told The Grayzone that the proposal was submitted to Open Society Foundations, although they were unable to furnish proof that the Soros-led organization received the documents or signed off on them.

In the document, Benedek wrote that he hoped “to develop a few ideas to transform this forum into a potent entity capable of planning and executing collective action” ahead of elections that would be held in Hungary in 2019 and 2022. Benedek stressed the need for expansive financing to “deliver results” not least as organizing a single “large demonstration in Budapest” cost roughly $11,000. The then-ongoing demonstrations relied on crowdfunding, and Hungarian political parties – which receive state funding – to cover “gaps” in “project management.”

Among Benedek’s “proposed lines of action” was the creation of “a non-profit entity, registered in Hungary (for operational activities) and a financial vehicle potentially registered in Austria.” A board comprising political party representatives, trade unions and NGOs “could provide the political steer for future action.”

Benedek sought to maintain as broad of an anti-Orban coalition as possible, warning against “rapidly proceeding to controversial projects,” for instance uniting opposition parties to contest European elections. As these votes are “contested in a fully proportional system,” it was “quite rational” for parties “to run individual party lists.”

Instead, Benedek looked ahead to “organizing collective action” and “sustained opposition to the Orban regime” over contentious domestic political issues ahead of Hungary’s 2019 local and 2022 national elections. The operation would involve “primary campaigns, information campaigns, mobilisation campaigns, electoral debates and joint fundraising activities,” he wrote.

The senior EU functionary concluded by suggesting his proposed organization would ultimately morph into a shadow government that could seize power from the Hungarian president. “In the longer run, the proposed non-profit entity could also… develop the policy foundations (and shadow cabinet) of a united political front against the Orban regime.”

A failed test-run for toppling Orban?

By this point, Benedek had been intimately involved in anti-Orban activism in Hungary for many years, while also working in a variety of senior EU posts related to bloc enlargement and relations between aspiring member states. An official profile reveals he “led the European Commission’s visa liberalization dialogue” with the breakaway statelet of Kosovo, “oversaw rule of law reforms in the Western Balkans,” and coordinated “the EU’s internal security policies during Hungary’s EU Council Presidency” in 2011.

Benedek’s determined plotting against Orban clearly constitutes a conflict of interest. In October 2012 – the year that Orban’s disputes with Brussels significantly intensified – Benedek co-founded a party called Együtt, or Together. A progressive liberal party, it sought to forge an extremely broad political coalition in Hungary. Együtt’s explicit objective was to seize power and undo all reforms enacted by Fidesz since taking office two years prior. Its leaders urged parties of every ideological extraction to join their cause.

Read Benedek’s anti-Orban project proposal here.

Despite much initial media hype framing Együtt as Hungary’s premier opposition entity, and therefore a threat to Orban’s grip on power, the party failed miserably. Having been flatly rejected by the country’s right-wing, it formed a coalition with a quartet of green, liberal and social democratic parties. This was sufficient to elect three MPs to Budapest’s 199-seat parliament in 2014, although four years later that figure fell to just one. The lone lawmaker promptly defected to another party, and Együtt folded.

Despite the cataclysmic results, and Együtt’s chiefs being forced to pay back close to half a million dollars in state funding they received for campaigning activities due to abysmal electoral performance, Benedek was undeterred. In a 2017 interview, he branded allegations that his family had improperly profited from his mother’s senior position within the EU as a “Fidesz lie.” The fact that he was reaping a sizable salary from Brussels for sensitive, high-level work, while simultaneously playing opposition politician at home, was left unmentioned by his interviewers.

This matter should’ve been a source of significant critical interest and inquiry, however. Under formal rules, EU civil servants are supposed to be impartial and politically neutral. Officials must declare any personal or political interests that could compromise their independence, and obtain permission from superiors before engaging in external activity. One might think Benedek engaging in nakedly partisan political campaigning, both covert and overt, would be prohibited – unless of course it was signed off upon at the bloc’s highest levels.

In the leaked 2019 “project proposal,” Benedek boasted that “an online community that yours truly set up” was part of the anti-Orban “coordination forum.” That group, “Hazajöttünk túlórázni” (“We came home for overtime”), had attracted the interest of thousands of Hungarian emigres, which were drawn together when it “organised demonstrations against the Orban regime in 35 cities in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia.” How these actions were funded, and whether the EU played any role in bankrolling them, remains unclear.

While Együtt’s crusade to dislodge Orban crashed and burned, the experience offered clear lessons for future contenders. The first of these was that Hungarians are overwhelmingly right-wing, dooming virtually any explicitly progressive, liberal movement to failure. Second, and equally important, as Benedek noted in his “project proposal,” was that European parliament votes are conducted under proportional representation, making it much easier for smaller parties to break through in Brussels than in national elections. Recent political developments suggest Együtt’s contemporaries learned from their efforts, and adapted accordingly.

EU 'resistance' ambitions fulfilled by Tisza?

In March 2024, a little-known figure named Peter Magyar exploded onto Budapest’s political scene when he released secret recordings of his ex-wife, former Justice Minister Judit Varga, revealing that senior government figures attempted to sabotage the prosecution of a state official for corruption. Varga had resigned the previous month along with Hungarian President Katalin Novak, for signing off on the pardon of the deputy director of an orphanage who was implicated in covering up pedophilia.

Ever since, Varga has repeatedly claimed Magyar was physically abusive, and that she made the incriminating statements under duress. She has variously alleged Magyar locked her in a room without her consent, violently shoved her into a door while she was pregnant, and stormed around their shared residence menacing her with a knife. In April 2024, a police report was released exposing how Magyar attempted to forcibly seize custody of the pair’s children, while making a variety of threats to Varga. He denies the report’s authenticity.

These revelations have fallen almost entirely on deaf ears, however, while Magyar’s star has grown inexorably. Magyar became chief of the Tisza (Respect and Freedom) party almost overnight, and was immediately bestowed the title of “opposition leader” by mainstream media. While founded in 2020, Tisza had not previously competed in any elections or ever publicly campaigned. However, in the June 2024 European parliament election, Tisza garnered almost 30% of the vote, and seven seats. Today, the party enjoys a significant lead over Orban’s Fidesz in many national opinion polls.

From the very inception of Magyar’s stratospheric ascent, his political activities have been of intense interest to Western news outlets, with protests he routinely leads generating saturation coverage. At no point have obvious questions been asked as to whether Magyar’s abrupt emergence as Hungary’s leader-in-waiting was an organic phenomenon, or how his activities have been funded. Despite repeated promises, Magyar has yet to provide the public with any detailed financial statements. Instead, he claims Tisza relies on “micro-donations” from average citizens, and the largesse of popular local anti-government actor Ervin Nagy.

Immediately after Magyar assumed leadership over Tisza, he barnstormed through towns and villages across the country. The spectacular campaign often saw him addressing crowds from large stages featuring concert-ready audio equipment, along with videographers and professional security. Magyar has also been supported by highly sophisticated PR and social media efforts, as well as a liberal-leaning local mainstream media ecosystem which seems increasingly desperate to market him to right-wing voters.

In 2024, Hungarian academic Zsolt Enyedi published a typical profile of Magyar’s party, marvelling at Tisza’s “meteoric” and “unprecedented” rise, while acknowledging that its “ideological profile” is “amorphous” – which is quite an understatement.

Though he claims to be conservative, Magyar’s positions on many issues are unclear. For example, he has visited Ukraine and branded Moscow the proxy war’s “aggressor,” while Tisza has voted for European Parliament resolutions calling for more weapons for Kiev. The party’s representatives performatively donned Ukrainian flag t-shirts as they cheered Volodymyr Zelensky’s November 2024 address to the chamber.

Magyar has also promised to adopt the EU’s ban on Russian energy imports, a position opposed by the overwhelming majority of Hungarians. Adding to the confusion, Tisza supports the government’s refusal to send weapons to Kiev, as well as Ukraine’s EU accession. Magyar has admitted he avoids taking concrete positions on Ukraine, as the topic is “divisive” among domestic constituents. Pointed questions about his penchant for flip-flopping have prompted Tisza’s leader to storm out of live TV interviews.

Hungary on the verge of EU subjugation?

Nonetheless, one policy area in which Magyar is consistent, unequivocal, and in stark opposition to Fidesz, is the EU. Defining himself as avidly pro-European, he supports adoption of the Euro, as well as greater EU integration and federalism. If he comes to power, Budapest will no longer be an irritant to Brussels’ designs. It is likely to back the Ukrainian proxy war “for as long as it takes,” as EU chief Ursula von der Leyen has repeatedly pledged, and to eliminate the remaining vestiges of sovereignty from the bloc’s members.

Since late 2022, the EU has withheld billions of euros from Hungary due to “rule of law concerns.” Accessing these vast sums would require Fidesz to undertake major reforms in eight separate policy areas. However, Magyar has claimed once he takes office and Budapest is “a fully-fledged member of the EU,” the funds will instantly be unfrozen – a key Tisza pledge, which has propelled the party’s surging popularity ahead of Hungary’s national elections in April.

If current polling trends hold, Marton Benedek’s clandestine scheme to “organize resistance” and “credibly challenge” Orban may finally be fulfilled.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 03:30

China–EU EV Conflict Nears Resolution As New Pricing Framework Emerges

China and the EU took a significant step Monday toward easing their long-running electric vehicle trade dispute after Brussels released rules that could allow Chinese exporters to replace punitive tariffs with negotiated pricing commitments, according to the South China Morning Post.

The European Commission said companies may submit price undertakings that must be “adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of the subsidies and provide equivalent effect to duties”. Exporters are encouraged to include shipment limits and future EU investments, with assessments conducted under WTO rules. If accepted, the EU would revise its existing regulations.

The conflict dates back to the EU’s 2023 anti-subsidy probe, which resulted in 2024 duties of 7.8% to 35.3% for five years. China responded with investigations into European cognac, dairy and pork. While the tariffs technically remain, the new framework could replace them with minimum import prices.

China’s Ministry of Commerce welcomed the move, saying “the progress fully reflects the spirit of dialogue and the outcomes of consultations between China and the EU.” It added: “It shows that both China and the EU have the ability and willingness to properly resolve differences through dialogue and consultation under the framework of WTO rules and maintain the stability of automotive industrial and supply chains in China, the EU and the whole world,” calling it “conducive not only to ensuring the healthy development of China-EU economic and trade relations, but also to safeguarding the rules-based international trade order.”

SCMP writes that negotiations gained momentum after the EU began reviewing a price undertaking offer in December from Volkswagen’s Chinese joint venture. Economist Alicia Garcia-Herrero of Natixis called the potential shift from tariffs to price floors a major development.

China’s chamber of commerce in the EU described the move as a “soft landing” and “a constructive step forward for China–EU trade and investment cooperation, as well as for the broader bilateral relationship”, adding: “The consensus and arrangements reached will significantly strengthen business confidence, [and] create a more stable and predictable environment for Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers and related supply-chain companies investing and operating in Europe.”

Cui Hongjian of Beijing Foreign Studies University cautioned the change remains largely technical, noting that “At present, both sides are grappling with a certain lack of confidence [in each other].” Garcia-Herrero warned the scheme could weaken EU trade enforcement, raise costs for European buyers, and deepen Europe’s reliance on Chinese investment.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 02:45

Germany's Mittelstand Succession Crisis: Who Will Take the Reins?

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany faces a massive wave of business transfers. The decline in entrepreneurship and self-employment has multiple causes; blaming the young generation’s supposed obsession with work-life balance belongs more to the realm of fables.

When a productive and market-successful company exits the competition, productive capital is lost irretrievably. Jobs vanish, supply chains collapse, and established customer relationships dissolve. Often, foreign competitors step in to occupy the freed market niches. Value creation is lost for the domestic economy.

KfW Panel Shows the Numbers

A recent survey by the KfW Mittelstand Panel shows that Germany confronts exactly this fundamental problem. A demographically driven succession crisis is emerging: over 57% of Mittelstand business owners are now over 55. According to KfW, around 1.1 million business transfers or closures will occur by 2029 due to age. The survey of 13,000 firms also shows that about one in four companies at risk is considering a full shutdown because no suitable successor or buyer is available to fill the vacancy.

Mathematically, the situation is stark: in coming years, roughly 114,000 business closures are expected annually, while only about 109,000 orderly successions occur. The net balance is negative. New business formation would be required to close the gap—an endeavor naturally difficult in Germany. The succession problem spans all sectors and company sizes, from small craft shops or bakeries to classic industrial Mittelstand companies. The pool of potential business transferors grows due to demographics, while the pool of successors continues to shrink—a classic demographic gap.

The Ifo Institute paints an equally sobering picture: around 42% of family businesses cannot find an internal successor. Young people increasingly avoid taking over existing companies, preferring well-paid employment with social security and avoiding the substantial risks tied to entrepreneurship.

A New Reality

What drives the growing succession problem in Germany? Just a few years ago, aging society and rising closures could be cited alongside productivity trends and a shrinking domestic market as natural reasons for a contraction in the economy’s supply side.

Today, however, Germany’s population has grown by several million in a few years due to migration policies. With shrinking economic output, Germans are increasingly trapped in a spiral of scarcity. Alongside eroding productivity and industrial decline, massive redistribution programs benefiting those who have never contributed productively push the country’s productive class into economic tight spots.

And honestly: who wants to take entrepreneurial responsibility in such an anti-business climate? A country where leading officials, from Lars Klingbeil to Bärbel Bas, even the Chancellor, openly attack entrepreneurs depending on the day’s mood—while a compliant press gives them carte blanche for all manner of rhetorical nonsense.

It begs the question: how has self-employment, once a cornerstone for innovation, family traditions, risk capital, and breaking stagnant markets, decayed so profoundly?

In principle, anyone pursuing a serious entrepreneurial vision pays little attention to political chatter or bureaucratic whim—but in Germany, beyond demographics and a lack of successors, politically engineered realities make takeovers and sales extraordinarily difficult.

Structural Obstacles

Inheritance law, nearing another reform, targets the substance of Mittelstand firms—more than a mere deterrent. In many cases, succession becomes economically unviable. Complex, multi-heir transfers are costly, liquidity-straining, and bureaucratically labyrinthine. Potential inheritors or buyers face an entire economic crisis environment, alongside internal cultural shocks in companies tied closely to their founders.

Succession processes often end in frustration because tax, inheritance, and corporate law link transfers to complex conditions, deadlines, and exceptions monitored for years. Restructuring, investment, or personnel decisions can jeopardize tax benefits and trigger retroactive liabilities. The economy shrinks, fiscal pressures rise annually—most recently via CO₂ levies and commercial tax hikes to cover municipal deficits. No recovery is in sight. Germany is only at the beginning of deindustrialization and structural collapse.

The Green Deal looms—a future-destroying program for the next generation, who will one day see “Fridays for Future” protests and climate activists as symptoms of a severe societal illness no one restrained.

Cultural Retreat

Zooming out, the social and cultural climate reveals another key issue: society has largely abandoned family traditions. The collapse of reproduction rates reflects even in entrepreneur families. Passing a business to children and integrating them early into operations is increasingly the exception.

This is symptomatic of a deeper problem: belief in economic futures has eroded. Prosperity was once a promise for achievement; today it is often merely a state-managed allocation problem—via subsidies or a welfare apparatus consuming about a third of GDP. Society appears frozen. State institutions and parties shield themselves from criticism by framing entrepreneurs as greedy.

Current discourse demonstrates that conservative values, generational thinking, and meritocratic consensus are essential for national economic advancement. Change will occur when society realizes that wealth cannot be printed or centrally planned; it requires individuals willing to invest creativity, diligence, and courage into innovative products and services demanded by free markets.

In short: the turning point comes when Germany sheds the rotten patina of state control and recommits to bourgeois values of freedom, family, and economic ascent. That is the pivot.

* * *

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/13/2026 - 02:00

A Paleoconservative Rips Apart Trump's Venezuela Overthrow

Authored by Terry Cowan via Substack

There is no way to put a pretty face on our most recent regime-change adventure. It is pig-ugly, and not defendable on any level, or from any angle or perspective. The reality of it all is plain to see. The Administration boldfacedly asks, as the old saying goes, Who are you going to believe; me or your lying eyes?. Only a political toad like, say, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, would respond that they needed more information to get the "full picture" before they could possibly comment on America's action against the sovereign government of Venezuela.

I carry no water for the Chavez/Maduro regime. I am about as ambivalent towards the Venezuelan government as a person could be. This is for two reasons: 1) I am not a Cuban-American who, at least politically, are obsessesed with anything even tangentially connected to Castro’s Cuba, and 2) Maduro is their business, not ours-it is for them to sort out. The silly charge of narcoterrorism is the WMD of this generation.

At this point, it is not exactly clear what the Administration has accomplished. The Presidential couple has been surgically extracted from Caracas. The blockade is still in place, but then so is the Venezuelan government under Delcy Rodriquez, who is decidedly off-script. (I do find the tangential side-lining of the the ever-so-eager recent Nobel "Peace" Prize winner to be extremely satisfying. She has learned the hard way what many others before her have so learned. Her support in Venezuela is apparently so minimal that she does not even rise to the level of a useful puppet for Rubio.) I suppose that, in time, we will have a show trial in New York City for the Maduros, its outcome fore-ordained; the very thing we condemned the Soviets for back in the bad old days. But then, this should not be surprising in what I have heard called our "post-Constitutional" age.

I am fascinated by the logistics of this admittedly extraordinary and ruthlessly efficient covert attack. From what I can gather, these forces never engaged the Venezuelan army directly. Maduro relied on 22 Cuban bodyguards and a Security Detail, both operating outside of army channels. The U.S. had an army of covert CIA operatives and assets in Caracas, all trained in the fine art of engineering protests, demonstrations, color revolutions, and regime-change. These spooks were able to bribe his Security Detail. The commandos dropped in, while the Security Detail stood back as they killed the 22 Cubans and extracted the Maduros. The Russians were on the way, but arrived just after the completion of the mission. When they discovered who had been bribed to do this, it is my understanding that he was executed.

And there it is. No need to cue-up Lee Greenwood here. I recently read an accusation against someone as "being against everything this country stands for." That is a loaded statement, to be sure. What does our country stand for anymore? One thing for certain is that we stand for is regime change. Dr. Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War documents 70 such regime changes between 1947 and 1989 (excellent interview, here).

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs states that that number is now right at 100, which he characterizes as an addiction, overthrowing countries left and right when we wants something they have: Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-2025, Ukraine in 2014-present, etc.

As he often does, Dr. Sachs recently addressed the UN Security Council, commenting this time on the situation in Venezuela. A few points:

• The core of the UN Charter is Article 2 Section 4 which upholds the sovereignty of nations.

• The job of the Security Council is not to judge Maduro's fitness as a leader, but to try to offer some protection to countries.

• Sachs then presented the Security Council was a brief outline of recent U.S./Venezuelan history, reminding them that the U.S. had been trying to topple the Chavez/Maduro regime since 2002.

• In 2007, a great tragedy befell Venezuela when it was discovered that they were sitting atop the largest oil reserves in the world.

• In 2014, a CIA/NGO color revolution was attempted.

• In 2015, Obama placed sanctions on Venezuela.

• In 2016, following orders, he declared the country to be a "threat to our national security."

• In 2017, DJT wondered aloud to two Latin American Presidents why he could not just go in and capture Venezuela.

• He was informed of the danger in this, so he upped the sanctions to crush the Venezuelan oil industry. By 2020, production had fallen 75% and personal GDP had collapsed by 65% in Venezuela, according to the IMF.

• And then about the same time, his administration announced that the hitherto unknown Juan Guido was the real President of Venezuela. Many of our European vassal states went along meekly; in fact, you can hear echoes of that in Macron’s reaction now.

• He then asked the Security Council, “Do we have International Law, or do we have anarchy?”

The answer to the last question is pretty obvious. Threats have been made to six countries since the Venezuelan attack: Mexico, Columbia, Denmark, Nigeria, Cuba, and Iran. A great champion of the United Nations, Dr. Sachs claims that it is not dead, but it is on life-support. Any commitment for international law is certainly not coming from us. In fact, we are rushing back to the world of great power politics and spheres of influece, with all that that implies in terms of war and aggression. Dr. Sachs describes the situation as dire, given the nuclear age that we are all lulled into forgetting: being led by a "completely impulsive out of control ill-informed manipulable and manipulative individual atop the Deep State." Dr. Sachs has a fearless aspect to his commentary. May he survive for many years yet.

I was in South America when we attacked Venezuela. I saw coverage on the Asuncion news channels, and spoke briefly to a couple of Paraguayans about it. They shrugged in resignation, and basically said that when America wants something, what can you do? Perhaps someday someone will do something. But in the meantime, I dug a Spanish phrase out of my memory: lo siento.

* * *

Who can buy a government so cheap?
Change a cabinet without a squeak?

...Who can get a budget that's so great?
Who will be the 51st state?

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 23:25

Day 1,419: The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Just Surpassed Soviet War With Nazi Germany

This week has marked another grim milestone in the nearly four-year long Russia-Ukraine war. The conflict has just entered its 1,419th day - which means it has officially surpassed the entirety of the historic Soviet campaign against invading Nazi Germany, which lasted 1,418 days from June 1941 to May 1945.

Red Army forces eventually drove Nazi troops back from the Volga River all the way to Berlin, before seizing the German capital. But in today's war, the 1,419th day is just another in a long one in a tragic and grinding war of attrition, where it is believed each side has lost literally hundreds of thousands.

Source: Cover art from The History of Russia Ukraine War: How Putin & Zelensky reached this stage

Russia definitely has the upper hand and momentum on the battlefield, but it's been a slow and deadly slog, with The Times of London reporting Monday that despite prolonged combat, Russian advances in the Donetsk region amount to roughly 30 miles from their original positions.

Ukraine's armed forces have in large part been propped up by many billions in weapons, training, and funds poured in by NATO and Western backers of Zelensky.

A recent study by the BBC's Russian service and Mediazona - both largely anti-Putin outfits, found that at least 160,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, but the true figure may be significantly higher. It could also be lower, as Western sources have incentive to exaggerate for propaganda purposes (just as Russia would have incentive to underestimate).

At the same time, most international reports and war monitors say Ukraine's casualties could be many times that figure. On both sides, a whole generation of young men is being wiped out.

Efforts to achieve peace by the Trump administration have so far failed, but at least the lines of communications are still open between Washington and Moscow. 

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russian troops are preparing renewed offensives in the north, including areas near the city of Sumy, at a moment the conflict is still only at the legal level of 'special military operation' in the Kremlin's eyes, and not a full state of war which could require societal mobilization.

Over in Ukraine, the war has created the single biggest army in Europe, as recent analysis in The Wall Street Journal detailed: 

When the war with Russia eventually ends, Ukraine will be left with a military larger and with more recent experience than any of its European backers’.

Whether it can outlast Russia’s long-term designs in the event of any peace deal is a question for the entire continent, which now sees Ukraine as a bulwark against Moscow’s ambitions. 

Finding the money and personnel to maintain 800,000 troops and piles of equipment while devising new capabilities will be among the Ukrainian government’s hardest tasks in the immediate aftermath of the war. European Union leaders recently said they would lend Ukraine 90 billion euros, around $105 billion, fending off a looming cash crunch in Kyiv and helping the Ukrainian army keep fighting as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky compete for President Trump’s ear.

Western leaders have meanwhile constantly reiterated their support for Ukraine while accusing Moscow of dragging out the conflict, and yet few have still recognized that Russia is genuine and legitimate in saying constant NATO expansion has led to this.

Trump has at times hinted he understands Moscow's grievances, but has still seemed to escalate behind the scenes, such as authorizing US intelligence assistance to Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside Russian territory.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 23:00

Money And Power: Fiat Currency, Monetary Corruption, & The Architecture Of Extraction

Authored by Justin Pak via The Mises Institute,

Money is often described as neutral, technical, or merely instrumental—a passive medium facilitating exchange within an otherwise political society. This view is not only mistaken; it is profoundly misleading. Money is the hidden constitution of every political order. It determines which actions are possible, which institutions survive, which risks are rewarded, and which failures are forgiven. While constitutions proclaim rights and legislatures debate policy, money silently governs outcomes.

For this reason, the structure of a monetary system is never merely economic. It is moral, political, and civilizational.

From the perspective of Austrian and heterodox political economy, the modern fiat monetary system represents not a refinement of earlier monetary forms but a radical departure from them—one whose defining feature is the removal of constraint. Historically, money emerged as a market phenomenon rather than a state creation. Carl Menger demonstrated that money arises organically as the most saleable commodity within an economy, a process driven by voluntary exchange rather than decree. Ludwig von Mises later formalized this insight through the regression theorem, showing that money must originate in a good valued for its non-monetary uses in order to acquire exchange value at all. Gold and silver did not become money because states declared them so; states declared them money because markets already had.

Fiat money reverses this logic. It does not arise from scarcity or market selection but from legal privilege. Its acceptance depends not on earned trust but on enforcement through legal tender laws, taxation, and institutional inertia. What presents itself as sovereign currency is, in practice, state credit circulating as money. This distinction is not semantic. It marks the difference between a system disciplined by external reality and one governed by discretion.

That discretion is concentrated in the institution of central banking. Central banks are often portrayed as neutral guardians of stability, technocratic referees standing above politics. In reality, they function as cartel managers for the financial system, coordinating outcomes that could not survive under competitive conditions. By suppressing interest rates, guaranteeing liquidity, and acting as lenders of last resort, central banks shield privileged institutions from failure while preserving the appearance of market order. Failure is not abolished; it is postponed. And because it is postponed, it accumulates, growing larger and more destructive with each cycle.

This structure produces an inversion of capitalist discipline. In genuine markets, profit and loss serve as signals, rewarding foresight and penalizing error. Under central banking, profits remain private during credit-fueled expansions, while losses are declared systemic during contractions and transferred to the public through bailouts, inflation, and monetary debasement. Risk-taking is rewarded precisely because it is underwritten; prudence is punished through negative real interest rates and competitive disadvantage. Institutions that restrain leverage are displaced by those that exploit it. What remains is not capitalism but state-protected finance, sustained by political necessity rather than economic viability.

The manipulation of interest rates lies at the heart of this transformation. In classical theory, interest rates coordinate time preferences across society, balancing present consumption against future uncertainty. They are prices, emerging from the interaction of savers and borrowers. In modern fiat systems, interest rates are no longer prices at all. They are policy signals, imposed to achieve macroeconomic targets defined by central planners. This substitution of administrative judgment for market coordination creates a profound monetary hierarchy.

Those closest to the source of money creation enjoy the lowest borrowing costs. Sovereign governments finance deficits cheaply, substituting monetary expansion for taxation. Large banks access central liquidity directly. Major corporations issue debt at compressed spreads, insulated from true risk. As one moves farther from the issuance point, costs rise. Small businesses face higher rates and tighter conditions. Households absorb inflation and credit costs simultaneously. Peripheral nations borrow in foreign currencies, exposed to exchange risk they cannot control. Proximity to money creation becomes a determinant of survival. Access replaces productivity as the primary economic advantage.

Because money enters the economy unevenly, monetary expansion always entails political choice. There is no neutral increase in the money supply. Every expansion selects beneficiaries. The era of quantitative easing made this impossible to deny. Liquidity flowed overwhelmingly into financial assets—equities, bonds, and real estate—while wages lagged and productive investment stagnated. This outcome was publicly justified as a “wealth effect,” the belief that rising asset prices would stimulate broader economic activity. In practice, it functioned as asset patronage, enriching those who already owned capital while widening the gap between financial wealth and earned income.

The productive economy increasingly gave way to financial engineering. Growth appeared robust on balance sheets even as real capacity hollowed out. The illusion of prosperity was sustained by rising asset prices rather than rising productivity. What was described as stabilization was, in reality, a redistribution of claims on future output toward those nearest the monetary spigot.

Creation, however, is only one side of the monetary cycle. Fiat systems must also retrieve money, and they do so through inflation, interest, and dependency. Inflation silently erodes savings, punishing deferred consumption and rewarding leverage. Interest extracts future labor, binding individuals to obligations denominated in a currency whose purchasing power is systematically diluted. Debt concentrates ownership, converting missed payments into asset transfers and accelerating consolidation during downturns. Citizens are increasingly compelled to borrow not to expand opportunity but to survive—to obtain housing, education, healthcare, or even the means to start a business. Debt becomes a mechanism of behavioral control. Default becomes a tool of dispossession.

This system depends on opacity for its survival. Modern monetary regimes are deliberately complex. Emergency facilities are disclosed after the fact. Beneficiaries are obscured. Balance sheets are framed as technical artifacts rather than political instruments. Language is abstracted to discourage scrutiny. Inflation becomes “accommodation.” Bailouts become “liquidity support.” As Murray Rothbard observed, complexity functions as camouflage. A system that cannot withstand transparency relies on obscurity to preserve legitimacy.

The corruption of fiat money does not end at national borders; dollar hegemony globalizes it. Because the US dollar functions as the world’s reserve currency, Federal Reserve policy becomes global monetary policy by default. Foreign states must hold dollars to stabilize trade, borrow in dollars to access capital, and absorb the consequences of US monetary decisions over which they have no control. When the Fed eases, capital floods into emerging markets, inflating bubbles and encouraging dollar-denominated debt. When the Fed tightens, currencies collapse, debts become unpayable, and crises erupt. What appears as domestic stabilization at the center manifests as devastation at the periphery.

This arrangement constitutes a form of seigniorage imperialism. The issuing state acquires real goods, labor, and assets in exchange for liabilities it can expand at will. The costs are exported through exchange-rate volatility, debt crises, and externally imposed austerity. Fiat corruption thus scales globally, transforming monetary dominance into an instrument of geopolitical power.

History offers abundant confirmation. From the credit expansion of the 1920s and the deepening of the Great Depression through intervention, to the abandonment of gold convertibility in 1971 and the explosion of debt that followed, to the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath of bailouts and consolidation, the pattern repeats. Each crisis is framed as exceptional. Each intervention becomes precedent. Each rescue increases fragility. The pandemic-era monetary expansion merely accelerated a trajectory already in motion, normalizing levels of creation once reserved for war.

From a Rothbardian perspective, such a system cannot be reformed. Monopoly over money inevitably produces abuse, not because individuals are uniquely corrupt, but because unchecked discretion always is. The problem is not mismanagement; it is structural. Fiat money—insulated from competition and constraint—transforms money from a medium of exchange into an instrument of hierarchy.

A free society cannot rest on a monetary foundation that requires ignorance to function. Constraint is not the enemy of prosperity; it is its precondition. Without it, prices lie, capital misallocates, and responsibility dissolves. Fiat money does not merely finance power. It becomes power. And when money itself is corrupted, everything built upon it follows.

The ultimate question, then, is not how to manage fiat money more skillfully, but whether liberty can coexist with a monetary order insulated from consent, competition, and consequence. History suggests it cannot.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 22:35

Behind The Utter Failure Of Russian Anti-Air Systems In Venezuela

There are reports that during the Trump-ordered military raid on Venezuela to oust and capture President Nicolás Maduro, at least one US helicopter was hit by surface fire or possibly small missile, but the chopper managed to keep flying - with the pilot wounded - and the damaged aircraft made it back from the mission safely.

But this raised the question: what happened to Venezuela's Russian-supplied anti-air defenses, including S-300 and Buk-M2 surface-to-air missile systems purchased in 2009?

While at this point it is well understood that the US military and CIA had help from inside the Venezuelan government - making it essentially a US-backed coup topped off with a special forces nab and grab against Maduro and his wife, there's still the question of whether the entire Venezuelan armed forces were ordered to stand down, or else that their defense systems simply didn't work or were inactive.

S-300VM system, file image

The New York Times says it was actually more the latter scenario - Russian-built air defense systems stationed in Venezuela were mostly inoperable and did not react to the major initial US strikes which paved the way for the ground operation in Caracas.

When American military aircraft entered Venezuelan airspace on Jan. 3, the missile systems were not even linked to radar, according to US officials privy to the mission to The New York Times.

The publication further explained the systems were not integrated with one another and may have actually been unusable for several years. Satellite imagery and photographs further suggest that critical elements of the air defense systems were being kept in storage rather than deployed.

Interestingly the Ukraine war has played a role, after early in the conflict US defense officials said they would support and supply the Zelensky government in order to 'weaken' Russia by bogging it down in a proxy war.

US officials explained to the Times that Venezuela (and presumably other Russian defense allies) has faced ongoing difficulties maintaining its Russian-made air defenses because of limited access to Russian technicians and spare parts - all of which have had to be diverted to support Russia's 'special military operation' in Ukraine.

Much of the initial US strikes appeared to focus on areas where Buk missile systems had been positioned or stored, and locations close to the capital.

"The Venezuelan armed forces were practically unprepared for the U.S. attack," Yaser Trujillo, a military analyst in Venezuela, told The New York Times.

"Their troops were not dispersed, the detection radar was not activated, deployed or operational. It was a chain of errors that allowed the United States to operate with ease, facing a very low threat from the Venezuelan air defense system," Trujillo added.

And a separate source concludes: 

Venezuela’s much-touted antiaircraft systems were essentially not connected when U.S. forces entered the skies over Venezuela’s capital, and they may not have been working for years, former officials and analysts said.

"After years of corruption, poor logistics and sanctions, all those things would have certainly degraded the readiness of Venezuela’s air defense systems," said Richard de la Torre, a former C.I.A. station chief in Venezuela who now runs Tower Strategy, a Washington-based lobbying firm.

The below OSINT account predicted this outcome back in mid-November:

For some context to those who haven’t been following for a while.
This is Venezuelas S-300 system and its storage at Captain Manuel Rios airbase in Guarico.
The missiles for the unit are stored just 100m away from the vehicles in a hangar.#Venezuela https://t.co/ka06CDPnVt pic.twitter.com/PqlCOZurqS

— CNW (@ConflictsW) November 15, 2025

The report throws open another interesting possibility, with two former US officials stating their view that Moscow may have permitted the systems it sold to Venezuela to fall into disrepair in order to avoid escalating tensions with Washington.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 22:10

10 Commandment Displays Became Law In Texas, Then The Lawsuits Came

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Melissa Martin, a veteran Texas educator with some 30 years of experience, was thrilled when the state passed a law in 2025 that required the state’s 9,000 public schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Lorne Liechty poses with a copy of the Ten Commandments in Rockwall, Texas, on Jan. 8, 2026. Bobby Sanchez for The Epoch Times

For Martin, it was a bright spot—a swing back toward classical education rooted in Western civilization in an otherwise liberal teaching environment.

Her excitement quickly turned to disappointment at the Houston-based public charter school in which she works.

“I was real surprised when they didn’t jump at putting the Ten Commandments up,” she told The Epoch Times.

​Texas’ Senate Bill 10 has sparked the nation’s largest state-led effort to put the Ten Commandments into schools—and it is facing concerted legal challenges. A hearing on the constitutionality of the new law is scheduled before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month.

The Ten Commandments, fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity, are credited with influencing Western values and are the basis for laws against killing, theft, adultery, and perjury.

Martin believes public schools have ignored the significance of foundational works such as the Ten Commandments and their role in preserving “our democratic Republic for future generations.”

She said she is retiring this month, fed up in general with a public education system that she feels has failed students.

As a board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, an alternative to liberal teacher unions, Martin hopes to spend her time establishing a Christian classical school.

Christopher Rhoades, a minister and math teacher in the Alvin Independent School District south of Houston, told The Epoch Times he believes the law is a positive change but worries it could open Pandora’s box.

“I mean, it definitely returns us to a point of values,” he said. “You know, my concern is always with whatever precedent is set. What does it open the door to that I wouldn’t like if someone else was in power?”

Melissa Martin, a veteran educator and board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, supports displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms, citing their influence on Western civilization. Courtesy of Jessica Tucker

The law says public schools “shall display” a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments in a conspicuous place in each classroom. Schools must accept donated posters that meet the law’s specifications but aren’t required to purchase them.

Critics of the law argue that requiring the Ten Commandments to be hung in every classroom violates the separation of church and state and offers little educational value.

Teacher Rachael Preston testified against the bill in Austin last spring.

“I’m curious about how displaying the Ten Commandments … is relevant enough to the teaching of mathematics to be displayed in a math room,” she told state lawmakers.

Sarah Morrison, who taught in public school for 15 years before becoming a math instructor at Paris Junior College, told The Epoch Times via text that she believes the law is unconstitutional.

“As both a Christian and an educator, I believe that requiring the Ten Commandments goes against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and treats Christian faith as the state’s preferred religion instead of recognizing the diversity I see in my classroom every day,” she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Texas chapter quickly challenged the law by filing two lawsuits. Two federal district judges blocked the 25 school districts named in the lawsuits from displaying the posters.

The civil rights organizations filed a third lawsuit in December 2025. This time, the federal class-action lawsuit names another 16 districts and seeks to block all Texas school districts from displaying the Ten Commandments.

Sarah Morrison, math instructor at Paris Junior College in Texas, said she believes the law requiring the Ten Commandments to be hung in every classroom is unconstitutional. Courtesy of Skyler Wilkins

Legal observers believe the issue will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

A case related to a similar Louisiana law and one of the Texas cases are scheduled to be heard by the full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 20, according to the ACLU.

Wider Efforts

The Texas law is part of a larger state effort that has focused on putting God back into schools—a move grassroots conservatives in the red state applaud.

Texas passed a law in 2021 requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust.” In late 2024, the Texas State Board of Education approved the “Bluebonnet Learning” curriculum, which integrates Bible stories and Christian values into K-5 language arts lessons.

In the town of Rockwall, just east of Dallas, attorney Lorne Liechty and his family purchased Ten Commandments posters for their local school district, which serves some 19,000 students. The posters were hung in classrooms before the ACLU filed its lawsuit; they now sit in storage as the issue winds its way through the courts.

Liechty, who had two children attend Rockwall schools, said that besides being good rules to live by, the Ten Commandments are foundational to America and its history.

Liechty, also a Rockwall County Commissioner, said prayer was allowed in school until the early 1960s; and he vividly recalls when his third-grade teacher told him it was outlawed.

“The Ten Commandments, Bible verses, and prayer were taken out of the schools,” he told The Epoch Times. “So I had a chance to try and restore them. I wanted to do that.”

Lawsuits Either Way

The Ten Commandments controversy has left some Texas schools in a quandary.

School districts outside Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio were named in the lawsuits and have been forced to remove Ten Commandments posters.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued school districts in Galveston, Leander, and Round Rock for failing to display donated posters.

“America is a Christian nation, and it is imperative that we display the very values and timeless truths that have historically guided the success of our country,” Paxton said in a news release.

North of Houston, Shepherd Independent School District, which serves about 2,000 students, didn’t need an extra push to post the Ten Commandments.

Rebecca Nix, an administrator with Shepherd schools and a former teacher, said the posters have sparked classroom discussions.

“It’s been good fodder for conversation in some of the high school English classes,” she told The Epoch Times.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 21:35

New Documents Detail Jack Smith's $20K Bribe To Informant

In 2023, then-Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office approved a shady $20,000 payment to a confidential human source for information in the controversial FBI probe, code-named Arctic Frost, which investigated efforts by President Donald Trump and his supporters to challenge the 2020 election results, according to documents FBI Director Kash Patel turned over to Congress this week.

The documents outline the scope and methods of the investigation. An email shows that prosecutorial approval was communicated by Counselor to the Special Counsel, Raymond Hulser, on June 2, 2023. 

The memo states the payment "was discussed by Raymond Hulser and Assistant Special Counsel Julia Gegenheimer with Special Counsel Jack Smith." An FBI agent reached out to Smith's office that same day, writing: "As discussed, request your office's concurrence in our proposed payment of $20,000 for CHS' provision of information in support of the investigation." Hulser's response was brief: "Concur, thank you."

Patel told Just the News that the revelation of the shady payment is the latest proof that the Arctic Frost investigation was an “egregious abuse of power and violation of the law.”

The records show the FBI went all-in trying to make Trump himself a “subject” of the Arctic Frost probe, though that plan was ultimately shot down. The documents also reveal the bureau leaned heavily on liberal media reporting to build its case.

The number of people in Trump’s orbit that were targeted by the investigation is also staggering. Phone data analysis extended to nine Trump allies in Congress, plus his lawyers and outside advisers. TV host Steve Bannon made an FBI list of at least 16 Trump associates whose long-distance phone records underwent scrutiny. Bill Stepien, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Cleta Mitchell, and the late former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik also appeared on that list. Kerik had led a team of investigators focused on alleged irregularities in the 2020 election.

One memo shows the FBI analyzed calls from "more than 50 White House-issued cell phones," not counting Trump's and Vice President Mike Pence's personal devices. Arctic Frost secured an order from U.S. District Judge Boasberg allowing Smith's office to obtain phone records of eight U.S. senators and one congressman. That same order swept up information from hundreds of conservative figures and groups, expanding the scope far beyond the initial targets.

At least two members of Congress have vowed to sue the Justice Department. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee say the investigation violated their congressional privilege and privacy protections under the separation of powers. Other Republican lawmakers describe Arctic Frost's data collection as overly broad and insufficiently tailored. Critics in Congress say the probe resembled a fishing expedition rather than a narrowly targeted investigation, raising Fourth Amendment concerns.

FBI Director Kash Patel explained that the document release is part of a broader FBI effort to make public and available to congressional oversight evidence of law-enforcement misconduct and weaponization, after years of being withheld by previous directors.

"Under my leadership, the FBI is producing documents at record speed to get the facts straight to the American people. What occurred in the Arctic Frost matter was an egregious abuse of power and violation of the law. This FBI is committed to restoring accountability and public trust," he said.

Two former Trump lawyers called the revelations disturbing. Jenna Ellis said the government’s targeting of private citizens for representing Trump “blatantly ignores the Fourth Amendment” and accused Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost probe of crossing a constitutional red line, calling for accountability. 

Cleta Mitchell condemned the use of confidential informants against her and the election integrity movement she has led for five years. She called the surveillance “absolutely shocking” but unsurprising, saying Biden officials repeatedly showed disdain for the Constitution and its protections, and insisted the actions merit investigation.

Ellis and Mitchell urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch an immediate investigation. 

President Trump responded to the revelations on his Truth Social platform. "Deranged Jack Smith should be sitting in prison for all that he has done to disgrace our Country!" he posted. 

Thank God this isn't the Epstein files or we'd never know about it! 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 21:00

"The Globalist Deep State Is In Panic Mode" After Trump's Cash Cut-Off

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State” (which is soon to be massively updated and re-released), thinks evil powers trying to overthrow America are distraught because their money and plans are drying up. 

Newman says, “I think the globalist Deep State is in panic mode, and I think the Left is as well..."

"The operation against Maduro sent a massive shock wave through the global Left.  

I see the global Left as a tentacle of the global Deep State.  It runs right through Venezuela, and it runs right through Minneapolis. 

Let’s not forget what happened in 2020. . .. The so-called uprising was organized by Rockefeller front groups, and these are paid professional revolutionaries.  

Yes, they are useful idiots . . . but they have huge money at their disposal.”

In late November, Newman warned “Leftist Marxists Preparing Now to Take Over America.”  Then, Venezuela President Nicholus Maduro was arrested, and that threw a cold bucket of water on those plans.  Newman points out,

“Venezuela was the cash cow that was funding this entire subversive movement through drugs and oil. 

Donald Trump, in one fell swoop, took out that massive piece of their architecture, and they are pooping bricks. 

They are absolutely terrified about what may come next.”

We already know the payments in the so-called Somali welfare fraud have been cut off by the federal government.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also cutting off billions of dollars of more fraud by changing money transfer rules.  On top of that, Newman says Trump has given a huge blow to the globalist UN climate treaty that also is cutting off big money.  Newman says, 

“The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), this is the foundation of the UN climate regime and Donald Trump just utterly obliterated it.  This is some of the best news we have heard in a very long time.  The UN is very mad, and their chief spokesman is saying the US has a legal obligation to keep paying them.” 

That is not going to happen, which means more cash cut from evil people trying to destroy America.  Newman adds,

“This is just the beginning, and they have done a yearlong review of UN agencies that are useless, anti-American and wasteful.  The first 66 just dropped, and we expect more.  This is Earth shattering news.  This is huge news and really significant.”

The other really significant thing about Venezuela is the voter fraud that has rigged elections in the Western hemisphere for many years.  Newman says, “In Caracas, with Cuban help, they created lots of tools to steal elections..."

" It was not just in Latin America but here in the United States.  There are a lot of people in the Trump Administration who know about this.  I think this was one of the big things on Trump’s mind when he started thinking about what do we do with Venezuela?  We have had multiple whistleblowers come out and confirm almost all of this involvement in voter fraud. 

The big take away here is . . . they created software to rig and steal elections in Latin America and here in the United States, and the Trump Administration knows about it.”

There is much more in the 60-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org, where he talks about the increasing violence by the globalist Deep State to take down America and why they are prepping for civil war now.  Newman is also the author of the newly released book “Woke and Weaponized.”  This is a stark warning for all parents about the communist plan to control and brainwash the next generation in our public schools for 1.10.26.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 19:45

DoJ Charges Venezuelan Illegal Over Border Patrol Vehicle Ramming Attack

Fox News reporter Bill Melugin reports that the Department of Justice has charged a Venezuelan national, who was shot by Border Patrol in the Portland metro area last Thursday, with aggravated assault on a federal officer with a deadly weapon after allegedly using his red pickup truck to ram a federal vehicle. This follows the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis that left one far-left activist dead. Additionally, attacks on federal agents are on the rise.

Melugin further explained how the DoJ arrived at the charges and provided additional color about the ramming attack carried out by the illegal, who is allegedly tied to the Tren de Aragua (FTO designation):

DOJ has just charged the Venezuelan illegal alien shot by Border Patrol in Portland on Thursday with 18 USC 111 (aggravated assault of a federal officer w/ a deadly weapon), and they've provided photos of the badly damaged BP vehicle they say he rammed several times during the targeted arrest. According to DOJ, LUIS NINO-MONCADA, allegedly affiliated with Tren de Aragua, admitted to intentionally using a red pickup truck to ram the federal vehicle, said he knew they were immigration agents, and said "fuck ICE" while having a tourniquet applied to his gunshot wound by medics. DOJ says MONCADA was ordered deported by an immigration judge in Denver, CO in November 2024.

According to the criminal complaint, the actual target of Border Patrol's operation was MONCADA's female associate, Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, a Venezuelan illegal alien and suspected TdA associate who was caught and released at the Texas border by the Biden administration in September 2023. She was ordered to check in at an ICE officer after release, but never did, making her subject to immigration arrest. DOJ says she is also believed to be involved with a Tren de Aragua prostitution ring, and was connected to a July 2025 shooting in Washington County during a prostitution deal that went bad.

FOX is told that Zambrano-Contreras is also now in federal custody, and is being charged by DOJ in the Western District of Texas with 8 USC 1325, illegal entry by an alien (yes, crossing the border illegally is a federal crime).

BREAKING: DOJ has just charged the Venezuelan illegal alien shot by Border Patrol in Portland on Thursday with 18 USC 111 (aggravated assault of a federal officer w/ a deadly weapon), and they've provided photos of the badly damaged BP vehicle they say he rammed several times… pic.twitter.com/3Ciy1EZd35

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 12, 2026

Melugin posted a snippet of the DoJ federal complaint:

From the DOJ federal complaint as to what happened when Border Patrol initiated a traffic stop to make the arrest. pic.twitter.com/BkIc7LIEoD

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 12, 2026

"He should NEVER have been in our country to begin with, and we will ensure he NEVER walks free in America again," Attorney General Pamela Bondi wrote on X.

Anyone who crosses the red line of assaulting law enforcement will be met with the full force of this Justice Department.

According to a newly unsealed complaint, Luis Nino-Moncada — an illegal alien in Portland, Oregon with ties to Tren de Aragua — is alleged to have repeatedly… pic.twitter.com/uC6rk4Uode

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 12, 2026

Related:

• Minneapolis ICE Shooting Shows Left Wing's Protest Industrial Complex Wants Another 'George Floyd'-Type Riot

The Venezuelan illegal alien with ties to TdA is exactly the type of person the Democratic Party is protecting. The party’s left wing has made it clear it puts everyone except American citizens first.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 19:20

The post Donald Trump, Mineral Man, vs. Sodium Batteries appeared first on CEPR.

The post Three Bad Items and Three Good Items in the December Jobs Report appeared first on CEPR.

South Korea To Lift Ban On Corporate Crypto Investment: Report

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) is reportedly updating its guidelines to allow corporations to invest in digital assets after a nine-year ban. 

Listed companies and professional investors will be able to invest up to 5% of their equity capital in crypto assets, reported local news outlet Seoul Economic Daily on Sunday. 

According to the report, a senior FSC official familiar with the matter said the authorities will “release the final guidelines in January [or] February and allow virtual currency transactions for investment and financial purposes by legal entities.”

The move overturns a nine-year ban on corporate crypto investment dating back to 2017, when financial authorities banned institutional participation amid concerns over money laundering.

However, investments will be limited to the top 20 crypto assets by market capitalization and can only be made on Korea’s five largest regulated exchanges. 

The inclusion of dollar-pegged stablecoins such as Tether’s USDT is still being discussed, the report noted. 

The FSC shared the latest guidelines with its crypto working group on Jan. 6 and first announced plans for a phased approach to easing rules for corporate crypto investments in February 2025.  

Potential bullish impact on Korean markets 

The move could bring tens of trillions of won into crypto markets. South Korean internet giant Naver, which has 27 trillion won ($18.4 billion) in equity capital, could theoretically buy 10,000 BTC, according to the report. 

It added that the launch of a national stablecoin and spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds is also expected to be accelerated once the corporate investment capacity is secured. Support for crypto ETFs has been building across the country, but regulatory approval remains stalled. 

The move could also result in an expansion of local crypto companies, blockchain startups, and digital asset treasuries (DATs) while boosting domestic investment in digital assets. 

Large South Korean companies have been forced to invest overseas to avoid local restrictions, it added. 

CBDC and stablecoins focus of the economic strategy

The outlet reported on Friday that the South Korean government announced an ambitious digital currency strategy with a primary goal of executing 25% of all national treasury funds through a central bank digital currency (CBDC) by 2030.

The initiative, which is part of the 2026 Economic Growth Strategy, also involves introducing a licensing system for stablecoin issuers, such as Tether, requiring 100% reserve asset backing and legally guaranteeing users’ redemption rights. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 18:55

Mexico Reports Positive Conversation With Trump On Security, Drug Trafficking

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Jan. 12 that she had a productive dialogue with President Donald Trump on efforts to combat drug trafficking and other issues of mutual concern.

“We had a very good conversation with the President of the United States, Donald Trump,” Sheinbaum wrote in a post on X on Monday.

“We discussed various topics, including security, with respect for our sovereignty, reducing drug trafficking, trade, and investment. Collaboration and cooperation within a framework of mutual respect always yield results.”

As The Epoch Times' Ryan Morgan reports, the conversation between the two heads of state comes as Trump has raised pressure on Mexico and other Latin American states to increase cooperation with the United States, particularly in efforts to curb drug trafficking.

After U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a pre-dawn raid on Jan. 3, Trump said Mexico needs to “get its act together” when dealing with drug cartels and reiterated offers to send U.S. forces to assist in such efforts.

On Jan. 8, Trump raised the stakes further, suggesting U.S. military strikes could focus on land-based cartel targets in Mexico in the future.

Thus far, Sheinbaum has been opposed to U.S. military action in Mexico.

Speaking with reporters at a Monday press conference, Sheinbaum said she and Trump again discussed a U.S. force deployment to Mexico and said Trump was understanding as she reiterated her opposition to such a move.

“He didn’t insist either; rather, it was in the tone of, ‘If you want us to help you more with our forces in Mexico,’ I told him, ‘Well, no, I’ve already told you several times that that’s not on the table,’ but we continue to collaborate within the framework of our sovereignties,” Sheinbaum recounted of the conversation.

The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment on the call between Trump and Sheinbaum but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a separate call with Mexican Foreign Secretary Juan Ramón de la Fuente on Jan. 11.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the two discussed “the need for stronger cooperation to dismantle Mexico’s violent narcoterrorist networks and stop the trafficking of fentanyl and weapons.”

“Secretary Rubio reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to stopping narcoterrorism and stressed the need for tangible results to protect our homeland and hemisphere.”

Colombia and Cuba also face increased pressure from a Trump administration emboldened by the Maduro raid.

Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro have traded barbs in recent weeks, with the U.S. president faulting his Colombian counterpart for not cooperating closely enough on efforts to stamp out Colombia’s cocaine production.

Last week, Trump reported a productive phone conversation with Petro and indicated plans to host him at the White House in the near future.

U.S. pressure on Cuba remains high.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Sunday, said he had cut Cuba off from Venezuela’s oil supply.

“There will be no more oil or money going to Cuba—zero! I strongly suggest they make a deal, before it is too late,” Trump wrote in mostly all caps.

The United States has limited its engagement with the Cuban leadership for decades, after the Caribbean island nation came under communist control following Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

In a press statement following Trump’s latest comments, Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said U.S.-Cuba relations “must be based on International Law rather than on hostility, threats, and economic coercion.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/12/2026 - 18:30