Trump DOJ Admits Venezuela's 'Cartel De Los Soles' Isn't An Actual Organization

A major plank in the Trump administration's case for military intervention in Venezuela is looking thinner today, as the Department of Justice has retreated from the notion that captured President Nicolas Maduro was the head of an organized drug cartel called Cartel de los Soles. The DOJ now says the term "Cartel de los Soles" is merely descriptive of a "culture of corruption" fueled by the illegal drug trade.

This isn't semantics: Both the Treasury and State Departments had officially designated the non-existent group as a terrorist organization. The latest development seems to at least partially confirm doubts raised by outside observers and lend credence to denials by the Venezuelan government. In November, the country's foreign minister said he "absolutely rejects the new and ridiculous fabrication" by which Secretary of State Marco Rubio had "designated the non-existent Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated the non-existent "Cartel de los Soles" a terror organization in the run-up to intervention in Venezuela (pool photo)

The retreat from the idea that Cartel de los Soles is an actual organization was apparent in the DOJ's filing of a superseding (updated) indictment. The previous indictment referred to the supposed cartel 32 times, naming Maduro as its chief. The new one only mentions the term twice, and says it's only descriptive of a "patronage system" and a "culture of corruption" propelled by drug money. That's consistent with the fact that the DEA's annual National Drug Threat Assessment has never mentioned any "Cartel de los Soles" in its cataloguing of major traffickers.  

In July, the Treasury sanctioned Cartel de los Soles as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," claiming it was a "criminal group headed by...Maduro." The "cartel" was accused of providing material support to two groups already on U.S. terrorist lists: Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua. Of course, those terrorist designations are themselves controversial, with critics saying the government is purposefully conflating criminality and terrorism. The latter term has long been understood to describe violence directed at civilians with the goal of achieving a political or ideological goal. Historically, exaggerated use of the term has largely been confined to the left.   

The DEA's annual National Drug Threat Assessment catalogues major drug cartels, but has never mentioned a "Cartel de los Soles" 

Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at the International Crisis Group, said the new indictment properly uses "Cartel de los Soles" -- essentially a slang term. "But the [terrorist] designations are still far from reality. Designations don’t have to be proved in court, and that’s the difference. Clearly, they knew they could not prove it in court,” she told the New York Times. Despite the DOJ's retreat, Rubio was still using the same rhetoric on Sunday, referring to "Cartel do los Soles" as a "criminal organization," with Maduro the "leader of that cartel." 

There was something important missing altogether from the superseding indictment: While cocaine is mentioned 67 times, there isn't a single reference to fentanyl, a drug the administration and allied Venezuela hawks repeatedly referenced in justifying the demolition of alleged Venezuelan drug-boats, and the broader drive for regime change. All along, critics pointed out that Venezuela has never been a meaningful producer or conduit of fentanyl, which is something even the DEA will tell you. 

After the raid on Venezuela, Vice President JD Vance attempted to counter ridicule of the administration's claimed drug-related motives  -- much of which is coming from the growing, non-interventionist segment of the American right. "Cocaine, which is the main drug trafficked out of Venezuela, is a profit center for all of the Latin America cartels. If you cut out the money from cocaine (or even reduce it) you substantially weaken the cartels overall. Also, cocaine is bad too!" 

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell makes a case to the UN that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (Reuters)

Comparing Trump's rhetoric to that of George W. Bush in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Maduro last year accused the administration of crafting "a bizarre narrative," since it couldn't accuse Venezuela of hiding weapons of mass destruction. In December, Maduro's comparison grew more apt when Trump creatively declared illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to be "weapons of mass destruction."  While many MAGA conservatives who repudiate the Iraq war and other neocon interventions have been cheering on Trump's Venezuela raid, some may be starting to find the parallels are stronger than they're comfortable with.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 06:55

Major Data Breaches Put Hundreds Of Thousands Of New Zealanders At Risk

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

Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders could have their personal information exposed online after hackers breached two major websites and stole large amounts of data.

In this photo illustration, hacker types on a computer keyboard on May 13, 2025. Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

In the first case, a group calling itself Kazu announced it had obtained records from the Manage My Health (MMH) website, an online portal that connects patients with doctors and healthcare providers and allows them to access health information, book appointments, and order repeat prescriptions.

The website collects and manages sensitive information about patients.

Some released samples by the hacker reportedly included information about patients’ conditions, medical test results, clinical notes, vaccination records, medical photographs and personal identification details.

Initially, the hackers demanded a $60,000 ransom to stop them from releasing the more than 400,000 files online by Jan. 15, 2026.

However, on Jan. 4, the group said on its Telegram channel that it had brought forward the payment deadline to Jan. 6, citing MMH’s quick response to the hack and an alleged lack of concern for patients’ data.

“Their ignorance of our emails and messages, along with their failure to acknowledge users or explain exactly what happened, is the main issue,” the group Kazu wrote on Telegram.

“Many MMH users have been asking the company for an explanation, but they’ve either ignored them or responded with vague statements.

“That’s why we decided to reduce the deadline and put pressure on the company.”

Hacker Group Wants A ‘Minimum’ Ransom

At the same time, Kazu explained that the group decided to settle for a “minimum” ransom of $60,000 instead of the initial amount of $300,000 “to protect the data and quickly close the deal.”

Kazu also threatened to leak the files if the ransom was not paid in the next 48 hours.

The most recent threat to release the confidential health data of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders from the ransomware group Kazu's Telegram channel. Screenshot/The Epoch Times. MMH’s Response

In an update on Jan. 3, MHH announced that the company had fixed the security gap and strengthened data protection.

“We’ve identified and closed the specific gaps that allowed unauthorised access. This fix has been independently tested and verified by external cybersecurity experts,” it said.

“We’ve added extra checks when people log in and limited how many times someone can try to access the system in a short time.

“All health documents have been re-secured and their storage has been strengthened.”

The company also noted that the website’s system environment was now secure and operated as intended.

MHH expected 6-7 percent of its estimated 1.8 million users were affected by the incident amid an ongoing investigation.

“We expect to start notifying those affected following confirmation of forensics and liaison with PHOs and GPs to ensure that individuals are getting the right information, in line with Privacy Act requirements, and are properly supported,” it said.

“The forensic team is continuing work to confirm our analysis of the specific documents involved. Completion of this step will enable us to proceed with more targeted communications to affected parties and we will start informing people directly from early next week.”

Meanwhile, New Zealand Health Minister Simeon Brown said his ministry was reviewing the breach.

“I know this breach will be very concerning to the many New Zealanders who use Manage My Health, and we need assurances around the protection and security of people’s health data,” Brown said in a statement.

“Patient data is incredibly personal, and whether it is held by a public agency or a private company, it must be protected to the highest of standards.”

The minister also noted that the review would be conducted no later than Jan. 30, with a focus on an “immediate response to the incident.”

Neighbourly Data Breach

In an unrelated but similar incident, the personal details of users of a large “community noticeboard” type website called Neighbourly have also been offered for sale on the dark web.

People use the site to make announcements, contact other members, and buy and sell items.

The site is run by media company Stuff, which runs several newspapers and a news website, and provides a daily news bulletin for one of the country’s TV networks.

According to The Daily Dark Web, a website that monitors activity on the dark web, about 150GB of data was stolen from Neighbourly by an unnamed threat actor, including full names and physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, GPS coordinates, user biographies, and private messages.

Neighbourly was shut down on New Year’s Day and restored recently, with the site confirming the breach on Jan. 3.

In a message to its users, Neighbourly operating team apologised for the incident and informed them that the data breach had been contained.

“Following best practice, we will look to seek a court injunction against any use of the material,” the team said.

“We want to apologise to our members for this occurrence and any concerns it may have caused you over the past few days.

“We will work closely with all our staff to ensure we have the most robust processes in place to prevent it from happening again.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 06:30

Visualizing The Decline Of Global Wine Production (And Consumption)

Wine production and consumption have entered a sustained decline over the last decade.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, tracks how global wine output, consumption, and trade have evolved since 2015.

The data for this visualization comes from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). It tracks production, consumption, and imports from 2015 through 2024, measured in billions of liters.

Wine Production Hits a Decade Low

Global wine production peaked intermittently during the late 2010s, reaching nearly 30 billion liters in 2018.

Since then, output has steadily fallen, dropping to just 22.6 billion liters in 2024. That represents an almost 19% decline over the nine-year period.

Extreme weather events, including droughts, heatwaves, and late frosts, have disrupted harvests in major wine-producing regions. At the same time, rising costs and tighter environmental regulations are adding pressure to growers worldwide.

Consumption Declines More Gradually

While production has fallen sharply, global wine consumption has declined at a slower pace. Total consumption dropped from about 24.1 billion liters in 2015 to 21.4 billion liters in 2024, a decline of roughly 11%.

Health-conscious lifestyles, aging populations in traditional wine markets, and younger consumers drinking less alcohol overall are contributing factors.

Global Trade Shows Signs of Softening

Wine imports have also edged lower, falling about 6.5% over the same period.

After peaking above 11 billion liters in the early 2020s, global wine trade slipped below 10 billion liters by 2023 and 2024.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Which Country Consumes the Most Coffee? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 05:45

Electric Cars Make Up Nearly 96% Of New Car Sales In Norway

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In 2025, electric cars accounted for 95.9 percent of all new cars sold in Norway, the Norwegian Road Traffic Information Council (OFV) said in a statement on Jan. 2.

The Tesla logo on the hood of a car in Oslo, Norway, on Nov. 10, 2022. Victoria Klesty/Reuters

“This means that the goal set by politicians 10 years ago has been achieved: New car sales in Norway are now emission-free,” it said. A total of 179,550 new passenger cars were registered last year, breaking the previous annual record set in 2021.

“2025 was also the year when the number of electric cars surpassed the number of diesel cars and became the largest powertrain in the total passenger car population,” the statement said.

For December 2025 specifically, 35,188 new passenger cars were registered in the country, with electric cars accounting for 97.6 percent of these vehicles, a sign of how EVs “now dominate new car sales” in the country, OFV said.

Norway, with a population of around 5.53 million, is a high-income country, according to Harvard data. With a GDP per capita of $87,702, the nation is the third-richest ⁩per capita among 145 countries. Norway’s oil wealth helps sustain its welfare system.

Tesla consolidated its position as “Norway’s largest car brand” last year, with a record 34,285 new passenger cars registered—a 19.1 percent market share, roughly one in five new cars.

Tesla’s Model Y set an annual record last year, hitting 27,621 first-time registrations, which is the “highest number ever registered for a single car model in Norway in one year,” according to OFV.

Chinese companies also saw their share in Norway’s EV market rise last year. A total of 24,524 new passenger cars registered last year were of Chinese origin. This accounted for 13.7 percent of new car sales, up from 10.4 percent the previous year, according to the council. The biggest Chinese car brand was BYD.

“2025 has been a very special car year. We see the effect of long-term and targeted electric car policy, and how specific tax decisions have immediate effects on the market,” OFV Director Geir Inge Stokke said.

“The final sprint towards the end of the year has been historically strong, and there is no doubt that the VAT change from January 1, 2026, has contributed to a great many choosing to secure a new electric car before the year was over.”

As for the European Union overall, electric cars accounted for 16.9 percent of the EU new car registrations for the January–November 2025 period, according to a Dec. 23, 2025, statement from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association.

The biggest markets for new EV registrations in the EU were Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, with registrations in Germany jumping over 41 percent year-over-year.

However, hybrid-electric cars remained the “preferred choice among EU consumers,” accounting for 34.6 percent of new registrations, more than double the share of electric cars, the association said.

While EV sales in the EU remain robust, the picture is different in the United States.

New U.S. EV sales in November 2025 are estimated to total 70,255 units, down 41.2 percent from a year ago, industry expert Cox Automotive said in a Dec. 15 statement. Compared to October 2025, November sales were down 5.2 percent.

Cox attributed the slump to the expiration of a federal tax credit.

The New Clean Vehicle Tax Credit granted buyers of new EVs up to $7,500 in incentives. The measure was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022.

President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law in July 2025, ending the credits on Sept. 30 of that year.

“Market share reached multi-year lows as sales declined. Weak demand fueled a surge in inventory, with days’ supply reaching elevated levels. Pricing eased across the market, underscoring an industry struggling to find balance in the post-incentive era,” Cox said.

“As we head into 2026, the EV market will continue navigating post-incentive challenges, with inventory and pricing dynamics shaping near-term performance.”

As for the overall new-vehicle sales situation in the United States, Cox estimates the number will reach 16.3 million units in 2025, up by almost 2 percent from 2024 and the “best result since 2019,” the company said in a Dec. 17 statement.

For 2026, Cox predicts new-vehicle sales pace to decline by 2.4 percent to 15.8 million units, highlighting factors such as the lack of EV tax incentives.

While Tesla saw sales jump in Norway, its global performance has taken a hit. In 2025, the company delivered 1.64 million units, according to a Jan. 2 statement. This is down 8.3 percent from 1.79 million deliveries in 2024.

Tesla shares fell by 2.59 percent on Jan. 2.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 05:00

Russia Straps MANPADS Missile On Shahed Drone To Counter Attack Helicopters 

Low-cost drones have transformed modern warfare forever during the nearly four-year-long Russia-Ukraine war. These commercially available systems have been used to strike cities, power grids, ports, refineries, and military bases, delivering maximum impact at minimal cost.

The evolution of these drones is notable as well. One major issue that drones on both sides of the battlefield have faced is counter-drone operations involving electronic warfare, interceptor drones, fighter jets, and attack helicopters. However, none have yet proven consistently effective at scale.

In response, both sides have increasingly deployed attack helicopters to hunt drones, using machine guns and missiles to shoot them down at close range.

To deter enemy aircraft, the Russians apparently have mounted a shoulder-fired man-portable air defense missile on top of an Iranian-designed loitering munition known as a Shahed-136.

Military blog Army Recognition states Ukrainian forces have "intercepted for the first time a Shahed drone fitted with an Igla-S MANPADS missile."

Here’s more color on the first publicly documented case of a MANPADS missile mounted on a Shahed drone for air defense purposes:

On January 4, 2026, the Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces stated that fighters from the Darknode Battalion of the 412th Nemesis Brigade intercepted a Russian Shahed-type kamikaze drone fitted with an Igla-S man-portable air defense system. This variant, observed for the first time during the war, carried a camera and a radio modem, allowing the missile to be launched remotely by an operator located on Russian territory to threaten Ukrainian helicopters and low-flying aircraft involved in counter-drone interception.

Ukraine may now have to allocate more air defense assets and counter-UAS resources to deal with such a threat, as MANPADS-armed drones could potentially serve as a decentralized air defense layer for Russia's advancing forces. (Picture source: Ukrainian MoD)

According to Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian military and technical expert, the missile launch was not automatically but manually triggered by the Shahed operator using the onboard camera feed and radio link. This new variant was assessed as being intended to engage Ukrainian helicopters and other low-flying aircraft that had previously intercepted Russian drones at close range using machine guns or cannons. Army aviation crews were warned to avoid approaching Shahed drones on a head-on course and to be particularly cautious when encountering drones flying in circular or loitering patterns, which were interpreted as potential attempts to draw aircraft into missile engagement zones. Ukrainian units also indicated that examination of the tactics associated with this configuration was ongoing in order to adapt interception procedures.

The rapid evolution of low-cost drones is a concerning development, and it is almost certainly only a matter of time before such drones appear in the Americas. Drug cartels in Mexico are already known to have deployed smaller ones for surveillance and attacks.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 04:15

Germany's Middle Class Under Siege In 2026

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Save in times of plenty, and you’ll have in times of need. An old German proverb, now proving tragically prophetic. The hardship caused by a completely derailed climate-socialist ideology is only just beginning. This socialist experiment is likely to continue ravaging the country until its economic substance is entirely consumed.

The new year begins as the old one ended: a fiscal raid on the wallets of the middle class. In Brussels and Berlin, there is satisfaction that citizens have been quietly, without spectacle, subjected to yet more tax increases—whose revenues, like a rising tide, lift all ships only slightly.

On January 1, the CO₂ price per ton of emitted gas rose from €55 to €65. This levy, applied to fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and heating oil, threads like a red line through the entire value chain—even reaching private households’ bills. The green extraction mechanism is now firmly entrenched, funding Brussels’ expanding activities increasingly, and is defended tooth and nail by the ruling politicians.

The Lie of Tax Relief 

When the federal government celebrates its minimal tax relief for lower- and middle-income groups, reality tells a different story. In truth, these relentless fiscal collectors are increasing the tax burden further. Only the distracting work of state-affiliated media prevents the growing hyperstate’s costs from becoming fully visible.

2026 is set to become an expensive year for Germany’s shrinking middle class, visible soon on the first paycheck of the year. That will reveal the true cost of an overextended welfare state and the one-of-a-kind experiment of transforming Germany’s social insurance system into a quasi-global insurance scheme.

Never since World War II has the German middle class faced such fiscal and economic pressure.

The Burden of State Subsidies on the Middle Class 

The countless subsidies and state interventions financing the complex “green arts” sector, the Ukraine war, and now the military buildup constitute a direct attack on the German middle class. Businesses and net taxpayers pay an ever-rising “blood price” each year to sustain Berlin’s and Brussels’ ideological and power ambitions.

The still-active renewable energy subsidy program, the EEG, alone consumes over €16 billion this year for an energy grid that, since the end of nuclear power, no longer provides a secure base for industrial production, sending both industrial and household electricity costs to dizzying heights. Trittin’s “ice ball” has become a cost Himalaya no one can climb.

Germany’s seven-year industrial decline, which is now accelerating, precisely chronicles the path of the deliberate destruction of its industrial base. Nearly 300,000 industrial jobs have been lost since 2018—tragic, yet apparently of little concern to Berlin’s policymakers.

Local city treasurers, however, are feeling the pain: as corporate tax revenues collapse under industrial destruction, citizens can expect cuts in public services and steep tax hikes. Schools, kindergartens, sports facilities—all face drastic savings. A big “thank you” goes to Berlin central planning.

Industry on the Edge: Loans Fizzle 

What Friedrich Merz, Ursula von der Leyen, and other central planners aim for is clear: using state loans to occupy freed-up industrial capacities. Yet no matter how much funding flows into the new social program under the banner of a special fund for green and military production—the effect has already fizzled. In December, the entire Eurozone industrial sector, measured by current Purchasing Managers’ Indices (PMI), slipped into recession. Germany has been continuously downsizing its industry for seven years.

A victory for Brussels’ central planners, whose goal appears to be the economic and geopolitical neutralization of the country. After years of deindustrialization and waves of bankruptcies, this strategy is hard to interpret otherwise. Germany’s PMI now sits at 47 points—clearly in contraction. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost this year. Last year alone, 24,000 companies went bankrupt. Exact figures for job and net direct investment outflows are not yet available; in 2024, €64.5 billion flowed out of Germany. German industry is no longer competitive.

Quick Blame Game 

The culprits are quickly identified. U.S. tariffs, a favorite topic of sympathetic media, are often cited, though the crisis began long before Donald Trump. Dumping competition from China is also highlighted. While this is a factor, 99 percent of Germany’s economic problems are homegrown.

No one forced the country to keep its borders wide open for a decade, pushing its social insurance to the brink of collapse—all to create new voter bases for the united political left and to break resistance from the bourgeois right.

Shrinking Middle Class and Falling Investments 

This trend is reflected in the middle class. The DATEV SME Index shows falling real revenues across all sectors, particularly trade, construction, and consumer services. Investments are nearly frozen: only 20 percent of companies plan rising investments, according to LBBW’s SME radar for the coming year.

The ideological green agenda has left its mark. High electricity costs, falling incomes, and persistent inflation are bleeding the middle class dry. Retail felt this for the first time during Christmas: nominal sales rose 1.5 percent, yet real sales fell by 1 percent in the peak month.

Economic stress will be a constant companion for Germany’s middle class in 2026. High property prices, zero real interest on savings, and rapid erosion of economic substance collide with an ever-expanding state. Bureaucracy and the state apparatus are evolving into a parasitic leviathan, funded by a shrinking number of contributors.

Consequences for Industry, Trade, and City Centers 

Too much depends on Germany’s high industrial value creation: service businesses, high factor incomes, and secure municipal finances—all are now being lost, reflected in city centers.

Where once life flourished, roughly 5,000 retailers die every year, an irretrievable loss. The desolation mirrors what citizens feel in their wallets: the ebb has begun.

The middle class’s evaporating purchasing power is most visible in hospitality, where families cut costs first. Hotels lost 3.7 percent in real revenue in 2025, while restaurants and bars fell 4.1 percent year-on-year. Households are saving wherever possible. High energy costs, rising social charges, and a weakening job market leave a trail of economic decline.

Missed Lessons: The Population and the Crisis 

Structural economic crises take time to penetrate public consciousness. Most households first tighten belts without complaint.

The state exploits this calm before the storm to consume citizens’ wealth faster than the private sector can compensate. With net new debt over 5.5 percent this year—including accounting tricks—this is particularly evident. The devotion of a portion of the population to ideological doctrine becomes an expensive, destructive tragedy.

Germany faces a nation unprepared to draw necessary lessons: reversing migration policy, adapting the bloated state apparatus to new economic realities, and downsizing accordingly. A turn toward a meritocratic market economy remains absent.

Until these lessons are learned and acted upon, Germany will continue to fall.

* * * 

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 03:30

English Remains The World's Most-Spoken Language

Language plays a central role in shaping global communication, culture, and economic exchange. While some languages dominate due to large native-speaking populations, others achieve global reach through widespread adoption as a second language.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, compares the native and non-native usage of the world’s most spoken languages in 2025, using data from Ethnologue.

The World’s Most Spoken First and Second Languages

English is the most spoken language with approximately 1.53 billion speakers worldwide.

However, just 390 million people speak English as their first language, meaning nearly 75% of English speakers use it as a second language, making it the dominant global lingua franca across industries and professions.

The table below shows native and non-native speaker counts for the world’s most spoken languages in 2025:

In total, about 18.8% of the world’s population speaks English, but only a quarter of those are native speakers.

Mandarin Chinese ranks second with roughly 1.18 billion speakers.

In contrast to English, Mandarin is primarily spoken as a first language, with more than 83% of its speakers being native.

Hindi and Spanish follow as the next most spoken languages worldwide. Hindi has around 609 million speakers, split more evenly between native and non-native usage due to India’s multilingual population.

Spanish stands out as one of the most widely spoken native languages globally, with nearly 87% of its speakers using it as their first language. Spoken Spanish is concentrated across Spain, Latin America, and parts of the United States.

If you enjoyed today’s post, explore more language and culture insights on Voronoi, including The Most Used Languages on the Internet.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 02:45

Swiss Authorities Freeze Assets Linked To Venezuela's Maduro After US Capture

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Switzerland said on Jan. 5 that it has frozen all assets held in the country by deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his associates.

After Maduro’s arrest in Caracas by U.S. forces and his subsequent transfer to the United States, Swiss authorities imposed a precautionary measure designed to prevent the removal of any illegally acquired assets from the country.

The order is effective immediately and valid for four years. It is unclear how much the assets are worth.

The Swiss government said Venezuela’s situation was volatile, with a range of possible developments in the coming weeks.

Bern added that it was closely following events, urging moderation and de-escalation, and standing ready to provide its good offices to advance a peaceful outcome.

“Switzerland calls for de-escalation, restraint, and compliance with international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of respect for territorial integrity,” the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on X.

The decision is based on the Federal Act on the Freezing and the Restitution of Illicit Assets Held by Foreign Politically Exposed Persons.

It does not affect current members of the Venezuelan regime.

“Should future legal proceedings reveal that the funds were illicitly acquired, Switzerland will endeavour to ensure that they benefit the Venezuelan people,” Swiss authorities said.

This, officials say, is not an endorsement of the U.S. military operation, but a recognition of the loss of power that now allows the country to pursue legal assistance proceedings to reclaim the frozen assets.

The asset freeze is in addition to sanctions imposed against Caracas since 2018 under the Embargo Act.

Previous Actions

In December, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned several family members and associates of the Maduro-Flores family.

As a result, all properties and assets belonging to the designated individuals that are in the United States or controlled by U.S. persons were frozen.

“Treasury sanctioned individuals who are propping up Nicolás Maduro’s rogue narco-state. We will not allow Venezuela to continue flooding our nation with deadly drugs,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a news release.

“Maduro and his criminal accomplices threaten our hemisphere’s peace and stability. The Trump administration will continue targeting the networks that prop up his illegitimate dictatorship.”

Over the years, Washington has implemented broad sanctions on Venezuela’s central bank, the Maduro government’s access to U.S. financial markets, and state oil company PDVSA.

Others have also implemented asset freezes, sanctions, and embargoes on Venezuelan officials linked to the Maduro regime and other individuals, including the European Union, Canada, and Mexico.

While Switzerland has already imposed sanctions on Caracas, it is so far the only nation to announce the freezing of assets after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were detained by the United States.

For years, Switzerland’s banking sector has been a key destination for political leaders and high-risk individuals to park their wealth.

It is an attractive location due to its strong banking foundation, immense wealth-management industry, and political stability.

Bern has also appeared in investigative journalism, leaks, and watchdog reports.

In 2022, for example, leaked client data from Credit Suisse spotlighted bank accounts connected to sanctioned individuals, corrupt officials, and clients engaged in illicit activities.

Swiss financial regulator FINMA launched an inquiry into the leak and compliance failures.

Tyler Durden Tue, 01/06/2026 - 02:00

Rugged Individualism Vs Collectivism Vs Community: The Truth About 'The Right'

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

Much has been made over the past several days about a jarring line uttered by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani in his inaugural address last week.

“We will,” the city’s first “Democratic Socialist” mayor promised/threatened, “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Understandably—and rightly—most of the criticism of this line (and its speaker) has centered on its mortifying and inarguable whitewashing of the term “collectivism.” Collectivism—at least as it has been used for the last 150 years—refers specifically to the political manifestations of mass ideologies, mostly Marxist in origin, but including fascism and Nazism as well. Hence, its historical record is one of repeated failure and continual mass murder. In just six decades—from 1917 to 1977—collectivism in its various forms produced the deaths of upwards of a quarter of a billion civilian men, women, and children, from Russia to Germany to Cambodia. Add in the casualties of various wars, and the total is even larger and more abominable.

Given all of this, Mamdani’s use and attempted rehabilitation of the term were viewed by many observers (of all political persuasions) as either the height of ignorance or an expression of solidarity with true and profound evil.

Either way, that’s not a great look for the new, democratically elected leader of the largest city in the country and the center of global finance.

But while both traditional and social media are filled with comments on and repudiations of Mamdani’s embrace of collectivism, what concerns me more, but has drawn far less rebuke, is the false dichotomy he fabricates in articulating that embrace. Worse still, some of those who profess to oppose his ideology and the perniciousness of collectivism nonetheless accept that dichotomy, conceding his definition of the competing and conflicting visions. They thereby demonstrate both their ignorance of history and the challenges that confront civil society as it fights to prevent its destruction by Mamdani and his ilk.

To start, it is vital to note that the “individualism” that Mamdani decries is largely a mythological beast, no more real than the Scylla or Charybdis. Not only are societies today neither built around nor devoted exclusively to individuals, but they never have been. “Man is by nature a social animal,” Aristotle wrote, and “an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human… Society is something that precedes the individual.” And thus has it always been. To be clear, “rugged individualists” tend not to cluster together in groups of nearly 8.5 million just so they can be told what to do and how to live by a failed rapper who has never held a real job.

More to the point, individualism, where it does exist, is not exactly the opposite of “collectivism.” If anything, radical individualism is a precursor to collectivism, one of the many steps along the proverbial road to serfdom down which collectivism treads. In truth, man—being the social animal Aristotle identified—craves belonging. As a rule, he requires companionship and interaction. When he is deprived of them, on a societal level, by the dysfunction and haphazardness of the liberal order, he grows restless, lonely, and willing to do whatever is necessary to assimilate into whatever crowd will have him. This desire—multiplied by millions of “atomized” individuals—contains the seeds of “mass man,” of mass movements, of collective action, and, in time, of totalitarianism. As Hannah Arendt noted, “What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century.” Individualism breeds atomization, which breeds loneliness, which, in turn, leads to that which those of us not named Mamdani know as the horrors of collectivism. Collectivist totalitarianism, Arendt continued, “bases itself on loneliness, on the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man.”

Unsurprisingly but still unnervingly, in the wake of Mamdani’s comments on collectivism, some observers and commentators purportedly on the political right tried to use those comments as a cudgel against others on the right, those with whom they disagree about Donald Trump and the direction of conservatism.

Cathy Young, for example, a Never-Trump conservative/libertarian who writes for Bill Kristol’s Never-Trump The Dispatch, mocked the president’s supporters, writing that “What’s amusing is that much of the MAGA and MAGA-adjacent right…will nod right along to Mamdani’s broadside against ‘the frigidity of rugged individualism.’ The only difference is they’ll use some trad euphemism for left-coded ‘collectivism.’” And just what kind of euphemism would they use? Young continued, “If you replaced ‘collectivism’ with ‘community, family, and tradition,’ much of the current right would agree.”

This is a particularly peculiar criticism of “the current right,” if for no other reason than the fact that “much of the current right” absolutely should agree with that. It is, in fact, the reason the right exists.

I’ll cut Young a little slack here, in part because she later tried to correct herself by drawing a (largely imaginary?) distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary community,” and in part because she was raised in the Soviet Union and may not be familiar with the niceties of American conservatism. Nevertheless, it is inarguable that American conservatism is more than a little preoccupied with the notions of “community, family, and tradition.” Together, these things are, as I say, American conservatism’s raison d’être. Moreover, they are its raison d’être specifically because they constitute the alternative to collectivism. They, not the strawman of “rugged individualism,” are the opposite of Zohran Mamdani’s ideology, and one need take neither my word nor that of “the current right” as proof of this.

The post–World War II conservative renaissance began in 1948, with the publication of a little book titled Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. Russell Kirk, who is himself often described as the father of modern-day conservatism, called this book “the first gun fired by American conservatives in their intellectual rebellion against the ritualistic liberalism that had prevailed since 1933 and which still aspires to domination over this nation.”

Fast on the heels of Weaver’s ideas came Peter Viereck’s Conservatism Revisited (1949), Bill Buckley’s God and Man at Yale (1951), Whittaker Chambers’s Witness (1952), Kirk’s The Conservative Mind (1953), and Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community (also 1953). Each of these books was a warning cry that leftist collectivism, which had gathered a huge head of steam during the Roosevelt years and accelerated dramatically in the postwar period, represented a growing danger to American society. Weaver said this most directly in the opening sentence of the introduction to Ideas, where he announced quite simply, “This is another book about the dissolution of the West.”

Given this, each of these books was also “another book about the dissolution” of community, family, and tradition, as well as a plea to save what was left of these institutions as (ironically) a bulwark against collectivism.

George Nash, the author of the authoritative book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, described the thesis of the last of the books noted above, Robert Nisbet’s fittingly titled The Quest for Community, as follows:

The history of the West since the end of the Middle Ages was a story of the decline of inter­mediate associations between the individual and the state. The weakening and dissolution of such ties as family, church, guild, and neighborhood had not, as many had hoped, liberated men. Instead, it had produced alienation, isolation, spiritual desolation, and the growth of mass man. But men cannot live in Hobbesian isolation, and so, to satisfy his longings, he seeks out ersatz community—eventually finding it in the total­itarian state.

In many ways, this is the broad thesis of American conservatism. It is also the broad thesis offered by other anti-collectivists, who would undoubtedly bristle at being labeled “conservatives,” including Hannah Arendt, noted above, and the inimitable former Communist Alastair MacIntyre.

Collectivism is truly and inarguably evil. Community, in turn, stands as its rival—albeit a deteriorating rival. One needn’t be a “post-liberal” Trumper to recognize this. One need only be aware of man’s nature and his history.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 23:25

Catherine Herridge Reveals How CBS Stonewalled Hunter Biden Laptop Story, Seized Her Files

Veteran investigative journalist Catherine Herridge has spilled the tea over her departure from CBS in 2004 - including the controversy over the Hunter Biden laptop scandal - in which she says she authenticated multiple records as early as October 2000, only to encounter internal resistance which prevented the story from being fully pursued or aired when it was ready. 

Transcript:

This week on "Straight to the Point," a personal message. In 2025, our team bet big on independent journalism. We believe that you were tired of talking points TV, you were tired of the stale predictable formats on Sunday, and that you were open to something new.

A recent Gallup poll reinforced our reporting. It found less than 30 percent of Americans are confident the media covers the news fully, accurately, and fairly. I experienced this myself as a CBS News Senior Investigative Correspondent assigned to the Hunter Biden probe.

After I left, I wanted to be transparent about the blocks I faced at CBS News. At that time, CBS News was under different management and did not comment. I think one of the obvious questions is why am I sitting here talking about my time at CBS News?

I've always had deep respect for my former employers, but in this case, I've had so many questions about my time at CBS. I'm taking a pause and a moment here to try and answer those questions. I think it's better to hear it from me than to hear it from someone else.

I'd wanted to work at CBS News as long as I can remember. The first time I thought about CBS News was when I was an intern at ABC News in London and I was surrounded by so many experienced foreign correspondents. Some of them had been in Vietnam.

Some of them had worked at CBS News. It just seemed that CBS was a place for independent enterprise reporting. I never imagined that I'd be working at 60.

Getting a job at CBS at 55, to me, was an acknowledgment that the industry was really changing and that it was recognizing women who were deeply sourced and deeply experienced in national security. I was let go in February of 2024. We knew layoffs were coming.

I was not expecting to be laid off. I don't think it was a function of my performance at CBS News. I'd been part of an Emmy-winning team.

I'd had multiple Emmy nominations. We'd won a top environmental prize for our reporting. I'm very proud of that reporting still.

It impacted a million veterans and expanded their benefits. That morning, there was an email, a company-wide saying, there are going to be layoffs. Literally, within maybe six or seven minutes, I had a text message, text message or email from my bureau chief, Mark Lima, saying, I need you to hop on a Zoom call.

My husband said to me, what are you doing today? I said, I think I'm getting laid off. And I got on the Zoom call, the human resources person was there, and they told me that my job was being terminated and that I was locked out of the office, locked out of my emails, and they would get my personal effects to me sometime down the road.

I felt a little numb when it happened. What was more surprising to me is that CBS News seized my reporting files. In October of 2020, I was asked by a senior CBS News executive, Ingrid Cyprian-Matthews, to get confirmed reporting about the Hunter Biden story.

So I brought to her several records where I had done due diligence. I'd done a lot of research. I was highly confident that this was confirmed reporting from the laptop.

What I can tell you is that it would have been standard practice for the investigative unit to be tasked with digging deeper into that story to develop our own reporting, and that didn't happen. And that was disappointing to me. It was disappointing because I felt this was an opportunity for CBS News to really lead, to separate itself from the other networks.

But we missed that opportunity. That was not my call. It was frustrating for me.

I did my part. I got the records like I was asked, but a decision was made somewhere higher up within CBS just not to pursue it at that time. When I saw the 60 Minutes report with Lesley Stahl and she says to President Trump, we can't verify it, I just felt a little sick because I knew that I had been able to authenticate, confirm a handful of documents.

And it told me there was a lot more there. And if you put a lot of reporting muscle behind it, you could verify a lot of those records. I don't know if it was a case of the left hand in the news division not knowing what the right hand at 60 Minutes was doing.

I can't answer that question. When Nora O'Donnell was asking then-candidate Biden about it, about the laptop and whether it was a Russian information operation, this senior executive, Ingrid Cyprian-Matthews, she writes, Nora, looking for all confirmed reporting. Do you have all your confirmed reporting on Hunter's story in a note?

And I respond, yes. I tell her what it is. Nora, looking for all confirmed reporting.

Is there a Hunter connection to these documents? Yes, all of them in your inbox. And then I texted the documents and it was the million dollar retainer.

And it looks like some additional text messages from Hunter Biden to a family member. So when Nora O'Donnell had that question, I thought, did this information never reach her? I was asked to get confirmed reporting for her.

I don't know what happened there. I never asked her. I didn't feel that it was a welcome question.

There was no evidence that I had come across in October of 2020 that indicated that this was a Russian information operation. The former intelligence officials, several dozen, said in their statement that it had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. They kind of hedged their words, but there didn't seem to be any evidence of that.

All of the records that I was working with, that I was validating, that I was doing due diligence, I didn't see that. Everything was lining up, in fact. And what bothered me about the letter from the 50 plus former intelligence officials is it just seemed to be this very dangerous intersection between the intelligence community and the political cycle.

Because I felt that it was sort of stepping over a line and that their actions had diminished the stature of their old jobs as CIA director or as the top intelligence official, the director of national intelligence. I'd never seen anything like this before, and I don't think we've seen anything like it since. I was assigned the Hunter Biden story by the very top of CBS.

George Cheeks said to me on multiple occasions that this was a story of the highest priority for the network and that it was a high priority for his boss, Shari Redstone. So I took on that assignment and I did it to the best of my ability. Cheeks said to me, we want to have accountability, speak truth to power on both sides of the aisle, and that really sit well with me.

So I went after it the way I would go after any of these investigations. It was a very hard assignment. There were corners of support in the company for it, and there were corners of support who understood the value of investigating the Hunter Biden story.

But there were some elements within CBS News that were just resistant to it. It didn't matter what the facts of the case really were. And this bothered me as a journalist a lot.

And I wrestled with it a lot. And people might say, well, then why didn't you leave? Why didn't you quit?

And the answer is, I felt I had an obligation to the senior executives at CBS to carry out their directive, to do my very best to run down that story, even if there were internal blocks that I faced. We eventually broadcast a story about the Hunter Biden laptop after the midterm elections in 2022. We commissioned a forensic review.

I got a copy of the laptop data. I have it here still. I went to a lot of effort to get the cleanest copy of the laptop data, the same data that was provided to the FBI, because I didn't want to have any professional journalistic risk for CBS News.

I wanted this to be totally locked down. When we did the story, we did it after the midterms. I argued against that because it was ready before the midterms.

And my training is that you should always do the story when it's ready to go. You should not be dictated by the political cycle. Once we got the laptop story on the morning news, I felt that there was so much there that we could still do.

For example, in the text messages, there's unfortunately the use of the N-word, the liberal use of the N-word. I thought this was worthy of a story, but I was told that it was not something that interested CBS News. Then I asked for a forensic review of the laptop, and we found that there were more than half a dozen emails that were likely used by Joe Biden.

I thought that was a story. But the answer that came back was, well, we need to know what the content is of the emails. But that was going to be a years-long process.

So there were a lot of reasons I was told not to do it, not to pursue it. I spent a lot of my time at CBS following the Hunter Biden story. And one of the things that really struck me is this kind of disconnect.

I didn't understand how a senior executive like George Cheeks could tell me that this was a high priority for the network and for his boss, and yet the executives at CBS News, show producers, anchors, could refuse that. I came to the conclusion that they must have felt that they were more powerful than George Cheeks, which was astonishing to me. I'd never worked at a place where a directive from the top would be so defied.

I had conversations with some of the reporters connected to the Twitter files, and I was, in my head, thinking that there might be an opportunity to tell that story on CBS News. We had a number of topics under discussion. They didn't go as far as we had hoped.

But at the end of the day, this opportunity to interview Elon Musk was developing. So I went to the CBS executives, and I said, this is the opportunity that we have. He's saying, I want to do it live and on my platform.

He's one of the most influential human beings on the planet. And the reaction from the executives was, well, we can't do it live. And I was like, what do you mean we can't do it live?

He's like, well, we don't know what he's going to say. I was like, well, I'm thinking, isn't that the point of journalism? You don't know what the person's going to say?

Well, you know, it has to be taped. We have to have the ability to edit it. It has to be on our platform.

We have to control the platform. We talked at one point about whether we could do it sort of like a simulcast between the streaming network and maybe X. But everything just got shut down.

It's one of the biggest interviews you could ever have. I felt so ashamed, frankly, that I never went back to Elon Musk and said, listen, they want to do it, but they've set all these conditions on it. I couldn't do that.

This is someone whose DNA is free speech. And how do you tell someone who's committed to free speech that your network can only do it taped and only if they edit it and it can only be on their platform? I just I couldn't go back to him with that.

Well, if you're an investigator, you always look at things through an investigative lens. And when my job was terminated at CBS, I took a look into the one sheet. This is a document they give you that outlines the terms of your separation.

And I went into the the metadata. And what I saw in the metadata is that my one sheet was created on February 9th at 515 p.m. And that is a Friday. And it is one day after I covered special counsel Robert Herr's investigation and final report into President Biden.

I reported the facts of that investigation, that it was highly critical of the president, that it described him as sort of a nice old man with a bad memory, and that he couldn't be prosecuted for that reason, among others. So I found the timing of that pretty significant. On top of the fact that I was given an assignment that was very difficult internally, but I was fully committed to.

And I did everything I could to put CBS first on a story that was not popular among a lot of people in that network. The day my job was terminated, I sent an email to George Cheeks, who's the head of CBS, and Wendy McMahon, she's head of sort of CBS News and Stations. I had a relationship with both of them.

And I said, I would rather work for the months that are left on my contract for a handful of reasons. First and foremost, we had just done a story on veterans who had been denied benefits due to their toxic exposure after 9-11. And we were so close to getting benefits for these veterans.

A whistleblower had come forward. It was really finally within reach for 15,000 veterans. And the answer that came back was, if you can get that story done, Catherine, in two days, then you can do it.

Otherwise, we're just dropping it. And I felt this was such a disservice to America's veterans, 15,000 and their families. We had worked for four or five years on this investigation.

We'd been able to move forward legislation. And we were this close to getting benefits for them. And then the curtain was pulled down by the CBS News executives.

I was so determined not to let go of that story, that a general I know connected me with Jon Stewart. And Jon Stewart is a great human being. And he picked up the baton, and he said he would help me get it over the finish line.

And recently, we saw an expansion of the benefits for these veterans. And I feel a little choked up saying it, because it was such a victory for them. And the fact that CBS really abandoned these veterans was a tremendous disappointment to me.

When I look at the situation at CBS News and 60 Minutes and the Kamala Harris interview, to me, it just begs for transparency. My training has always been that when you sit down with a major newsmaker, you have a special responsibility. You need to be asking questions over a broad range of topics.

And then you need to release the transcript, because you hope that other news organizations pick up the headlines and run with it beyond what you put on your network broadcast. I was also taught that releasing the transcript is about accountability and transparency, and the correspondent, the producers, the editors, the crews, standing by the integrity of the final product. I think this is especially so when you have a candidate who is running to be president of the United States.

And for all of those reasons, I've said it's an imperative, I've been very open about this, that releasing the transcript is about accountability and transparency. And there's a precedent for doing this at CBS News. When I interviewed then President Trump at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I advocated for, and they agreed to post the entire transcript on their website.

Same treatment for then Attorney General Bill Barr. And more recently, 60 Minutes posted the full unedited interview of their sit-down interview with Jerome Powell, the Fed chair. So there's plenty of precedent for CBS News to release the full unedited transcripts.

And I think that given the questions about the internal edits in the Kamala Harris interview, it just makes sense to me to release them and to clear the air and to stand behind the integrity of your report. I took some time after I lost my job to educate myself about the marketplace. And I was really surprised at how much the marketplace had changed in the last five years.

There's just been a tremendous erosion of the audience with the network newscasts, also with cable news. And there's just been this explosion of smaller independent newsrooms on the platforms like X, like Instagram, like YouTube. And I made a decision that I would work independently, that I would tell the stories that I couldn't tell before.

And there's something very freeing about that. I feel that this chapter in my career, there are a lot of stories that I want to get finished before I retire. And so I've made those a primary focus.

It's a whole new way of doing business. But I come back to the idea that content is king, and that the journalism matters. And that's my focus now, that the facts have a power all their own.

And we are taking these investigations on X, we're doing a newsletter, the writing skills, these are muscles I haven't used in this way for a long time. So it's kind of exciting to do that again. And then to have that kind of direct feedback, almost like the direct consumer feedback from your audience, which I didn't feel I had at a big corporate entity.

I grew up in corporate media. Corporate media will always have an important place at the table. There's no question in my mind.

But what's exciting now is that we have a diversity of voices through independent journalists like myself, and then these smaller digital newsrooms. There's no question that X is the platform with the greatest reach. And when I say the greatest reach, it's not just the numbers, but it's the individuals that you can have this contact with, whether it's people who are very senior in politics, major business leaders.

We were super thrilled when Elon Musk subscribed to our account. That was a huge compliment. So it's not just the size of the audience, it's the diversity of the audience, and it's being able to reach out to a lot of different types of people, the powerful, the decision makers, but then also the everyday consumers of information.

I feel like on X, the people who are following the account are a lot more engaged in the news. They're super consumers of information. You can't argue with the numbers.

I had a conversation with our bureau chief in Washington, Mark Lima, and we were talking about interviews on X. And there was one in particular, I think it was like 35 or 40 million views. And he said to me, that's not a real number.

And I said, well, neither is 4.5 on the evening news. But if I had to choose, I would take the 40 million views on X over the 4.5 million views on the evening news, because that's where the growth is. That's where sort of the diverse audience is.

And I feel like this is the next chapter for media. After I lost my job, and I had my file seized, I was then held in contempt of court. And I tell people that the crisis has really been transformative in many, many ways.

And free speech, the protection of confidential sources, they really are my North Star now. It was all over the media, the fact that CBS News seized my records. That is not a standard practice in this business.

Everywhere else I have left, the custom is for the reporter to take their records with them, not for the corporation to seize them. My position has always been that I was grateful for the work at CBS News. If they don't want me to work there anymore, that is their call.

But taking my reporting records crossed a red line that should never be crossed again in the future. These files, I had calls from sources I had worked with for years, who wanted to know whether the seizure of my records by CBS News was going to put their identities in jeopardy. I wanted to tell them it was not possible, but I could no longer offer that assurance.

Nothing is more sacred than the pledge of confidentiality to your sources. I'm fighting in the courts right now for that. And I'm not here to litigate this, but I can tell you that source protection, the First Amendment, a free press, these are my North Star.

One of my concerns is that when a corporation takes your reporting records, it makes it harder for you to work in the future. And that shuts down journalism. And if you believe journalism is at the foundation of our democracy, that is a position that just cannot stand.

This may look very glossy and highly produced, but I've got to emphasize, this is a small ragtag team that really makes it possible every week. So thank you to everyone behind the cameras and thank you to everyone who's handling these edits. In 2026, you can expect more of Straight to the Point with Newsmaker Interviews.

We have total respect for people who sit down with us because we take on tough topics with direct questions. Not everyone can handle it. Second, more investigations.

That's about real people, real problems, and real accountability. Actually demanding the government institutions keep their end of the deal and that they have the back of our service members, our spies and our diplomats. And then finally, more whistleblower investigations.

Whistleblowers, they're so special. I feel like this is the part of my work that I'm so grateful for, because they are coming forward for something bigger than themselves. And we are so grateful that they trust us here at Straight to the Point.

And we are so grateful that you have trusted us in 2025. And here's to more in 2026. We'll see you soon on Straight to the Point.

h/t RealClearPolitics

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 23:00

Ethereum Ready To Solve Blockchain Trilemma: Vitalik Buterin

Authored by Brian Quarmby via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin claims Ethereum has “solved” one of the biggest challenges in crypto: the blockchain trilemma.

In a X post on Saturday, Buterin emphasized the potential of peer data availability sampling (PeerDAS) and Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machines (zkEVMs), noting that these two upgrades are making Ethereum “a fundamentally new and more powerful kind of decentralized network.”

“Now, Ethereum with PeerDAS (2025) and ZK-EVMs (expect small portions of the network using it in 2026), we get: decentralized, consensus and high bandwidth,” he said, adding: 

“The trilemma has been solved — not on paper, but with live running code, of which one half (data availability sampling) is *on mainnet today*, and the other half (ZK-EVMs) is *production-quality on performance today* — safety is what remains.”

Source: Vitalik Buterin 

PeerDAS is a scalability enhancement introduced in the Fusaka upgrade in December that enables Ethereum to handle significantly more data.

Meanwhile, zkEVMs, which have been around for a while, are virtual machines compatible with both ZK proofs and the existing Ethereum virtual machine.  

The Ethereum co-founder said that zkEVMs are still in their “alpha stage,” as they are performance-ready but require additional security improvements. He has given a four-year timeline for zkEVMs to be fully utilized within Ethereum. 

Buterin said that once these upgrades are fully rolled out, Ethereum’s long-running effort to balance decentralization, security and scalability will be complete

“Over the next ~4 years, expect to see the full extent of this vision roll out: * In 2026, large non-ZKEVM-dependent gas limit increases due to BALs and ePBS, and we'll see the first opportunities to run a ZKEVM node*,” he said. 

“In 2026-28, gas repricings, changes to state structure, exec payload going into blobs, and other adjustments to make higher gas limits safe * In 2027-30, large further gas limit increases, as ZKEVM becomes the primary way to validate blocks on the network,” he added. 

Ethereum took 10 years to solve the trilemma

Buterin said that it has taken 10 years of solid work to get Ethereum to the level of being able to solve the trilemma, pointing to his first post on solving data-availability problems back in April 2017. 

“This was a 10-year journey [...] but it’s finally here,” he said. 

The blockchain trilemma refers to the complexity of building a blockchain network that sufficiently achieves decentralization, security and scalability simultaneously without any one pillar hampering the other. 

Generally, most blockchains are forced to prioritize one or two of these pillars, such as speed and security, in their early stages while they gradually work to balance all three. 

In his post, Buterin pointed to Bitcoin as an example, noting that the network was designed to be “highly decentralized” and secure, but suffers from scalability issues.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 22:35

Thune's Quiet Deal With Trump: Power Without The Drama

One year after taking over as Senate Majority Leader, John Thune has answered the question many skeptics were asking: could an old school , process-oriented senator function under President Donald Trump?

(Chris Kleponis – Pool/Getty Images)

The answer is yes - Thune is going full send on Republican initiatives, providing Trump with an arsenal of wins to brag about as we head into midterms. 

Trump of course dominates the headlines - using his bully pulpit to excoriate enemies, while steamrolling those who step out of line with 'revised' agenda like MTG and Thomas Massie. Apparently he's made Foreign Intervention Great Again (with some arguing that removing Maduro denied foreign adversaries a foothold in the region). 

And while mainstream MAGA twists itself into a pretzel to justify the whiplash, Thune has been quietly running the Senate the way it has long been run - using majorities, rules, and procedural control to move legislation and nominations efficiently, Punshbowl News reports following an interview with Thune marking his first year as GOP leader.

When Thune replaced Mitch McConnell, pundits assumed that friction with the executive branch was a foregone conclusion. Thune’s skepticism of tariffs, his attachment to Senate norms, and his discomfort with public political combat seemed ill-suited to a president who thrives on chaos as a tool to apply pressure. Instead, he's making hay while the sun shines. 

In 2025, Senate Republicans passed a sweeping tax-and-spending-cut bill, confirmed Cabinet nominees at a historic pace, and altered Senate rules to accelerate nominees stalled by Democratic obstruction. These were not concessions extracted by Trump so much as long-standing Republican priorities that moved once political obstacles were cleared.

Trump supported the outcomes. Thune managed the process.

“I feel like I’ve gotten to a point where [Trump] respects enough how I view the world and look at these issues,” Thune told Punchbowl. “And he has an understanding that I want what’s in his and our best interest. Let’s talk about the things we can do and not the things we can’t.”

The boundaries of the relationship are most visible in what Thune has refused to do. Despite pressure from Trump and his allies, he has not eliminated the filibuster or abandoned the blue-slip process for judicial nominees. Those guardrails remain intact, but they remain intact alongside rapid confirmations, large spending packages, and of course - they need Trump's signature at the end of the day. 

Rather than confronting Trump publicly when disagreements arise, Thune has chosen to raise concerns privately. He has said he prefers to “not litigate these things in public.” 

Democrats argue they no longer trust Thune, accusing him of failing to push back when Trump pressures Congress on spending and funding decisions. Republicans complain that Thune is too cautious and too deferential to process. Thune’s response is essentially the same to both: public resistance is not how power operates in the current environment.

“The president has his way of doing things,” Thune said. “We’ve got to figure out how to work around that.”

Meanwhile, Thune continues to pursue bipartisan deals on housing, market structure, and permitting reform, and he has left the door open to a limited Obamacare compromise. He has acknowledged how difficult legislating has become in a polarized, election-year environment, calling these “not normal times.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 20:30

Prediction Markets Move Into Real Estate With Polymarket–Parcl Deal

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Parcl and Polymarket have partnered to launch real estate prediction markets that will settle against Parcl’s daily housing price indexes, bringing housing price data into prediction markets for the first time.

Under the partnership announced Monday, Polymarket will list and operate markets tied to movements in housing price indices, while Parcl will supply the index data used to determine market outcomes and settlement values.

Each market will link to a Parcl resolution page showing the final settlement value, historical index data and the methodology used to calculate the index, providing a standardized reference for verifying outcomes once markets close.

The initial rollout will focus on major US housing markets, with contracts structured around whether local home price indexes rise or fall over set periods, as well as threshold-based outcomes tied to published index levels.

The companies said the rollout will occur in phases, beginning with a limited set of high-liquidity US cities and expanding to additional markets and contract types over time.

Parcl, a platform founded during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when housing markets became volatile, publishes real-time housing price indexes and analytics and operates onchain products tied to residential real estate prices, using Solana for settlement.

Parcl’s native token, PRCL, was up about 120% over the past 24 hours at time of writing, according to CoinGecko data.

Source: CoinGecko

Polymarket is a prediction market platform where users trade on real-world events, ranging from sports and politics to forecasts for Bitcoin’s price on a given date.

Prediction markets expand in 2025-2026

After a surge in user activity during the 2024 US presidential election, prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket became a mainstream narrative in crypto in 2025.

Polymarket bets. Source: Polymarket

Both platforms secured high-profile partnerships during the year, including Kalshi’s deal with CNBC and Polymarket’s partnerships with DraftKings, the Ultimate Fighting Championship and PrizePicks.

In September, Polymarket was reported to be weighing a US launch while seeking new funding at a valuation of up to $10 billion. The discussions followed a reported $200 million raise in June led by Founders Fund, the investment company co-founded by Peter Thiel.

In November, Kalshi was reported to have raised $1 billion, valuing the company at roughly $11 billion, with Sequoia Capital and CapitalG leading the round. The raise followed a $300 million funding round in October.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 20:05

Trump Flips, Has More Info: Ukraine Didn't Target Putin Residence With Drones

President Trump has now made clear that he has reversed his position on the alleged Ukrainian massive drone attack on Russian President Putin's residence last week.

Trump explained to reporters that he's now been given a chance to be presented with more information, based on intelligence briefings and other undisclosed data which has come to light. He says Ukraine was not responsible, after previously seeming to agree with Kremlin allegations, which Trump had earlier called "deeply concerning".

The US President explained American officials had determined that Ukraine did not do it. According to his newest remarks:

Trump said that "something happened nearby" Putin’s residence but that Americans officials didn't find the Russian president’s residence was targeted.

"I don’t believe that strike happened," Trump told reporters as he traveled back to Washington on Sunday after spending two weeks at his home in Florida. "We don’t believe that happened, now that we’ve been able to check."

via Reuters

On December 29 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Ukraine launched multiple drones toward Putin’s official residence in the northwestern Novgorod region, describing that the drone wave was in the dozens, but that Russian air defenses intercepted all them.

The timing was further interesting given that just the day prior Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Florida to meet Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate to take up the issue of the stalled 20-point peace plan.

As for this week, the whole world is talking about Trump's removal of Venezuelan President Maduro by military force, which likely also had elements of a coup from within, based on Venezuelan officials cooperating with the CIA and US military.

This Latin American intervention against a Putin ally is likely to further complicate talks to achieve Ukraine peace. 

The Kremlin has already blasted the blatant 'double standard' - given Washington has spent years berating Moscow for the Ukraine 'special military operation - yet now effortlessly invades a country in its own backyard.

Now, after the US intervention against Venezuela, Putin will see less incentive in making any kind of peace deal which falls anything short of Russia's complete and maximalist demands.

China could also get more aggressive in its anti-Washington rhetoric, as its citizens have been loudly highlighting American hypocrisy on the Taiwan issue.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 19:40

Pictures Of The "Democratic" Socialist Future

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

This is Happening, This is Really Happening

On New Year’s Day, Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as mayor of the financial capital of the world, with his hand on a copy of the Koran, and in his inauguration speech, he proclaimed:

“I was elected as a democratic socialist and I will govern as a democratic socialist.”

As a guy who normally tunes out political speeches (to this day, I haven’t a single speech by Trump, Trudeau, let alone Carney or Biden), this one got my attention to the point where I downloaded the transcript and read the entire thing.

It gave me some serious Pol Pot “This is Year Zero” vibes…

“Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously… to those who say the era of Big Government is over, hear me when I say this: no longer will city hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorker’s lives.”

Most people don’t know who that was. Except maybe the odd Cambodian.

The banger pull quote was this:

“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

…and the crowds, no doubt cheered.

A few years ago, before the pandemic, I re-released a version of the public domain work: Pictures of The Socialistic Future, from my foreword:

This remarkable little novella posits a fictional socialist sweep into power in Germany towards the end of the 19th century, anticipating the Bolshevik and Marxist revolutions of the subsequent decades. It follows the arc of a family as narrated by its patriarch as he initially enthuses over the socialist ascension to the seat of government.

Quickly, however, he progresses through various stages of disenfranchisement that inevitably ensue: first tempering his expectations, then ratcheting them downward, followed by grappling with cognitive dissonance brought about by the internal contradictions of the new system. When those conflicts are inescapable,  he finally spirals into angst and despair as he comes to fully comprehend the horrors of socialism.

I released that around the same time we did the audiobook version of Dr. Kristian Niemietz’s “Socialism, The Failed Idea That Never Dies“, which has obviously not been read by many New Yorkers.

The historical pattern with all collectivist experiments is: honeymoon, underperformance, disenfranchisement, collapse.

NYC has entered the honeymoon phase, Mandami will be celebrated by Western, liberal intellectuals as a trailblazer and and bulwark against “Trumpism”, he plans to release inmates from jails, freeze rents, launch government run grocery stores and eliminate fares for public transit.

It remains to be seen what kind of radical reforms a mayor can make in one American city – where property rights could (theoretically) still be upheld at higher levels, and where those with much to lose have the ability to flee.

Over the weekend, a useful contrast emerged: Venezuela already ran this experiment. After their honeymoon came repeated hyperinflations, food shortages so extreme people were eating zoo animals, and Chávez’s successor turned the place into a dictatorial narco-state.

The nightmare finally ended when Maduro was removed by the U.S. military in a one-shot operation on January 3rd.

“Collectivism” means: the end of economic reality

In Eugen Richter’s parable – which invariably replays in every collectivist adventure, the first order of business is not “compassion.” It’s confiscation.

Mamdani’s platform specifies a new flat 2% income tax on all New Yorkers earning more than a million annually and boosts the corporate tax rate from 7.5% to 11.5%. My prediction is that after six to twelve months of policy failure, he’ll follow that up with a wealth tax. Bet on it.

Mamdani frames collectivism as “warmth,” but the actual content of his program is an expanding universe of guarantee: universal child care, rent freezes, “fast and free” buses, baby baskets. etc.

As a Canadian who’s lived my whole life under the yoke of “free health care,” I know how it actually collectivism works: anything the government gives everyone “for free” comes at a cost. And when it’s imposed through a state monopoly, that cost tends to exceed the returns, by a wide margin. (Which is why Canadians routinely die on waiting lists, or while sitting in the ER waiting for treatment.)

I’m frequently saying “Incentives are everything“, this is what collectivists don’t get…

The economic reality is that when you turn City Hall (or any government) into the allocation engine for entitlements, you turn erstwhile productive citizens into a doom loop of dependancy. Nobody in a collectivist paradise wants use their excess productive capacity only to have it redistributed to everybody else, so they simply won’t produce at anything above subsistence levels. There’s no point in doing so.

At the municipal level what we can expect then, this:

Rent freezes = housing shortages

Saving for an investment property is one of the more accessible avenues for improving one’s lot in life. When governments freeze rents, it squeezes out the small “mom-and-pop” landlord from being able to hold a cashflowing property, they get squeezed out. Developers won’t build or invest, because there’s no point if they can’t sell any units, and there’s no point investing in new units if you can’t at least break even operating them.

The result: fewer homes get built.

City run grocery stores = food shortages

We don’t need to look at Venezuela to see what happens here, this is already being tried in America and it’s a shit-show: empty shelves, rotting food, it’s almost as if when you try to force goods and services to price below their market clearing rates, the system simply breaks down as producers withhold their remaining labour and capital from a money-losing exercise.

Taxing the “wealthy” = capital flight

We’re already seeing the wealthy pull up stakes and leave – the highest earners did so even before the election, and after Mamdani secured victory, the next level: middle and higher-income earners, headed for the exits (most popular destination: Florida).

There is now an influx among low income earners – (defined as “under $200K annually!) headed to NYC, perhaps lured by the promise of free stuff, streets paved with gold, and a collectivist utopia.

We’ll see how long New York’s honeymoon phase with collectivism lasts.

What we’ll inevitably see play out instead is not theory, it’s been borne out in every collectivist experiment over the 20th and 21st centuries.

Sign up for the Bombthrower mailing list and get a free copy of Pictures of the Socialistic Future. Follow me on X here.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 19:15

CDC Narrows Vaccine Recommendations In Response To Trump Order

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health officials announced on Jan. 5 that they’re narrowing the number of vaccines recommended broadly for children in response to a recent order from President Donald Trump.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is moving forward with only broad recommendations for eight vaccines for children, down from 14.

Trump, in December 2025, directed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill to review vaccine schedules in the United States and peer countries and determine if the U.S. schedule should be updated.

He named three countries, including Denmark, that recommend fewer vaccines and fewer vaccine doses.

“President Trump directed us to examine how other developed nations protect their children and to take action if they are doing better,” Kennedy said in a statement.

“After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health.”

Moving forward, the CDC will stop broadly recommending vaccines against influenza, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal disease. The CDC in 2025 already narrowed recommendations for hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccination based on advice from advisers selected by Kennedy. The agency is maintaining its recommendation that children whose mothers did not receive a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine receive an antibody, or passive immunization, against the virus.

The old schedule can be viewed here, and the new schedule can be viewed here.

The changes were recommended by Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, acting director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who, during a recent presentation, commented favorably on Denmark’s vaccine schedule, and Martin Kulldorff, whom Kennedy appointed a senior adviser in 2025. Hoeg and Kulldorff said in a 34-page assessment that an update was needed because of falling trust in public health, decreases in vaccination rates, and evidence that some recommended vaccines had limited benefits.

A CDC official told reporters on a call on Jan. 5 that the agency consulted with officials in Denmark, Germany, and Japan, as well as vaccine scientists at the CDC and FDA.

Vaccine manufacturers were not consulted, another official said.

The administration says the update does not prevent children from accessing vaccines and that insurers will continue to cover them without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.

The CDC still recommends some of those vaccines for certain populations, such as hepatitis B vaccination for children born to women who test positive for the virus. For others, it is focused on shared clinical decision-making or recommending that people consult doctors and consider factors such as the risk of illness when deciding whether to have their children vaccinated.

The CDC is keeping in place broad recommendations for vaccines against diphtheria; tetanus; acellular pertussis, or whooping cough; haemophilus influenzae type b; pneumococcal disease; polio; measles; mumps; rubella; varicella, also known as chickenpox; and human papillomavirus (HPV).

The new schedule lowers the number of recommended HPV doses from two to one, after some recent research indicated that one dose is as effective.

“Important vaccines ... will be continued to be recommended for our children,” a Department of Health and Human Services official said on the call.

“This change is going to spark major pushback, but that reaction was inevitable,” Dr. Joel Warsh, a pediatrician based in California, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Reducing universal recommendations doesn’t mean vaccines are being banned or declared unsafe—it means the CDC is finally acknowledging that not every vaccine has the same risk-benefit profile for every child.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it opposed the changes.

“At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations,” Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the group, which partners with vaccine companies, said in a statement.

“This is no way to make our country healthier.”

President Trump took his social media account to explain...

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 18:25

Centrus Energy Soars After DOE Awards $2.7 Billion For Uranium Enrichment

The Department of Energy (DOE) has finally awarded the billions of dollars for uranium enrichment announced back in 2024. The contracts span the full range of uranium enrichment from low-enriched uranium (LEU) used by the current global reactor fleet, through high-assay LEU (HALEU) which is planned to be used by multiple advanced reactor designs. Yet while three companies were chosen for huge awards, peaking at almost 900 million each, a few were notably left out.

https://t.co/azVc88b2HP

— U.S. Department of Energy (@ENERGY) January 5, 2026

Centers Energy was awarded $900 million to support the expansion of their currently-operating 900 kg/yr HALEU production capacity and toward the development of next-generation reactor fuel. We covered their recent announcement about finally starting the production of new centrifuge units for LEU production. Centrus now has US government supply on the HALEU side and Korean government support on the LEU side.

Centrus shares rose as much as 9.2% in New York, and closed up almost 25% in the past two days, one of its biggest gains in the past year.

“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity,” said Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “Today’s awards show that this Administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing the nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”

General Matter, started by Founders Fund’s Scott Nolan, was awarded $900 million for HALEU capacity development at their future facility in Kentucky. General Matter has been tight-lipped about the enrichment technology they plan to utilize at their new facility, but will submit an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the facility planned at Paducah this calendar year.

Orano, a French enrichment company majority owned by the French government, was awarded $900 million for developing and constructing their planned LEU enrichment facility in Tennessee. They have vaguely discussed their intended plant size, but have remarked it will have a capacity in the “millions of SWU”. Separate Work Unit (SWU) is the measurement of uranium enrichment production capacity, with Russian imports currently clocking in at roughly 3-4 million SWU/yr.

Senator Tom Cotton last month argued that companies, such as Orano, which coordinate with China’s nuclear program should be barred from receiving US taxpayer dollars.

Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a company co-owned by Silex and Cameco, was awarded $28 million to continue the advancement of their novel laser enrichment technology. They currently have an enrichment facility application under review with the NRC for their Kentucky facility, and are currently producing hundreds of kg of LEU at their North Carolina test center.

Notably left out of the list of award recipients was Nano Nuclear’s partner LIS Technologies, a company also developing a novel uranium laser enrichment method. While they have been busy pounding the table for months that their laser technology is the only US-origin technology, so far the US government seems to be uninterested.

Also left off the list is the only enrichment company producing commercial quantities of product in the US, Urenco. Their facility in New Mexico has been operating for years, and recently received permission from the NRC to increase their enrichment levels. Owned by a combination of UK, Dutch, and German government and private entities, the company failed to secure an award for this round.

This is likely only the first of many awards and contracts to come with companies in the domestic nuclear fuel chain, as we discussed at length last week. Many more such announcements are likely over the coming weeks. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 18:00

Trump's Capture Of Maduro Exposed The Reality Of Great Power Geopolitics

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Trump's successful “special military operation” in Venezuela has prompted a flurry of reactions from governments across the world.

Venezuela’s strategic Russian and Chinese partners predictably condemned the US’ capture of President Nicolas Maduro while the US’ EU junior partner released a statement that lacked any criticism of the US but also didn’t endorse its actions either.

Therein lies the hypocrisy that was just exposed by the US’ “special military operation” in Venezuela since the EU would have certainly condemned Russia’s hypothetical capture of Zelensky in the harshest language possible.

Their implied excuse for these double standards towards the US’ capture of Maduro is that he’s illegitimate, but Russia now deems Zelensky to be illegitimate too, so third parties’ assessments of other leaders’ legitimacy is ultimately subjective and this leads to the reality that was just exposed.

At the end of the day, Great Powers like the US (which is arguably still a superpower even if it was hitherto in decline till Trump’s return to office) always pursue their perceived interests but cloak them in the language of international law or norms, which is more palatable for the global public.

The US previously relied on the “rules-based order” concept to justify its actions abroad, but this was eventually exposed by Russian media as pure hypocrisy, ergo why Trump 2.0 didn’t employ it this time.

Rather, it boldly explained how the US intends to restore its “sphere of influence” over the Americas in accordance with the new National Security Strategy (NSS), thus representing a Hyper-Realist approach in the sense of explicitly embracing the pursuit of power as a goal instead of denying it like before.

As the NSS portrays it, this “sphere of influence” is meant to ensure the US’ national security interests and prosperity, which is similar to what Russia aims to achieve in Ukraine through its own special operation.

Without the power that comes from the US restoring its “sphere of influence” over what it calls its “backyard” or Russia restoring its own over what it calls its “Near Abroad”, they’d remain exposed to a panoply of threats from their rivals, including economic ones that could reduce their people’s prosperity. Correspondingly, Great Powers therefore also try to undermine their rivals in their respective “sphere of influence”, which they perceive as a means towards giving them leverage or at least an edge over them.

This is the reality of Great Power geopolitics, which has up till now been covered up with rhetoric about “democracy”, “international law”, and/or the “rules-based order”, but the US is no longer playing these mind games.

Ideally, it’ll finally behave as a “benign hegemon” that still profits from those within its sphere (but not as excessively as before) and also genuinely provides for their security, since this Putin-pioneered model is the most sustainable way to ensure stability within a Great Power’s region.

The US’ history of “malign hegemony” led to the anti-hegemonic movements that arose in the Americas so repeating the same policy will inevitably lead to the same result and consequently harm the US’ Great Power interests.

It’s premature to predict whether Trump 2.0 will take a page from Putin’s model of “benign hegemony”, but regardless of one’s opinion about Venezuela, it’s still refreshing that the US just exposed the reality of Great Power geopolitics since no one needs to keep up the charade any longer.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 16:20

Trump Again Issues Veiled Regime Change Threat: "Make Iran Great Again"

(Update1618ET): President Trump in a widely circulating photo held up a ballcap which says "Make Iran Great Again" cap in a photo alongside Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Monday, and he also posted this message:

Indeed these are some bizarre times we're living in. Let's hope he doesn't spend too much time with Graham, who is probably lobbying hard for 'muscular action' against Tehran...

You can't make this up pic.twitter.com/1z11Ky0yyq

— Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) January 5, 2026

And there's this unexpected and rare headline today:

Israeli PM Netanyahu asked President Putin to reassure Iran, "We will not attack them": KANN

The Iranians have every reason not to believe Netanyahu.

* * *

Three Iranian officials have told Reuters that Tehran leadership believes the United States or Israel may take military action against the Islamic Republic soon, coming off the heels of the US intervention to remove Venezuela's Maduro.

There are reports of Iranian 'emergency meetings' of top leadership to examining options for self-defense, and the country overnight engaged in fresh ballistic missile drills to signal its preparedness. 

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency/Reuters

The NY Times has separately cited Iranian officials who view the country as being in "survival mode" - amid a week of economic protests driven largely by the impact of US sanctions: currency collapse and soaring prices.

The past two years has seen Hezbollah leadership decimated, Assad removed in Syria, and now Iran-ally Maduro taken out - he's now facing federal charges in a New York court. 

Islamic Republic leadership is fully aware that it remains in a very delicate position:

Ali Gholhaki, a hard-line pundit in Iran, said in a phone interview that the dire state of the economy had played a central role in the downfall of the leaders in both Venezuela and Syria, creating a maelstrom of public discontent and dispirited security forces. “The lesson for Iran is that we must be extremely careful that the same scenario does not happen here,” Mr. Gholhaki said. “When the anti-riot police, security forces and the military are struggling for their livelihood, the defense lines collapse.”

The large-scale internal protests come at the worst possible time, the NY Times continues:

The three officials said that as the protests raged, senior officials in private meetings and conversations had acknowledged that the Islamic Republic had been thrust into survival mode. Officials appear to have few tools at their disposal to deal with either the pressing challenges of a tanking economy fueling unrest or the threat of further conflict with Israel and the United States. President Masoud Pezeshkian has repeatedly said as much publicly in recent weeks, at one point announcing that he had “no ideas” for solving Iran’s many problems.

“Any policy in the society that is unjust is doomed to fail,” Mr. Pezeshkian said in a speech on Thursday, his first public address since the protests began. “Accept that we must listen to the people.”

While at least a dozen people have died amid clashes with police (including at least one security forces member), the ongoing protests still aren't as big as the 2022 wave.

But Iran also has to always be on the lookout for subversion from the outside, as even Israeli media has increasingly acknowledged...

Jpost has indications that calculations about intervening in Iran to actively help the protesters may have changed: https://t.co/eDFVISIaMM

— Yonah Jeremy Bob (@jeremybob1) January 5, 2026

Mossad has long acknowledged that it has many assets inside Iran, and already Israeli officials have expressed that they 'stand with' the Iranian people. Of course, even the protesters themselves are wary of being coopted by outside intelligence. And then there's the professional activists and subversives of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) - which is believed to frequently coordinate action with the Israelis and Americans.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 16:19

US Dept Of War Secures Silver Smelter Deal To Process LatAm Metals

Authored by GoldFix's Vincent Lanci via ScottsdaleMint.com,

Financed by JPMorgan, Jointly Owned by US DoD

Under the plan, the U.S. Department of Defense will hold a 40% stake in the JPM Financed smelter joint-venture.

GFN – WASHINGTON: Korea Zinc plans a $7.4 billion investment to construct a large-scale non-ferrous metals smelter in Clarksville, Tennessee, a project U.S. officials say will materially expand domestic critical minerals processing capacity and strengthen supply chain security.

Proposed site of the Clarksville, Tennessee smelter

The project, known as the “U.S. Smelter,” is expected to require approximately $6.6 billion in capital expenditures, with total investment reaching $7.4 billion including financing costs. It is being developed in coordination with the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of Commerce, according to project materials and government statements.

Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg said the investment reflects a strategic shift in U.S. industrial and defense priorities.

“President Trump has directed his Administration to prioritize critical minerals as essential to America’s defense and economic security,” Feinberg said.

“The Department of War’s conditional investment of $1.4 billion to build the first U.S.-based zinc smelter and critical minerals processing facility since the 1970s reverses decades of industrial decline. The new smelter in Tennessee creates 750 American jobs and expands access to strategic minerals across aerospace, defense, electronics, and advanced manufacturing.”

Timeline of U.S. metals refining capacity since the 1970s

The Tennessee facility will be the first zinc refinery built in the United States in more than 50 years and will operate as an integrated smelter capable of producing 13 non-ferrous metals. Most of these materials are designated as critical minerals by the U.S. government due to their role in defense production, advanced electronics, and energy systems.

Under the current framework, the Department of War will arrange approximately $2.15 billion in financing alongside private investors. The Department of Commerce will provide $210 million in funding under the CHIPS Act to support domestically sourced equipment, with JPMorgan assisting in structuring the financing.

IEA outlook for global critical minerals demand under STEPS, APS, and NZE scenarios

U.S. officials have described the project as an example of allied cooperation to secure supply chains amid rising competition for strategic resources. Josh Phair, founder and CEO of Scottsdale Mint, said in a recent Yahoo Finance interview, “We’re in a metals war’. and securing supply is crucial now

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the investment would expand U.S. production of strategically important minerals.

“Korea Zinc’s critical minerals project in Tennessee is a transformational deal for America,” Lutnick said.

“The United States will produce, in volume, 13 critical and strategic minerals vital to aerospace and defense, semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, autos, industrials, and national security.”

Korea Zinc plans to deploy technical personnel and operational expertise from its Onsan Smelter in Ulsan, South Korea, during early project phases. Onsan is the world’s largest single-site non-ferrous smelting complex and is known for processing low-grade and complex materials, including scrap with high impurity content.

North America’s role in global critical minerals mining and refining

Company officials said transferring this integrated zinc-lead-copper processing capability is intended to reduce commissioning risk and position the Clarksville facility among the most advanced smelters globally. Producing within the United States is also expected to reduce exposure to trade restrictions and logistics disruptions while enabling local sourcing of scrap and raw materials.

Despite government backing, the project has prompted shareholder resistance. An alliance led by MBK Partners and Young Poong has opposed the U.S.-backed joint venture, citing concerns over potential share dilution and governance control. The group has indicated it may seek legal action to block new share issuance.

Korea Zinc shares rose more than 26% following the project announcement before declining by over 13% as shareholder opposition became public.

Once fully operational, the U.S. Smelter is expected to process approximately 1.1 million tons of raw materials annually and produce roughly 540,000 tons of finished products.

Smelter output mapped to U.S. critical minerals list

Planned output includes base metals such as zinc, lead, and copper; precious metals including gold and silver; strategic minerals such as antimony, indium, bismuth, tellurium, cadmium, gallium, germanium, and palladium; and chemical products including sulfuric acid and semiconductor-grade sulfuric acid.

According to project disclosures, 11 of the 13 metals qualify as critical minerals under the 2025 U.S. Geological Survey list. Several, including indium and gallium, are fully import-dependent in the United States.

Site preparation is scheduled to begin in 2026, followed by full construction in 2027.

Phased commercial operations are expected to start in 2029, initially focused on zinc, lead, and copper production.

Clarksville was selected due to existing industrial infrastructure, including Nyrstar’s current zinc smelter, the only operating zinc refinery in the United States. Korea Zinc plans to acquire Nyrstar’s U.S. operations, subject to conditions, dismantle the existing facility, and replace it with a larger, modern plant.

Project planners also cited strong transportation links, favorable site conditions, a skilled local workforce with decades of smelting experience, and relatively low electricity costs, a key factor in smelting economics.

Chairman Yun B. Choi said the project aligns with long-term U.S. and South Korean economic security objectives.

“With its project in the United States, Korea Zinc will strengthen its role as a strategic supplier of essential minerals for aerospace and defense,” Choi said.

“This project will serve as a model for U.S.–ROK economic security cooperation at a time of heightened geopolitical risk.”

GoldFix Analysis: Why the Tennessee Smelter Matters

The Korea Zinc investment fits into a broader pattern across commodities, trade policy, and financial market structure. Recent developments point toward a renewed emphasis on supply security and domestic control over critical industrial inputs.

U.S. policy has increasingly focused on securing domestic processing capacity for materials already designated as critical. Mining location remains relevant, but refining and smelting capacity determines throughput control, resilience under stress, and bargaining leverage. The Tennessee project expands that capacity inside the United States for materials that have largely been processed offshore.

Josh Phair, CEO of Scottsdale Mint has previously linked metals availability to industrial positioning, noting that the rapid build-out of U.S. data centers and infrastructure requires reliable access to physical inputs.

“These data centers that are getting created so fast in the United States, the U.S. has to have it [silver] to protect its position in the world.”

The investment also aligns with policy actions aimed at reducing reliance on China-centered supply chains. Export controls, strategic stockpiling, and industrial subsidies have moved in the same direction. The smelter adds physical infrastructure to that framework, supported by defense and commerce financing and built in cooperation with an allied producer.

The financing structure adds another layer. JPMorgan Chase is involved in arranging financing for the project. Over recent months, JPMorgan has also reduced silver held in COMEX registered inventories and sourced physical metal from Latin America. These actions reflect activity in physical markets where logistics, jurisdiction, and custody increasingly influence procurement decisions.

Why JPMorgan’s 232 Advice Matters

JPMorgan sits at the center of the global silver ecosystem as demonstrated above. Its role as custodian, intermediary, and counterparty across physical markets, derivatives, and sovereign channels places it at the intersection of nearly all meaningful silver flows. Activity associated with JPMorgan therefore carries informational value.

Under Section 232 the United States does not restrict commodities it still needs to accumulate. Tariffs follow supply security, not the other way around.

Once domestic and hemispheric supply chains are deemed sufficient, pricing mechanisms change. Tariffs need not target silver explicitly to reshape its price. Broad commodity measures are enough. But tariffs could come anyway

Because the United States remains the marginal buyer at scale, if it did implement tariffs, its pricing decisions propagate globally. The tariff level becomes the reference price, as sellers rationally seek the highest available bid. JPMorgan is helping the US position itself as self sufficient in metals and at some point, price will rise even further pursuant to rule 232 if it is implemented for Copper (likely) and Silver (perhaps)

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 15:25