Texas Issues Warning About Unsolicited Seed Packages From China

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas has warned residents not to plant what it calls “mysterious seeds” that arrived in unsolicited packages from China, as authorities investigate thousands of such reports across the state.

Packages containing unknown seeds from China. Texas Department of Agriculture

State authorities first became aware of this issue in February last year, when a resident in Clute reported that a package from an unknown sender in China contained “unidentified seeds and a liquid container,” according to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

Since then, officials have collected 1,101 packs of unsolicited seeds delivered to 109 locations across the state, the agency said in a Jan. 5 statement. The most recent packet was collected on Dec. 29.

“At a glance, this might seem like a small problem, but this is serious business,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said in the statement.

“The possible introduction of an invasive species to the state via these seeds poses real risks to Texas families and the agriculture industry.”

The issue was not limited to Texas. Officials in Ohio, New Mexico, and Alabama issued similar advisories last year after families reported receiving unsolicited packages of unknown seeds at their doorsteps.

The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, in a March statement, said that the seeds sent to Alabamians were identified as tomato and onion varieties. While no harmful compounds were detected in them, state officials cautioned that such practices could still be illegal or violate regulations without proper authorization.

“We urge all residents to be on the lookout for similar packages,” Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate said in the statement. “These seeds may be invasive to Alabama plants or be harmful to livestock.”

This wasn’t the first time U.S. households received packages of unidentified seeds they hadn’t ordered. In 2020, officials from all 50 states issued warnings about such unsolicited seeds. Many of these packages were processed by China Post, the Chinese communist regime’s official postal service.

At the time, U.S. state officials warned residents that seeds arriving by mail could introduce invasive species into local ecosystems, while some Americans expressed concern that they could carry diseases amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individuals in European Union member states, the UK, Canada, and some in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia and Taiwan, also reported receiving similar unsolicited packets of seeds at the time, many of them from China.

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that these seeds were likely part of a global “brushing scam.” By sending unsolicited, low-value items to residential addresses, sellers could post false-positive reviews under the name of a “verified” owner, thereby boosting sales, according to investigators.

As new reports continued to emerge, officials in Texas said they’re collaborating with the federal authorities to collect, test, and dispose of these seed packs safely.

Residents who received unsolicited packages are urged to contact their local agriculture departments immediately and are advised not to open the package, plant the unidentified seeds, or discard them in regular trash.

“Whether it’s part of an ongoing scam or something more sinister, we are determined to protect Texans,” Miller said in the Jan. 5 statement.

“Unsolicited seeds coming into our country are a risk to American agriculture, our environment, and public safety. Texas isn’t going to take chances when it comes to protecting our people and our food supply.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 15:25

Black Harvard Dean Fired After Anti-White, Anti-Police Social Media Posts Resurface

A Harvard University dean has been removed after a student-run news outlet, the Yard Report, dug up old social media posts slamming whiteness, the cops, and advocating for looting and rioting. 

eh...

Gregory Davis, the former Dunster House Allston Burr resident dean, wrote the posts in question between 2019 and 2024 - mostly on X. He became dean of the dormitory in 2024.

"It’s almost like Whiteness is a self-destructive ideology that annihilates everyone around it. By design," he said in 2019.

Meanwhile in 2020 amid the George Floyd riots, Davis slammed the police, posting "You should ask your cop friends to resign since they’re racist and evil," he said on X. 

Davis then defended the 'mostly peaceful' riots that ensued, writing "Something to keep in mind: rioting and looting are parts of democracy just like voting and marching," adding "The people WILL be heard."

And when President Trump got COVID, Davis wrote "If he dies, he dies."

When confronted about the posts, Davis wrote to Dunster House residents - saying: 

"Recently, some media organizations have inquired regarding comments that I made on my personal social media accounts prior to my start in the Resident Dean role," adding "These posts do not reflect my current thinking or beliefs. I deeply appreciate the responsibility inherent in the Resident Dean role and I value the trust that individuals have placed in me. I regret if my statements have any negative impact on the Dunster community."

"Since becoming the Allston Burr Resident Dean, I have worked hard to ensure that Dunster House is a welcoming, warm and supportive space for all of its member," the message continued. "That continues to be the guiding force of my work today. As events outside of Harvard have affected our House and me personally, my commitment to each of you, our students, has not wavered. In my role, I have enjoyed the opportunity to work collaboratively with members of HUPD and other colleagues across campus. I respect the work they do to support our community."

How are we feeling about this? Discuss... 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 15:05

Lebanese Army Says Plan To Limit Weapons To State Forces At Advanced Stage

Authored by Evgenia Filimianova via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Lebanese armed forces said on Jan. 8 that their plan to restrict weapons to official security agencies had entered an “advanced stage,” after expanding their presence across southern Lebanon.

Members of the Lebanese army secure the area near the site of an Israeli strike, after Israeli military said that it struck a militant from the Hezbollah terrorist group, in Beirut's southern suburbs of Lebanon on Nov. 23, 2025. Mohamed Azakir/Reuters

The army said that it has secured vital areas and extended control over territories under its authority in the South Litani sector, excluding areas that remain under Israeli occupation.

The announcement follows the Lebanese government’s August 2025 decision to authorize the army to prepare a plan to limit all weapons in the country to six recognized security agencies by the end of 2025. That decision came after a visit by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, who pressed Lebanese officials to consolidate state authority over all armed entities.

Military activity between Israel and Lebanon has persisted despite a cease-fire agreement reached in 2024 and mediated by the United States and France.

Under that agreement, Lebanon committed to expanding its army’s control over southern areas and restricting the operations of the terrorist group Hezbollah near the border with Israel.

Israel continues to hold positions in southern Lebanon and has carried out repeated airstrikes that it says are aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming and planning new attacks.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Jan. 8 that the U.S.-brokered cease-fire agreement “states clearly, Hezbollah must be fully disarmed.”

The statement added that this was “imperative for Israel’s security and Lebanon’s future.”

While welcoming Lebanese efforts, Netanyahu’s office described them as “an encouraging beginning, but they are far from sufficient,” citing what it described as Hezbollah’s attempts to rebuild its “terror infrastructure with Iranian support.”

Lebanese Leadership Backs Army

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who met Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Jan. 8 just before convening a Cabinet session at Baabda Palace in Beirut, publicly endorsed the army’s statement.

“I also emphasize that the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River falls under a comprehensive national decision grounded in the Constitution, state resolutions, and relevant international commitments,” Aoun said in a statement issued by the presidency on Jan. 8.

He said the move was aimed at “consolidating the exclusivity of arms in the hands of the state.”

Aoun, Salam, and Lebanese army commander General Joseph Haykal met with U.N. Undersecretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix on Jan. 7.

The talks focused on the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL’s) support for Lebanese authorities in sustaining the cessation of hostilities and advancing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which bars armed groups from operating near the border with Israel.

The Lebanese army said on Jan. 8 that it continues to coordinate closely with UNIFIL and the U.S.-backed cease-fire monitoring mechanism. It thanked the U.S. and French teams involved in monitoring the truce, as well as the countries contributing troops to the mission.

Ongoing Operations and Israeli Strikes

Operations in the South Litani sector remain ongoing until unexploded ordnance and tunnels are cleared, the Lebanese army also said in its statement. These steps, it added, were necessary to consolidate control and prevent armed groups from rebuilding their capabilities.

Lebanese armed forces condemned continued Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory, saying they negatively impact their ability to complete the restoration of control over southern areas.

Israel carried out airstrikes on multiple targets in Lebanon on Jan. 5 that it said were linked to Hezbollah and Hamas, according to the Israeli military.

On Jan. 6, the Israel Defense Forces said it struck weapons storage facilities and military structures used by Hezbollah in attacks against Israeli troops and territory. The military also said it hit Hamas weapons production sites in southern Lebanon that it described as critical to the group’s military buildup.

Aoun condemned the strikes on Jan. 6, saying they had hit towns in the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon, reaching as far north as Sidon.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 14:45

Did Dr. Spock's Parenting Advice Kill 60,000 Babies?

Authored by Ross Pomeroy via RealClearScience,

Dr. Benjamin Spock is remembered as one of the foremost authorities on raising children. His influential and prolific books, first published in the mid-1940s, advised parents to be more affectionate and flexible with their young kids, countering what was then the entrenched norm of being rigid and aloof.

Though most parents today are probably more familiar with a different, pointy-eared Spock, in his heyday during the 1950s and 60s, Dr. Spock was one of the most recognizable and respected public figures in the world. When he spoke or wrote, people – and particularly parents – listened intently.

Unfortunately, much of Spock's guidance wasn't grounded in scientific research, but rather his extensive clinical experience. While this generally produced helpful, or at least harmless, advice, in one major instance, it resulted in grave harm. 

Starting with the 1958 edition of his bestselling tome, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, Spock recommended to parents that they put their babies to sleep on their front, rather than on their backs. "If he vomits, he’s more likely to choke on the vomitus," Spock reasoned. "Also, he tends to keep his head turned to the same side—usually toward the centre of the room. This may flatten the side of his head."

At the time, there was an active debate about whether front-sleeping or back-sleeping was healthier for infants, so Spock's recommendation – which we now know to be dead wrong – could be excused. However, in the dozen years since Spock urged prone-sleeping, scientific studies made clear that the practice markedly raised the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) compared to back sleeping. A 2005 historical analysis conducted by researchers with the Centre for Evidence-based Child Health in London showed that by 1970, the scientific literature indicated that front-sleeping tripled the risk of SIDS compared to back-sleeping.

Spock, however, neglected to consult this gathered scientific evidence and didn't update his book Baby and Child Care to reflect the new reality for some time. As Marit L. Bovbjerg, an Associate Professor at Oregon State University focusing on maternity care in the U.S., wrote in 2011:

"Dr. Spock's book was not the only popular book to advocate prone sleeping at the time, but further revisions continued to make the recommendation nine years after solid epidemiological evidence had accumulated regarding the increased risk of SIDS for babies being placed on their stomachs for sleep."

Spock's book was by far and away the most read parenting guide to advocate prone sleeping. According to the New York Times, for a half-century since its publication, Baby and Child Care was the second-best-selling book, behind only the Bible.

The researchers behind the aforementioned 2005 scientific review estimated that the collective failure, led by Dr. Spock, to alter the advice on safe-sleep for infants in a timely fashion, resulted in an extra 10,000 infant deaths in the UK and at least 50,000 in Europe, the USA, and Australasia after 1970.

With great influence comes great responsibility. In failing to change his mind on infant safe-sleep in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, Dr. Spock showed that he was not worthy of the standing he garnered and the trust he earned from the world's parents.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 14:05

FDA Says Many Fitness Wearables, AI Tools Exempt From Regulation

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 6 clarified that it will not regulate some artificial intelligence (AI) tools and wearables.

In a guidance document, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said tools used to help make clinical decisions are sometimes exempt from FDA oversight, such as those not intended to analyze medical images.

In a second document, the FDA said it does not regulate “low risk products that promote a healthy lifestyle,” including “low risk general wellness products” such as exercise equipment and software programs.

The agency listed as examples products that track and record a person’s sleep, work, and exercise and products that make claims about weight management and physical fitness.

“For a lot of the decision support out there, we need to get out of the way as a regulator,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a video. “We have a clear lane for medical-grade products. But otherwise, we need to adapt with the times, and be proactive with guidance, so that companies and developers are not left confused about what they should be doing, or what the FDA wants.”

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary in Washington on July 29, 2025. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

As Zachary Stieber details below via The Epoch Times, Makary said the FDA is “here to promote AI” and added during an appearance on Fox Business that at least some of the tools use AI.

“If something is simply providing information, like ChatGPT or Google, we’re not going to outrun that lion, we’re not going to go in there and say there is one result that is inaccurate and therefore we have to shut down,” Makary said. “We have to promote these products, and at the same time, just guard against major safety concerns.”

When asked about concerns regarding inaccurate information, Makary said, “We don’t believe in censorship.”

“If people are looking up a symptom on an AI-based tool, let’s have that conversation when they come in to see their doctor or do a virtual visit,” he said.

OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT, said this month that more than 5 percent of ChatGPT messages are about health care, with more than 40 million users turning to the AI bot with health care questions.

Researchers reported in 2025 that at least half of responses from AI models to health-related questions are not fully supported by their sources and that some answers are contradicted by the sources.

Wearables, a category that includes fitness trackers and glucose monitors, are also not subject to regulatory oversight if they are simply providing information, according to Makary.

“The only stipulation is if they make claims of something being medical grade, like a clinically appropriate clinical-grade blood pressure measurement,” he said on Fox. “We don’t want people changing their medicines based on something that’s just a screening tool or an estimate of a physiologic parameter.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said people should start using wearables as part of efforts to improve their health.

The FDA had in 2025 warned Whoop, which makes wearable products, that it was marketing monitoring of blood pressure without FDA approval.

“We believe the agency is overstepping its authority in this case by attempting to regulate a non-medical wellness feature as a medical device,” a Whoop spokesperson told news outlets at the time.

The FDA later issued consumer alerts telling people not to use unauthorized devices for monitoring blood pressure and infant vital signs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 13:45

Data Centers Were 40% Of PJM Capacity Costs In Last Auction: Market Monitor

Submitted by Ethan Howland of Utility Dive

Data center load accounted for $6.5 billion, or 40%, of the $16.4 billion in costs from the PJM Interconnection’s December capacity auction, according to the grid operator’s independent market monitor. About $6.2 billion of those costs is related to data centers that haven’t been built but could come online by PJM’s 2027/28 delivery year that begins on June 1, 2027, Monitoring Analytics, the market monitor, said in a report released Monday. 

In PJM’s last three base capacity auctions, costs related to data center forecasts above existing data center loads totaled $21.3 billion, or 45% of the $47.2 billion in the cost of the cleared capacity, according to the report.

The market monitor’s report highlights how data center load forecasts have affected PJM’s last three capacity auctions, which set price records and sparked political backlash in some states.

“The extreme uncertainty in the load forecasts based on uncertainty about the addition of large data center loads is also unique and unprecedented and raises questions about the meaning of clearing a capacity auction based on those forecasts,” Monitoring Analytics said.

Increasingly, utilities, state regulators and grid operators like PJM have been working to develop more accurate data center load forecasts amid concerns they may be overstated.

In its last base capacity auction, PJM fell 6,516.6 MW short of meeting its reliability target. However, PJM’s demand forecast for the auction was based on an estimate released a year ago. The grid operator is set to issue a new load forecast this month that could be significantly lower, partly based on stricter vetting of potential large loads, Stu Bresler, executive vice president for market services and strategy at PJM, said Dec. 17 after the auction results were announced.

Also, PJM’s board is expected to propose reforms, possibly this month, to the way the grid operator interconnects data centers, including changes to its process for considering large load forecasts.

The market monitor’s report echoes previously raised concerns that data center loads are largely responsible for the spike in capacity prices in PJM. 

“Data center load growth is the primary reason for recent and expected capacity market conditions, including total forecast load growth, the tight supply and demand balance, the significant shortfall in cleared capacity, and high prices,” Monitoring Analytics said.

The effect data center loads have on PJM’s capacity auction will continue growing until the grid operator addresses large load interconnection issues in an “effective manner,” the market monitor said.

On the issue of a price cap and floor for PJM’s capacity auctions, the last auction would have been $9.9 billion, or 38%, higher except for a cost cap that grew out of an agreement between the grid operator and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, according to the market monitor’s report (see "Inside The PJM Auction Report, Something Crazy: Without Price Controls, Electricity Bills Would Explode")

In the two auctions the price floor/cap was in effect, it reduced capacity costs by $13.1 billion, according to the market monitor’s estimate. The mechanism has expired and won’t be used in PJM’s capacity auction for the 2028/29 delivery year that is set to be held from June 30 to July 4.

PJM is the largest U.S. grid operator, running the power system and electric wholesale markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions where about 67 million people live.

PJM holds capacity auctions to help ensure that it has adequate power supplies to meet future needs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 13:25

One Fell Swoop: Lawsuit Eyes Death Blow To Racial Preferences

Authored by RealClear Investigations' Benjamin Weingarten,

Opponents of affirmative action hoped that the Supreme Court had delivered a death blow to the controversial policy in 2023 when Chief Justice John Roberts declared for the court’s majority that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

But as sweeping as that pronouncement was, it came in a ruling in the landmark SFFA v. Harvard case, solely barring the use of racial preferences in college admissions. The practices that the court deemed illegal on campus have persisted elsewhere, including in programs across the federal government.

A lawsuit now wending its way through the courts, Revier v. Loeffler, aims to change that. Building on the SFFA ruling, the suit’s plaintiffs are taking aim at regulations that they allege direct agencies to unconstitutionally dole out tens of billions of dollars in awards on the basis of race – most prominently through no-bid or limited competition contracts reserved for so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses” and facilitated by the Small Business Administration. The case could have wide implications, as the SBA’s definition of disadvantage has been widely adopted by many other federal agencies. 

The lawsuit’s thrust parallels a slew of related executive orders, policies, and probes the Trump administration has advanced to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the public and private sectors. A future president with different priorities, however, could reverse them. Consequently, absent legislation from a razor-thin Republican congressional majority, opponents of racial preferences believe the courts may offer the best opportunity to end such practices. 

Defenders of affirmative action, however, note that it is rooted in laws passed by Congress that reflected the belief that racial discrimination is a powerful source of disadvantage. And they believe that righting past wrongs through its implementation has redounded to Americans’ collective benefit. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Small Business Committee, and Sen. Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii sent a letter to the SBA  defending minority companies, which they say “play a role in strengthening the industrial base by diversifying the supply chain.”

Biden Amped Up Racial Preference

The Revier case could be a game-changer in part because of the size, scope, and influence of federal contracting.

The U.S. government is the world’s largest buyer of goods and services. Historically, on a bipartisan basis, it has sought to use its buying power to benefit small businesses, for whom the feds earmark roughly one-quarter of all contract dollars. The SBA reported that in fiscal year 2024, federal authorities had inked $630 billion in small business eligible prime contracts.

Following the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the federal government sought to promote the development of minority-owned small businesses, with the Nixon administration initiating the policy to steer a subset of contracts to such enterprises.

The Biden administration significantly increased the value of federal government contracts extended to such businesses to “advance equity and build wealth in underserved communities,” more than doubling the statutorily-driven 5% contracting goal threshold that had been set by Congress. In 2024, the SBA awarded some $78 billion – or 12% of all contract dollars – to so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses,” often under no-bid or limited-competition arrangements.

Such contracts cover work in areas ranging from construction to professional services and information technology and are awarded across two dozen agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture.

SBA sets forth who qualifies as “socially and economically disadvantaged” through regulations, instituted nearly 30 years ago, that have since spread government-wide. While white-owned businesses theoretically qualify for the program, the regulations created a “rebuttable presumption” that – irrespective of one’s individual circumstances – treated blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians by default as “socially disadvantaged.” 

Under its “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program,” sometimes referred to as 8(a), SBA has historically rendered small firms owned and controlled at least 51% by those identifying as minorities, and who meet certain economic criteria, eligible for its minority business development program – giving them preferential entrée to more than $40 billion in annual awards over non-minorities. 

Analyses show that in recent years, no individually owned firms led by a Caucasian have participated in the program. 

Fraud Allegations

The program also has long been subject to allegations of fraud and abuse, reflected in a series of past Government Accountability Office and SBA Office of Inspector General studies and reports. Some of the initiative’s 4,300 participants have engaged in misconduct ranging from offering kickbacks to reportedly arranging “pass-through” work where purported minority-led companies effectively serve as fronts – winning business only to outsource the work to non-minority subcontractors. 

In June, after four individuals pled guilty to a $550 million bribery and fraud scheme enabled by a USAID contracting officer and involving multiple participants in the SBA program – one of whom would receive an additional $800 million in federal contracts even after being flagged by USAID as lacking “honesty or integrity” – SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler ordered an audit of the program, focusing on high-dollar and limited-competition contracts.

Months later, in October, investigative journalist James O’Keefe released an undercover interview video indicating that one contractor, ATI Government Solutions, used its minority status pursuant to the program to win upwards of $100 million in contracts – only to outsource 80% of its work to subcontractors, including major corporations like Accenture. Shortly thereafter, the SBA would suspend ATI and its three executives.

In December, the administration intensified its scrutiny of the program, issuing letters to all participants demanding a slew of financial records dating back years under threat of losing their program eligibility, and/or facing investigative and remedial action.

“There is mounting evidence that the 8(a) Program designed for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses went from being a targeted program to a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse and fraud – especially during the Biden Administration, which aggressively prioritized DEI over merit in federal contracting,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a press release.

Days later, Senate Small Business Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst announced during a hearing the launch of her own investigation of the SBA initiative, stating that “Unfortunately, the SBA’s 8(a) program has been a magnet for fraudsters since its inception.”

During that hearing, Ed Markey acknowledged that “Like any federal program, there have been rare cases of bad actors taking advantage of these resources. And they should be held accountable.”

“But,” he added, “these rare instances do not warrant an all-out assault on a program that has created good-paying jobs, provided pathways to success for small businesses, and created economic growth for our country.”

The Massachusetts Democrat also asserted that politics was at play – even while injecting a note of partisanship himself. The Senate, Markey said, was subjecting “the little guys, the minority small business owner, the black and brown small businesses,” to harsh oversight, in contrast with the administration’s dealings with foreign governments and large corporations, who allegedly participate in “President Trump’s pay-to-play system.”

Systemic Discrimination

The entities currently suing the SBA do not allege discrimination in the 8(a) program, but rather in other government programs that have adopted its regulations.

The two plaintiffs – Revier Technology, a small Louisiana-based software company, and Young America’s Foundation (YAF), a national conservative student organization – asked a Louisiana court in November to vacate the SBA’s 8(a) regulation, which they claim has harmed them in their efforts to access other government initiatives reliant upon it.

Revier, which says it is developing AI-based technology for use in construction, claims it was denied investment capital under a Treasury Department small business credit program, since its funding is limited to businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as defined by SBA regulation, and Revier’s owner, Matthew Schultheis, is white. “The…investment program I applied to was designed to help small entrepreneurs like me,” Schultheis told RealClearInvestigations. “When my application was rejected solely because of my race, I had to take action.”

Likewise, several students affiliated with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) claim discrimination under a Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity fellowship that requires applicants to be socially disadvantaged to be eligible to participate in the program, as defined by SBA regulation. That regulation’s definition of social disadvantage likewise flows through preferential contracting programs at NASA, research grants administered by the EPA, and elsewhere in the federal government, according to the Revier suit. 

The Revier and YAF plaintiffs each claim they could “not benefit from a presumption of social disadvantage,” and therefore “could not apply on equal footing” in seeking to participate in relevant federal programs, violating their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process rights to equal treatment. 

“The federal government’s pervasive use of race as a proxy for determining who is ‘socially disadvantaged’ – and therefore who receives contracts, grants, loans, investment capital, opportunities, and other benefits – is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint.

YAF is represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The conservative/libertarian-oriented public interest law firm, which has served plaintiffs in a number of related cases, has identified at least 60 racially discriminatory programs across the federal government.

Caleb Kruckenberg, litigation director at the Center for Individual Rights, which is co-counsel in the Revier case, told RCI that SBA’s challenged 8(a) regulation “remains on the books and has been incorporated in at least 20 other federal programs administered by multiple federal agencies."

His colleague, Michael A. Petrino, said that if the plaintiffs were to prevail, minimally “all programs that incorporate the SBA regulation and its racial presumption could no longer administer those other programs using any portions of the regulation that are vacated.”

The Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend racial preferences in analogous cases – including challenges to the use of racial and sexual preferences in Department of Agriculture programs – suggests it may not defend the SBA’s regulations. Although the plaintiffs could achieve a limited victory if the administration rescinds the regulation or revises it to remove the alleged unconstitutional content, Petrino told RCI, “A judicial ruling that requires such revocation would prevent a future administration from reviving the same or similar rule.”

Courts Start Chipping Away

In the meantime, the judicial branch is already scrutinizing the SBA’s longstanding regulations mandating racial preferences. 

In July 2023, a Tennessee U.S. federal district court judge enjoined SBA “from using the rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage in administering” the 8(a) program, finding that that presumption fails to pass the “strict scrutiny” standard required when setting out racial classifications. It “does not further a compelling governmental interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve such interest,” the court ruled. 

In March 2024, a Texas district court found that a race-based presumption of social disadvantage for applicants in a program run by the Commerce Department’s Minority Business Development Agency was unconstitutional.

Likewise, in October 2024, a Kentucky judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department of Transportation “from mandating the use of race- and gender-based rebuttable presumptions” for department contracts impacted by certain “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” goals when pursued by the plaintiffs who brought the case.

In response to that case, the Trump Justice Department stated that it would no longer defend the SBA-like rebuttable presumptions incorporated into the department’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, finding it to be unconstitutional.

The Revier plaintiffs are seeking a more ambitious end in the elimination of that rule at SBA, and everywhere else it is incorporated. 

Citing such litigation, Petrino told RCI that “any time would have been a good time to bring this case, but the Supreme Court’s rulings in recent years on both racial preferences and administrative law challenges make it easier.”

The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the 8(a) program’s constitutionality back in 2017 on Fifth Amendment grounds. That case, however, challenged the relevant provisions of the Small Business Act authorizing the program. The statute defines socially disadvantaged individuals as those “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” And the statute includes a congressional finding that blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups are “socially disadvantaged.” But, unlike the regulations that the Revier plaintiffs are challenging, the law contains no explicit rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage if an individual is a member of such a group.

Resistance Ahead

Any challenge to racial preferences in government programs – particularly at a Supreme Court that has already handed progressives defeats on racial matters – is likely to be met by significant resistance. 

Democrats on the House and Senate Small Business Committees have continued defending it and related efforts. 

Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez criticized the SBA following its announcement that it would be initiating an audit of the 8(a) program in June, and delivery of a warning letter to federal contracting officers in July calling on them to report potential program misconduct.

“The SBA’s decision to target the use of a key small business contracting program and pressure federal agencies is deeply disappointing,” Velázquez, the ranking Democrat on the House Small Business Committee, said in an August statement. “This move strays from the agency’s core mission. Instead of helping small businesses compete in the federal marketplace, SBA is stripping away the very tools that enable them to succeed.”

In addition to its political defenders and the businesses and individuals who are the direct beneficiaries of tens of billions of dollars in government awards annually, a constellation of trade associations, NGOs, law firms, and researchers support and/or rely on the continuation of the regime. Challengers have taken the Trump administration to court over a variety of anti-DEI executive actions – to mixed effect.

Regarding racial preferences in government programs more broadly, a witness selected by congressional Democrats in a relevant June 2025 House Oversight Committee subcommittee hearing captured the position of program proponents.

 “Congress has never placed a ceiling on the debt it endlessly accumulates to African Americans, indigenous peoples, and other communities of colors,” University of Southern California Professor Shaun Harper told the panel, “These diverse citizens persistently appear at the bottom of just about every health indicator and statistical metric of thriving…Government and private sector investments into DEI efforts have never been anywhere close to covering the enormous sum of this unpaid, continuously accruing debt.”

“The real cost of racial inequities far surpasses spending on DEI programs, positions, and professional learning experiences,” Harper concluded.

By contrast, Judge Glock of the right-leaning Manhattan Institute wrote in a spring 2023 City Journal piece that “Instead of righting historical wrongs,” government minority contracting efforts have “enriched a small subset of already-wealthy businesses, bred corruption and fraud, deepened racial divisions, and cost taxpayers countless billions of dollars – while doing nothing to help the truly disadvantaged.”

Such “unconstitutional” programs, Glock said in testimony delivered opposite Harper, “should be removed from all levels of government as quickly as possible.”

* * * 

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 12:45

Senate Advances Resolution Preventing Trump From Further Military Force In Venezuela Without Approval

The Senate issued a harsh rebuke of President Trump's actions in Venezuela, voting 52-47 on a bipartisan measure to block him from using military force "within or against Venezuela" unless he obtains Congressional approval first.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, speaks to reporters alongside Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA, during a pen and pad meeting with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on January 07, 2026 in Washington, DC.

The war powers measure came after an unsuccessful attempt by Republican leaders to kill the resolution and preserve Trump's authority amid the president's threats of a "second wave" of attacks. Trump has said the US would "run" the country on a temporary basis following last week's military operation to capture and extradite leader Nicolás Maduro. 

The legislation - which was introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), was cosponsored by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Adam Schiff (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). 

Five Republicans joined all 47 Democrats in voting 'yes' on the motion to advance the resolution to the Senate floor; Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young and Josh Hawley. 

"Instead of responding to Americans’ concerns about the affordability crisis, President Trump started a war with Venezuela that is profoundly disrespectful to U.S. troops, deeply unpopular, suspiciously secretive and likely corrupt. How is that ‘America First?‘" said Kaine. "Trump’s war is also clearly illegal because this military action was ordered without the congressional authorization the Constitution requires."

The procedural motion means that there will be a full Senate vote on the measure next week, which will require only a simple majority and is expected to pass. It will then require House approval and Trump's signature, making it unlikely to become law as Trump would undoubtedly veto - but it still sends a symbolic message (and possible groundwork to impeach?) that could impact Trump's foreign policy going forward. 

"To my Senate colleagues: enough is enough," said Kaine. "You were sent here to have courage and to stand up for your constituents. That means no war without a debate and vote in Congress."

According to Paul, some members of Congress want to "shift the burden of war to the president" instead of taking responsibility.

"But make no mistake, bombing another nation’s capital and removing their leader is an act of war, plain and simple," said Paul. "No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the presidency."

The rebuke comes as Trump has suggested he's open to boots on the ground in Venezuela, while also threatening action against Iran, Greenland and Colombia on Sunday - adding that Cuba "is ready to fall." 

Sen. Collins said in response to the measure: "I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree," while Murkowski said Congress must "affirm our role under Article 1." 

In advance of the vote, Sen. Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) urged Senators to reject the war powers measure, calling Maduro's capture a law enforcement operation.

"It does not make America stronger. It makes America weaker and less safe," he said in a written statement. "It would weaken the President’s legitimate, constitutional authority. This body, the United States Senate, is being asked whether the President of the United States has the authority to arrest indicted criminals. Of course he does."

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 12:25

Farmland Shock: Georgia Grower Drops 3,000 Acres, Warns Of Unplanted Ground in 2026

By Chris Bennett of Farm Journal

How deep is the farm crisis? Adios to acreage.

In November 2025, Alex Harrell, among the most highly reputed producers in the U.S., dropped an old-school grading scale, A to F, across his 6,000-acre operation and slashed almost half his ground, notifying 12 landlords in a three-week window. “I can’t speak to the rest of the country, but around here, generational growers are either cutting back, quitting, falling into Chapter 12, or grasping at straws.”

Spurred by crippling inputs, Harrell’s acreage drop is an alarming indication of an agriculture economy in dire straits. “There will be significant acres in my area that won’t be planted next year,” he says. “I’m seeing it with my own eyes in real time.”

“People don’t realize there was ground here in 2025 that didn’t get planted, but you can already see what’s developing for 2026. Guys are walking away.”

Down Comes the Ax 

No fat left to trim. Nothing to burn but muscle. No way to outyield cold math.

“Something has to give when you go three years and more just spinning your wheels on net profit,” Harrell, 36, explains. “The numbers aren’t complicated. When fertilizer, chemical, and machinery costs go up 300% over a short span of time, everything is upside down, especially when commodities go in the tank.”

“Guys are quitting and walking away, and that eventually leads to land that doesn’t get picked up … Cropland with no crop,” says Alex Harrell.(Photo courtesy of Harrell Farms)

In 2025, Harrell grew 6,000 acres of corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat in southwest Georgia’s Lee County. “Breaking even is bad enough in farming, but we’re all way below that around here. We are literally paying to farm—not getting paid to farm. Every year, it costs more to farm input-wise, and unless something changes with these retailers, I don’t see things changing. Based on that, I took a long look at my operation.”

But what to do when there’s nothing left to cut on the farm? Cut the farm itself.

In November 2025, Harrell put his leased acreage under the microscope, under a seven-category lens subject to grades A through F:

1. How many miles away was the land?
2. How productive is the soil?
3. What was the water source (pond, creek, or well)?
4. How was irrigation powered (electric or diesel)?
5. On base acres, how productive was the farm related to PLC and ARC?
6. How did wildlife depredation factor for deer and wild pigs (and whether landowners allowed for shooting with deer permits)?
7. How much was rent?

Harrell axed any piece of ground that scored C through F in more than two categories. The reduction totaled 45% of his crop ground.

“It’s pretty straightforward. The only way I could figure out to make things work was to break down those farms individually and grade them on a scale. Then I dropped the ones that didn’t pass—and that included the very first irrigated farm I ever rented, and ground we’ve put 16, 17 crops on that I’ve been working for years. It was time to turn them loose. Like I said, that’s how bad the farm economy is around here. In some ways, I think the worst part is still to come, but people don’t realize that yet.”

No Bidding War 

Harrell’s acreage chop may go deeper. “I’ve still got considerations to make on some farms. I’ve still got ground flirting on the line. I may have to make more calls to landlords.”

Rent on irrigated ground in Harrell’s region typically runs $275-330 per acre. How did his landlords react when he dropped acres?

“I had one that offered to drop rent a little bit, but I understand because they’re used to having 10 guys sitting there waiting to rent that land. In my opinion, I don’t think they understand the shifting dynamic of the farm economy. This time, people are not going to be beating their doors down. I’m not saying their particular acres won’t get rented, but there’s definitely not going to be a bidding war.”

“Even last year in 2025, there was irrigated land down here that didn’t get worked. In 2026, there’ll be even more. I can’t speak for anyplace else in the U.S., but in southwest Georgia, this is what we’re seeing in farmland, especially marginal ground. It’s already happening.

Yield Forfeit 

Prior to Harrell’s acreage slash, his operation stretched 21 miles east, 30 miles west, 15 miles north, and 15 miles south.

“I tightened the circle. I think my furthest farm is only going to be about 10 miles from me now. When you look at fuel, labor, time, and insurance involved in running up and down the road, that kills you whenever you put a tractor on a highway.

“In some ways, I think the worst part is still to come, but people don’t realize that yet.” (Photo by Chris Bennett)

“Next, I’ve got to consider equipment and labor cuts to drop our insurance at least a little, at the same time keeping my eye on the fine line where I’ve got to keep enough acres to spread equipment over.”

Getting bigger and going longer is out—at least for Harrell. “Yeah, that’s how I used to think: Just go across more acres, make inputs cost less, and that’ll solve everything. Not anymore. What people come to see is that spreading too far in the Southeast means that nine times outta ten, you forfeit yield, because there’s no way to look after your crops like they need.”

Translated: Irrigation, weed control, repeated fungicide applications, labor logistics, and host of other management practices create a never-ending game of catch-up.

“There are Midwest farmers out there on big, big acres that do a fantastic job, but in the Southeast, we can’t get behind a single day on irrigation, or we lose yield,” Harrell notes. “Then factor in all the other aspects people don’t think about—like wildlife damage from deer and hogs, and countless spray trips across the field—and things get really complicated. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say a 15,000-acre operation in the Midwest compares to a 5,000-acre in the Southeast as far as demand on a farmer. That doesn’t mean anybody is better or worse, but it sure means things are very different.”

Walking Away 

On Aug. 13, 2024, Alex Harrell fired the soybean shot heard round the farm world with a bin-busting 218.28 bushels per acre, shattering his own world record of 206.79 bushels set in 2023. Back to back, he grew the highest yielding soybeans in history.

Harrell has a tight grasp on agronomics, crop management, and bottom-line financials. The extreme rub endured by growers over successive years is down to the bone, he warns.

“We can grow most any variety of crop in the world right here, but we’re at the point of seeing what happens when none of them will turn a profit due to the crazy input prices. We’ve now got guys with all their land and equity burned up, and we’re seeing Chapter 12 bankruptcies every day. Guys are quitting and walking away, and that eventually leads to land that doesn’t get picked up. That’s how terrible things have gotten, even if some people don’t see it yet. Cropland with no crop.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 12:05