Authored by Don Tracy via RealClearPolitics,

I’ve watched two American cities make opposite choices about the same problem.

As a young man, I worked in Memphis: first as a traveling salesman, then as a law student, and finally as an attorney at a Memphis law firm. As an associate lawyer, I dreamed of escaping the daily grind by writing a great American novel. A fellow named John Grisham beat me to it, writing a book called “The Firm,” which was loosely based on my then-Memphis law firm, Baker Donelson. I guess that is why, many years later, I’m still a practicing attorney and John Grisham has written 55 published books.

Although I reside in Springfield, I’ve spent considerable time in Chicago over the past 10 years. While Chicago is bigger than Memphis, the two cities are similar in that I love them both and both are high crime cities. Based on 2024 numbers, Chicago has led the U.S. in total murders for 13 years. Memphis ranked second in homicides per capita among large cities. 

I happen to know what it means to be on the wrong end of urban violence. I was held up at gunpoint in Memphis. That experience taught me something that no policy paper ever could: When you’re facing a criminal with a weapon, political debates about federal jurisdiction become meaningless. What matters is whether your city is doing everything possible to keep people safe.

To that end: Memphis said yes to federal help. Chicago said no. The results tell you everything you need to know about what happens when politics overrides public safety.

Memphis Chose Cooperation

In Memphis, the numbers speak louder than any political speech. When the city partnered with federal law enforcement through the Memphis Safe Task Force, murders dropped 48%, sexual assaults fell 49%, and robberies decreased 61% in just 56 days.

Overall crime hit a 25-year low. Murder reached a six-year low. Sexual assault dropped to a 20-year low.

A Memphis resident at a Grizzlies game said what statistics can’t: “It is so peaceful … we’re just enjoying life and it just feels so free.”

Chicago Chose Politics 

Chicago took a different path. Mayor Brandon Johnson stated that the city “does not intend to apply for any federal grants that require the city to comply with President Trump’s political aims.”

The cost of that decision? A Chicago nonprofit lost $3.7 million in federal funding for violence prevention. Programs that could have saved lives disappeared because of political positioning.

Meanwhile, only 6% of major crimes result in arrests in Chicago. Less than 20% of murders get solved. For non-fatal shootings, the clearance rate drops to 5%.

The False Frame

Some frame this as a battle between local control and federal overreach.

That’s inaccurate.

Memphis didn’t surrender authority. The city multiplied its resources. Federal agents brought additional manpower, expertise, and the ability to prosecute cases in federal court where sentences carry more weight.

Mayor Paul Young said efforts were “guided by one purpose: to uplift our community.” The partnership worked because it focused on outcomes, not ideology.

The real question is: Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?

Politics Has a Body Count

Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?

I’ve seen both approaches. The difference isn’t subtle.

In Memphis, people feel safer walking their streets. Crime data confirms what residents experience daily.

Chicago rejected the offer of federal help, and encouraged a rebellion against enforcement of federal immigration law. In the past month, we saw another deadly teen takeover of downtown Chicago, career criminals terrorizing CTA riders, school children beating up a mom with her child, and more gang violence.

You can debate federal policy all you want. But when your city faces a crime crisis, the question becomes simple: Will you accept help or grandstand while people suffer?

Memphis answered that question. So did Chicago.

The results speak for themselves.

A former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official appointed as deputy chief of the Office of Financial Operations during the Obama administration – and who still holds a security clearance – was indicted on Friday on charges of agreeing to launder $12 million for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) – which was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February of this year.

Paul Campo, who oversaw the FBI’s money laundering operations and resigned in January 2016 ahead of Trump’s inauguration, laundered around $750,000 for the cartel by converting cash into cryptocurrency, and agreed to launder far more – totaling over $12 million, according to the indictment. 

Campo’s hoome was raided by federal agents on Thursday.

Campo also provided a payment for around 220 kilos of cocaine on the understanding that the drugs had been imported into the USA, the indictment further states. 

He was able to do this after spending 25 years at the DEA, rising to a high-level position which he used to sell himself to CJNG as someone who could; 

• give inside information on DEA operations

• help them move drug money

• help them avoid detection

• and even advise on narcotics logistics

In late 2024, Campo, along with a friend Robert Sensi, began conspiring with an undercover government source they believed was with the cartel. They allegedly discussed using drones packed with C-4 explosives for CJNG operation. When the undercover agent asked what they could do with the drones, Campo allegedly said “We put explosives and we just send it over there,” adding that six kilos of C-4 would be enough to blow up “the whole fucking…” [sentence trails off]

Campo also allegedly told the undercover source that, because of his past work inside DEA’s intelligence and financial units, he still had “connections” within the agency and could advise CJNG on how to evade detection. According to the indictment, he portrayed himself as someone who understood DEA investigative patterns, internal targeting systems, and the vulnerabilities of U.S. financial controls.

Both Campo and Sensi allegedly assured the undercover officer that they could convert cartel cash into cryptocurrency in a way that would appear legitimate, billing themselves as specialists capable of “getting money back” for clients whose assets had been seized by law enforcement.

A series of staged transactions followed

Beginning in early 2025, the DEA source delivered multiple bulk-cash installments to the defendants under the guise of CJNG proceeds—first $200,000 in Charlotte, North Carolina, then additional transfers totaling more than $187,000 over the following days. Campo and Sensi allegedly converted the funds into cryptocurrency and reassured the source that they would charge an 8% commission for future laundering.

According to prosecutors, the two men also repeatedly affirmed that they were prepared to launder significantly larger sums. During one meeting, Campo allegedly said he and Sensi could easily move “millions” for the cartel through real-estate transactions, prepaid cards, and crypto channels that would not be flagged by U.S. financial institutions.

By July 2025, the indictment states, the undercover source delivered an additional $276,000 that the defendants believed to be CJNG drug proceeds. A second cash drop occurred in September. Each time, prosecutors say, Campo pitched the source on expanding their partnership into a long-term laundering pipeline.

The most damning allegation involves narcotics trafficking

In October 2025, the DEA source told Campo and Sensi that a shipment of more than 220 kilograms of cocaine had already entered the United States and required payment. Campo and Sensi allegedly agreed to help facilitate the transaction, with Campo telling the source that once the funds were converted and returned, CJNG would “release the shipment” and continue to work with them.

The indictment asserts that Campo, Sensi, and their co-conspirators were to receive 30% of the proceeds – roughly $1.5 million – for their role in the cocaine deal, and an additional fee for converting the remainder into cryptocurrency. Campo then allegedly urged the undercover source to “move the product now,” signaling they were ready to operationalize the narcotics pipeline.

Throughout these interactions, prosecutors say, Campo and Sensi communicated via encrypted messaging systems and framed their cooperation with CJNG as the beginning of a long-term strategic partnership. After one successful money drop, Sensi reportedly told the undercover source: “Welcome to the fucking cartel!”

By Irina Slav of OilPrice.com

India’s Bharat Petroleum Corp. and India Oil Corp. have bought Russian crude from non-sanctioned companies, with Bharat Petroleum ordering a cargo of 2 million barrels of Urals crude for January delivery, from companies other than Rosneft and Lukoil, Reuters has reported, citing unnamed trader sources.

The price tag for the cargo featured a discount of $6-$7 to Brent crude, the sources told Reuters. This is actually slimmer than the futures market difference between Urals and Brent. Brent is trading at a bit over $63 per barrel, while the flagship Russian blend is changing hands for over $54 per barrel.

Rosneft and Lukoil handled around half of Russia’s total oil exports, or around 2 million barrels daily, until November 21, when fresh U.S. sanctions came into effect targeting specifically the two companies. Since then, importers and exporters alike have been looking for—and finding—ways around the sanctions. As many expected, while exports by Rosneft and Lukoil are down, exports of crude by non-sanctioned companies have spiked since November 21.

Matryoshka oil trading:

Goldman Sachs says that oil exports from Lukoil and Rosneft are down ~1.1m b/d, but **simultaneosly** exports from other Russian “non-sanctioned companies” are up 1.0m b/d. (😇🤭)

“Russian oil trading networks are reorganizing quickly,” the bank says. pic.twitter.com/jcX8PXt2Ij

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) December 3, 2025

According to data recently quoted by Goldman Sachs, since the sanctions came into effect, oil flows from Rosneft and Lukoil abroad had dropped by around 1 million barrels daily. However, in the same period, flows from non-sanctioned Russian oil companies to clients overseas have gained half a million barrels daily.

Earlier reports showed that sanctions had prompted a drop in new orders from Indian refiners before the deadline. Even so, Kpler data showed that Indian buyers were on track to import the most oil from Russia since July in November, at 1.855 million barrels daily. This would compare to 1.48 million barrels daily for October.

“Russian supply is expected to be high in November as many refineries tried to fill the stocks prior to the U.S. sanctions deadline and also due to the rule for oil products production for the EU market from non-Russian oil from 2026,” an unnamed trader told Reuters, which cited the Kpler data earlier this month.

SpaceX has taken one step toward becoming a direct competitor to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Its Starlink subsidiary quietly filed to register the “Starlink Mobile” trademark on Oct. 16, signaling plans to enter the wireless carrier business.

For context, Elon Musk spoke at the All-In Summit in early September and made it clear he wants to morph Starlink into a global mobile wireless carrier that leverages both satellites and ground-based spectrum.

All-In’s Chamath Palihapitiya asked Musk: “Elon, is your vision that instead of having an AT&T account and then roaming when you’re in the UK or India, we could have one direct deal with Starlink that works all over the world? Maybe not today, but eventually — is that the end goal?”

Musk responded: “Yes.”

2/ $ASTS: Key excerpts from the interview Starlink’s true intention of competing against MNOs comes out:

Chamath: “Elon is your vision for this that instead of you know having an AT&T account and then roaming when you’re in the UK or in India, we could have one direct deal with… pic.twitter.com/fkGuXHd3iF

— Anp🅰️nman (@spacanpanman) September 10, 2025

On Oct. 16, Starlink filed to trademark “Starlink Mobile.” One X user spotted the application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records:

Starlink’s USPTO filing describes the service as: “Satellite communication and transmission services; transmission of data, voice, image and video via satellite; collecting and transmitting real-time data and images obtained via satellites; telecommunications services, namely, cellular personal communication services.”

Already…

Starlink Direct to Cell operates the largest satellite-to-mobile constellation in the world, delivering data, voice, video and messaging to mobile dead zones across 5 continents.

Since first activating service earlier this year, more than 8M people and counting have relied on… pic.twitter.com/wGC9qpKFNi

— Starlink (@Starlink) November 4, 2025

Back at the All-In Summit, David Friedberg asked Musk: “Could you buy some carriers to acquire more spectrum? Maybe buy Verizon?”

Musk replied: “Not out of the question. I suppose that may happen.”

Authored by ‘Cynical Publius’ via American Greatness,

I have had enough. I can no longer sit still while the Deep State does its very best to smear Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and have him removed from his post via lies, rumors, propaganda, and innuendo. It feels exactly like version 2.0 of the “Trump/Russia Collusion” disinformation campaign, and it needs to be called out for what it is.

Enough.

I am here to defend the best Secretary of War/Defense since Caspar Weinberger.

What we have seen in the last few weeks is clearly an orchestrated, carefully constructed character assassination campaign against Hegseth.

The campaign began in the early days of November when the leaders of the Sedition 6 introduced legislation known as the “No Troops in Our Streets Act,” legislation clearly designed to undermine the roles of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth in the military chain of command. Then, of course, on November 18, the Sedition 6—led by Senators Mark Kelly and Elisa Slotkin—launched their infamous video calling (via innuendo and plausible deniability) for military members to disobey lawful orders they disagree with politically by pretending such lawful orders are “unlawful.” For the next eight days, the Deep State went into a full media onslaught that seemed designed to foment a military mutiny against Trump and Hegseth. Suddenly, these wannabe seditionists were forced to hit the brakes on their information operation, as on November 26 two West Virginia National Guard soldiers patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., in support of anti-crime operations were shot by an Afghan civilian with former ties to the CIA, and America saw an easy connection between that attack and the calls to undermine Trump, Hegseth, and the anti-crime mission.

But the Deep State never rests and was quick to shift gears and change the subject away from their own perfidy. On November 28, the Washington Post published its anonymously sourced hit piece on Hegseth, alleging that he personally directed war crimes, and in a matter of minutes, the entire Democrat hierarchy and its minions in the national media ran with Nancy Pelosi’s beloved “wrap-up smear” in a transparent effort to remove Hegseth.

We now know, of course, it was all a lie. The Democrats and the national media want you to believe that two “fishermen” survived a first strike on their drug-laden speedboat and were then floating in the water helplessly like Rose and Jack at the end of “Titanic,” and we gunned them down as helpless victims and in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In reality, the two narco-terrorists were back on board their partially damaged boat, seeking to conduct damage control and recover their WMD cargo. The narco-terrorists and their lethal cargo were lawful targets under all U.S. laws and all treaties to which the U.S. is a party. No war crimes were involved—just an effective and entirely lawful military strike on narco-terrorists who kill thousands of Americans annually. The Washington Post lied, as is its wont in any matter involving the Trump Administration.

But the damage was done, and too many Americans are still clinging to the lies. In fact, it was an opinion piece I saw today by the desiccated remains of George Will, published in that same Washington Post and uncritically repeating all of that tabloid’s original lies, that pushed me over the edge and caused me to rise to the defense of Pete Hegseth with this article.

As a veteran of the same wars Hegseth fought in and as a retired Army colonel who also fought the Beltway wars of the Pentagon, I take the attacks on Hegseth personally, as he is trying to fix all of the ills that I saw so clearly in my time in service. My sincere belief is that at this time in American history, Pete Hegseth is the perfect person to serve as Secretary of War.

I’ll explain why.

America’s military spent 20+ years engaged in a GWOT battle that, after its first few years, became a predominantly political, economic, diplomatic, and law enforcement mission where the military was not the right tool in the DIME-FIL (DIME-FIL = The “elements of national power” under U.S. military doctrine, or diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement) toolbox. “Nation building,” ridiculously restrictive, JAG-inspired rules of engagement, social justice experimentation, Military Transition Teams and Security Force Assistance Brigades, and the bastardization of combat arms units away from their mission-essential tasks all created a U.S. military that was risk averse to a crippling degree, lacked adequate training and equipment readiness levels for high-intensity conflict, had broken morale and poor retention/recruiting, and was more concerned about DEI than closing with and destroying the enemy.

The military that Donald Trump inherited from Joe Biden in January of this year was a broken shell of the military that entered the GWOT in 2001. It had lost its focus on lethality, valued skin color and genitalia more than warfighting competency, and was not even able to fully recognize its own missions in a world rife with peer competitors bent on high-intensity global or regional domination, such as China and Russia. Yes, low-intensity conflict was still on the menu in places like Yemen, Syria, and the battles against narco-terrorists, but a military trained for high-intensity conflict can adjust to low-intensity conflict quickly, but it does not work so well the other way around.

As Donald Trump took office, what America needed was a Secretary of War who was intimately familiar with these failures—somebody who had fought those GWOT battles and understood our failings deep in his or her soul. Such a person could not be one of the Perfumed Princes who engineered and would repeat our failures. Instead, it needed to be someone with muddy boots who had experienced the mess we had become at a deeply personal, tactical level.

Moreover, it needed to be someone who understood information operations and the climate of global, instantaneous messaging that is our new day-to-day.

This person did not need to have a comprehensive understanding of military procurement and the military/industrial complex that accompanies Beltway jockeying with Congress and defense contractors—those skills are widely available and could easily be obtained by hiring effective subordinates with the shared vision of a military that needed to be once again focused on lethality.

What might such a person have looked like?

Well, he or she would need to have the following qualifications:

1. A military career that involved killing the enemy up close and personal in the most efficient manner possible. An infantryman, if possible. A Combat Infantryman Badge would be double plus good.

2. Muddy boots experience leading troops in direct combat in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

3. Deep experience in leading one of the failed coalition training missions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. Someone who shared the dark personal struggles of every veteran who had come home from our endless wars.

5. A final military rank that meant he or she was never a Perfumed Prince and was never polluted by the Beltway mind virus that seems to infect every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or Guardian who ever pins on a star.

6. Deep experience in information operations, such as being a best-selling author on military affairs or being a military expert on a major news network.

Those are the qualifications that were needed to turn America’s military around and restore it to once again being the premier warfighting force in world history. We did not need more of the same. We did not need a former Raytheon board member. We did not need a former congressman who cared more about politics than winning wars. We did not need yet another retired general who was an architect of our useless, endless wars. What we needed was someone who truly understood the errors of the GWOT, understood that the mission of the U.S. military is to close with and destroy the enemy in the most violent and expeditious manner possible, and who had the chops in the 24/7 modern information environment to wage information warfare just as effectively as his opponents.

One American and one American only had those qualifications: Pete Hegseth, and that man is doing everything I could have ever hoped for to restore the pride and skill we have lost. His focus on lethality and warfighting skill is the one and only antidote to the intentional failures that have scarred veterans like Hegseth and me over the past 24 years.

Please realize this: Hegseth is a threat to anyone who prefers the Obama/Biden vision of an impotent social justice military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks R2P (R2P = “Responsibility to Protect,” i.e., a leftist, globalist doctrine popularized under the Obama Administration that says the U.S. military has a core mission of protecting foreign populations against the deprivations of their own or neighboring governments or warlords. Although legitimate in some instances, it prioritizes the national interests and lives of foreigners over the national interests of the USA and the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen) is a core competency of the American military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks enriching the military/industrial complex is more important than winning wars. Basically, he is a threat to anyone who sees the military as a politicized force and not an effective warfighting endeavor. In other words, Hegseth is a threat to the Beltway defense establishment that has exchanged failure for dollars since the days of Robert McNamara.

Which is why it is so very, very important that the same defense establishment (elected, unelected, and media) smear him in every way imaginable and at every opportunity. When you see and hear the abject lies of the Sedition 6 and their ilk, and when you see and hear wholly fabricated, libelous stories like the “Kill Them All” Hoax, realize why this is happening. These fake news stories are designed to attack and defeat an existential threat to the leftist vision of a social justice American military that exists to enrich defense industry campaign contributors.

Like Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth is an existential threat to the leftist evils that nearly defeated America and the Constitution via Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

It takes a strong man to withstand the onslaught of the Deep State, with all of its lies, libel, and propaganda. Donald Trump is one man who withstood that fire of infamous defamation. Pete Hegseth is another.

We all owe Pete Hegseth our gratitude for the personal cost he is enduring in the name of freedom. He could be sitting at home enjoying his writings and his Fox News appearances. Instead, he is enduring the cowardly slings and arrows of powerful liars as he strives to fix the ills that have long beset our nation’s military.

The disgusting disinformation campaign against Hegseth needs to be challenged vigorously, and I encourage all of you readers to help lead the counterattack.

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

“We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever,” Macron said on Thursday while on a tour of China. It was his fourth state visit, and part of a renewed effort to woo Chinese President Xi Jinping to the West’s side on stepping up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I hope that China will join our call, our efforts to achieve, as soon as possible, at the very least a ceasefire in the form of a moratorium on strikes targeting critical infrastructure,” the French leader said. But the consensus is that Macron’s latest effort has once again failed to gain anything in the way of a concession from Xi on the Ukraine issue. 

Xi only vaguely stated that “China supports all efforts that work towards peace” while urging a peace deal that all parties would accept, in a clear nod to Moscow’s position that there are still a number of unsatisfactory aspects to the Trump-proposed peace plan.

President Xi also interestingly used language and themes often employed by Putin, for example stressing the needs to carry on the “banner of multilateralism” when it comes to China-France relations:

“No matter how the external environment changes, both sides as major powers should always demonstrate independence and strategic vision, show mutual understanding and mutual support for each other on core matters and major critical issues,” he said.

“China and France should demonstrate their sense of responsibility, raise high the banner of multilateralism … and firmly stand on the right side of history.”

Friday’s commentary from Rabobank says this is all a case for pessimism when it comes to the closeness or else great distance of a potential Ukraine peace deal:

The kind of multilateralism that Xi has in mind is an important point to consider. Is Xi talking about an idealistic evolution of the United Nations where more power is given to the developing world but disputes are resolved via dialogue? Or is he talking about ending US hegemony to carve the world up into spheres of influence for regional great powers to preside over? Xi’s reluctance to get involved in brokering a peace deal in Ukraine and recent naval deployments in the wake of a diplomatic spat with Japan will make many nervous that it is the latter.

A spheres of influence paradigm is certainly favorable in the eyes of Vladimir Putin. He has reportedly rejected the latest peace overtures from US special envoy Witkoff and told India Today that Ukrainian troops will either leave the Donbas region or Russia will “liberate these territories by force”. Kremlin officials have reportedly told journalists that a peace deal remains a long way off. The Wall Street Journal editorial today says “maybe it is time to conclude that Mr. Putin doesn’t want peace” while arguing that Putin has no incentive to negotiate in good faith while he feels that he is winning.

So, peace in our time? Don’t count on it.

European leaders have not been pleased that the US plan is the first to ever seriously offer territorial concessions since the war’s start. Some European officials alongside media reports in the EU have gone so far as to accuse Putin of ‘faking’ interest in peace efforts.

While the Kremlin has called the prior Tuesday Moscow talks involving Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner “constructive” – it conceded that little actual progress was made toward a deal, given Russia is demanding nothing less than full legal and international recognition of the territories under its control. 

Putin has followed up with a warning that Russia is ready seize more Ukrainian territory as the ‘special military operation’ continues. “Either we liberate these territories by force of arms. Or Ukrainian troops leave these territories,” he has freshly warned.

Images from Macron’s three-day rare “sightseeing” tour of China with President Xi:

Chinese President Xi Jinping and visiting French President Emmanuel Macron had friendly exchanges on Friday in Dujiangyan in Chengdu, capital city of southwest China’s Sichuan Province, Xinhua reported.

Upon their arrival, Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, were warmly… pic.twitter.com/xoPQsuzH4R

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) December 5, 2025

Mutual strikes on energy infrastructure are only continuing to escalate. President Putin has also warned his military is readying to expand strikes on Ukrainian ports, in retaliation for a spate of drone attacks on tankers transporting Russian oil to global markets.

With Ukraine peace being elusive, apparently, Xi and Macron handled a series of lesser matters Thursday and Friday,” EuroNews reports. “They signed 12 agreements, including ones calling for cooperation on a new round of panda conservation efforts and exchanges in higher education and research.” The same report notes that the European Union “ran a massive trade deficit with China of more than €300 billion last year. China alone represents 46% of France’s total trade deficit.”

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The ultra-rich grew even wealthier this year and the world has more billionaires than ever, according to Swiss bank UBS.

Global billionaire wealth hit a record $15.8 trillion in 2025, up by 13 percent from 2024, UBS said in its 11th Billionaire Ambitions Report, published on Dec. 4. This is the second-largest annual increase, after 2021, “lifted by existing tech billionaires’ appreciating wealth and the number of new billionaires across a range of sectors,” the report reads.

UBS’s analysis includes cash, securities, corporate ownership interests, property, and other material assets.

“In a highly uncertain time for geopolitics and economics, entrepreneurs are innovating at scale across a range of sectors and markets,” UBS Global Wealth Management executive Benjamin Cavalli said. “They’re creating wealth as they do so.”

Inheritance was also a factor in the growth of the billionaires’ ranks.

In the 12 months through April, 91 people became billionaires through inheritance, receiving almost $298 billion, and the trend is likely to continue as the great wealth transfer intensifies.

The bank calculated that at least $5.9 trillion will be inherited by billionaire children over the next 15 years, “either directly or indirectly through spouses who inherit it first and then pass it on.”

A majority of respondents, 82 percent, said they hope that their children develop the skills and values necessary to succeed on their own without “relying solely on inherited wealth.”

The number of billionaires rose by 8.8 percent in 2025, to 2,919 from 2,682 a year earlier.

The United States has the most billionaires worldwide, with 924 individuals owning approximately $6.9 trillion. This is followed by mainland China, where 470 billionaires own about $1.8 trillion. India (188 billionaires), Germany (156), and the UK (91) rounded out the top five.

UBS said this could change, as billionaires have become more mobile amid geopolitical concerns, tax policy changes, and living standards.

Debating the Wealth Tax

For years, U.S. and European governments have debated the idea of a wealth tax, or an annual levy on net worth, to be imposed once assets minus debts exceed a threshold.

In 2024, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) introduced legislation—the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act—to implement a wealth tax on individuals with more than $50 million.

“All my bill is asking is that when you make it big, bigger than $50 million dollars, then on that next dollar, you pitch in 2 cents, so everyone else can have a chance,” Warren said in March 2024.

The bill stalled in both chambers. Overseas, politicians and voters have been reluctant to back similar schemes.

Nearly 80 percent of Swiss voters recently turned down a proposed 50 percent tax on inherited fortunes greater than 50 million Swiss francs ($62 million).

The French Parliament rejected a proposed 2 percent tax on wealth greater than 100 million euros ($116 million) in October. Although the UK has not adopted a formal wealth tax, it has announced plans to impose higher taxes on wealthier residents.

Economists have presented divergent opinions on the concept in general. Proponents say it can improve governments’ deteriorating fiscal health and address income inequality. Critics have said that it would disincentivize wealth creation.

In June 2024, a study by French economist Gabriel Zucman estimated that a Group of 20 motion to slap a minimum 2 percent tax on the ultra-wealthy could generate $250 billion in additional revenue.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, speaking at a 2020 virtual event, argued that the United States needs a wealth tax.

“Where we are today in the 21st century, a basic middle-class life is not accessible to very large portions of America,” Stiglitz said. “I think a wealth tax is a good idea because we have so much inequality in wealth … [that] even a moderate rate like 3 percent on billionaires and 2 percent on those over $50 million … [would raise] an enormous amount of revenue.”

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Human Action” that a wealth tax would be a detriment to capital accumulation and a hindrance to wealth creation, since it would disincentivize the building of wealth.

“Capital levies, inheritance and estate taxes, and income taxes are similarly self-defeating if carried to extremes,” Von Mises wrote. “The power to tax is, as Chief Justice [John] Marshall pertinently observed, the power to destroy.”

Years later, economist Milton Friedman also said a wealth levy would punish saving and investment because it would incentivize the affluent “to dissipate wealth.”

“Where do you get the factories?” Friedman said during a university lecture in the 1970s. “Where do you get the machines? Where do you get the capital investment? Where do you get the incentive to improve technology?”

According to Friedman, a wealth tax would be on top of all the other taxes wealthier households already pay.

The Tax Foundation concluded in 2024 that wealth taxes would produce unintended consequences, including job destruction, reduced capital and innovation, slower economic activity, and higher administrative costs. This would result in little revenue being generated, it said.

First, Delta Air Lines warned that the record 43-day government shutdown last month, which throttled air traffic at 40 major airports, would slash its fourth-quarter profit by about $200 million. Now Southwest Airlines is following suit, cutting its full-year profit guidance as the shutdown’s ripple effects continue to weigh on major carriers.

Southwest revealed in a new SEC filing:

“As a result of lower revenue due to the government shutdown, and the impact of higher fuel prices, the Company now expects its full-year 2025 EBIT to be approximately $500 million, compared with its prior expectation of $600 million to $800 million. Following the temporary decline in demand related to the shutdown, bookings have returned to previous expectations.”

The good news is that the shutdown’s impact didn’t spill over into December. Southwest noted in its filing that bookings have already bounced back:

Following the temporary decline in demand related to the shutdown, bookings have returned to previous expectations.

Southwest shares are down about 1.5% in premarket trading following the earnings outlook downgrade. Year-to-date (as of Thursday’s close), shares are up 6.5%. The float is short 6.56%, or about 33.5 million shares.

Delta Air Lines and Alaska Air Group, which owns Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines, both disclosed Wednesday that the shutdown’s disruption would dent earnings this quarter.

“When you’ve got the Transportation Secretary telling people, ‘We don’t have controllers,’ questioning the safety at some level of travel, which has never before happened, people said, ‘Whoa, I’m going to hold up on making decisions,'” Delta Chief Executive Ed Bastian said Wednesday at a conference.

Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration restricted flights at major US airports in response to the government shutdown, which sent some federal transportation workers home. More importantly, air-traffic controllers called out sick, causing widespread disruptions and prompting Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to reduce flight volumes nationwide to prevent chaos across airports.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is in India for a two-day official visit, greeted by New Delhi city streets decked out in “Welcome to India” posters, celebratory images of Putin’s portrait, and alternating Russian and Indian flags. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was actually present at the airport in Delhi to receive Putin Thursday night, which marks a rare break from protocol.

The Russian leader met with Prime Minister Modi and senior Indian officials, and the agenda included a wreath-laying ceremony at the Mahatma Gandhi memorial, the signing of economic and strategic partners ship deals, and participation in the Russian-Indian Business Forum. Putin’s last trip to India was five years ago, in 2021, and Modi’s visit to Moscow last year came at a sensitive and crucial point at which the West was trying to impose total isolation on Moscow, amid the grinding Ukraine war.

Modi during the Putin meeting hailed the two countries’ relations as “steadfast like a pole star” – while the Russian leader  praised his Indian counterpart for resisting “external pressure” and investing in closer relations. Trump has already hit India with an additional trade tariff of 25% over continued purchases of Russian energy, taking the total to a steep 50% on Indian goods exported to the US.

All eyes are on their oil trade amid US sanctions and tariff pressures on India from the Trump administration. On this crucial front, Putin said that Russia was prepared to continue “uninterrupted” crude oil shipments to India.

Russia is “ready to continue to ensure an uninterrupted supply of fuel for the rapidly growing Indian economy,” Putin pledged.

At a moment that Washington and the EU have loudly denounced that India’s purchases of cheap Russian oil help finance Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Putin stated while in Delhi, “The United States itself still buys nuclear fuel from us for its own nuclear power plants. That is also fuel,” according to his words to India Today.

He questioned while pointing out the clear contradiction, “If the U.S. has the right to buy our fuel, why shouldn’t India have the same privilege? This question deserves thorough examination, and we stand ready to discuss it, including with President Trump.” According to more of Putin’s pushback:

India has said Trump’s tariffs are unjustified and unreasonable and pointed at ongoing U.S. trade with Moscow. The U.S. and European Union continue to import billions of dollars’ worth of Russian energy and commodities, ranging from liquefied natural gas to enriched uranium.

“There is a certain decline in overall trade turnover during the first nine months of this year,” Putin said when asked whether Indian oil purchases had fallen under pressure from the West.

“This is just a minor adjustment. Overall, our trade turnover stands almost at the same level as before.” He added: “Trade in petroleum products and crude oil … Russian oil, is running smoothly in India.”

Glimpses from the ceremonial welcome for President Putin at Rashtrapati Bhavan. President Putin has been unwavering in his commitment to strong India-Russia ties and has contributed immensely to taking this relationship to new heights. Though the world has seen many changes over… pic.twitter.com/iQQNzq168n

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) December 5, 2025

Additionally the two agreed to take the “India-Russia economic partnership to new heights” under the India-Russia economic cooperation program until 2030, for which they signed a number of memorandums which set out an ambitious trade target of $100 billion.

Just ahead of the trip, the Deputy Head of the Russian Presidential Administration Maxim Oreshkin had previewed of some of the Kremlin’s goals, “The Russian delegation and businesses have come to buy Indian goods and services, and we want to significantly increase purchases. This is not a temporary story, but a strategic choice for developing relations between the world’s third-and fourth-largest economies.”

“Today, India is one of the key drivers of the global economy. Considering its demographics and urbanization, India is a global growth leader for the coming decades and a significant player in global trade. India has achieved significant results in science and technology,” Oreshkin added.

The US-led international sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft have just translated to more exports via other Russian companies:

Matryoshka oil trading:

Goldman Sachs says that oil exports from Lukoil and Rosneft are down ~1.1m b/d, but **simultaneosly** exports from other Russian “non-sanctioned companies” are up 1.0m b/d. (😇🤭)

“Russian oil trading networks are reorganizing quickly,” the bank says. pic.twitter.com/jcX8PXt2Ij

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) December 3, 2025

PM Modi in turn confirmed that “Both sides are working towards the early conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union.”

On India’s dealing with Trump and tariffs, Putin struck a tone of optimism, also as Moscow is engaged in its own direct talks with Washington. “We hope that, in the end, all violations of World Trade Organization regulations will be rectified,” Putin said.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Dec. 4 that the Trump administration is looking to increase the number of countries subject to the U.S. travel ban to more than 30.

The United States currently imposes full or partial suspensions of entry on nationals from 19 countries, including Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, Cuba, Somalia, Libya, Laos, Burma (also known as Myanmar), and Sudan.

Noem said more countries will be added, but did not name any.

“I won’t be specific on the number, but it’s over 30, and the president is continuing to evaluate countries,” she said in an interview on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that aired Dec. 4.

“Listen, if they don’t have a stable government there, if they don’t have a country that can sustain itself and tell us who those individuals are and help us vet them, why should we allow people from that country to come here to the United States?”

Noem blamed the Biden administration for the asylum backlog, which she said has exceeded a million cases.

She said credible applicants were unable to get through “because the Biden administration was just allowing people to come here and allowing them a free-for-all at the United States and our territories and our country, and then they weren’t vetting them and backlogging their cases.”

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) last week halted all asylum decisions following the Nov. 26 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, which authorities say was carried out by an Afghan national who entered the United States in September 2021 through a Biden-era resettlement program.

Noem on Dec. 2 called for a “full travel ban” on countries she says are flooding the United States with criminals and welfare dependents following a meeting with President Donald Trump.

“Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE,” she stated on X.

Trump has said that his administration would work to pause immigration from “third-world countries” to allow for the U.S. system’s full recovery.

Speaking to reporters on Nov. 30, the president said that his reference to third-world countries included “people from different countries that are not friendly to us,” and “countries that are out of control themselves,” pointing to Somalia as one example.

Trump also urged to suspend all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens, denaturalize immigrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any foreigners deemed to be “a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilization.”