Challenging electric vehicle orthodoxy, US-listed Chinese EV start-up Nio is leading the charge on a different approach to re-energizing vehicles — having drivers swap out spent batteries rather than recharging them. With swapping stations already up and running in 285 Chinese cities, Nio is betting that consumers will be won over by time savings and cost advantages of battery-swapping. 

The technology is well beyond the pilot phase: In July, Nio celebrated is 80 millionth battery swap in China. The swap is easier than filling up a petrol car or re-charging a typical EV. After pulling up to a swapping station, the driver issues a command via voice or the car’s input screen. The car then drives itself into the station, stopping above a retractable metal floor. Robotic arms remove the spent battery and insert a new one. After a quick software and hardware check, the driver is back on the streets — with the whole swapping process taking only about 3 minutes.  

Faster re-powering is one advantage. Battery-swapping can also slash the price of a car by thousands of dollars, because the vehicle owner doesn’t own the battery, notes Financial Times. That also eliminates the potential for a huge expense when a battery is damaged or dies. It also makes sense for people living in densely populated cities, where dedicated charge points may not be plentiful in apartment buildings. 

China may hit a major EV milestone this year, with EV sales topping internal combustion for the first time. Chinese battery maker CATL — the largest producer in the world — plans to build 1,000 swap stations for passenger vehicles in China in 2025, targeting 10,000 stations by 2028 with a capacity for 1 million battery swaps a day. China is offering subsidies that cover up to 40% of the cost of building swapping stations. 

Nio has established a modest battery-swapping beachhead in Europe, with 60 stations concentrated in Norway and Germany. Nio’s map also shows stations in Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Earlier this week, NIO celebrated its 200,000th European battery swap. The company said 74% of European users “now choose the speed and ease of changing batteries.” However, the pace at which the company is installing new swap-stations in Europe has stalled, with just 10 stations opening in the past year. In April, EV reported that Nio had significantly cut its investment in European expansion. Managing battery compatibility — to cover the various batteries used by different EV brands — appears to be one of the challenges in rolling out new European stations.  

Some in the industry think battery-swapping isn’t the best avenue, with a high cost of infrastructure among the concerns. He Xiaopeng, chief executive of EV maker Xpeng, told the Times that his firm considered that alternative process “for five or six years” before discarding it altogether around 2023. “Advancing battery technology is [more important] than developing battery-swapping capabilities. That’s the path we’ve chosen,” said He. Across the EV industry, the emphasis has been on flash recharging. Last month, China’s National Development and Reform Commission announced it will build 100,000 fast-charging stations over the next two years. 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who voted in favor of a respiratory syncytial virus antibody for infants says new data that has come to light indicates that the vote was based on presentations that omitted crucial information.

“It appears that this decision was based on manipulated data analyses,” Dr. Robert Malone, a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), said in a blog post on Aug. 20.

Malone and four other members of the panel in June voted to advise the CDC to recommend the antibody called clesrovimab for infants to try to prevent respiratory syncytial virus. Known as RSV, the virus typically causes mild symptoms such as a cold but can, in some cases, lead to severe problems and, according to the CDC, is a leading cause of infant hospitalization.

Two members voted to advise the CDC not to recommend clesrovimab.

The vote followed presentations by CDC epidemiologist Adam MacNeil and Dr. Matthew Daley, who works closely with the CDC and is a former member of ACIP.

MacNeil said in his presentation that there was no increased risk for seizures in infants in 2024 and early 2025 who received nirsevimab, the only antibody available to infants at the time, based on data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. Daley provided more information, summarizing the study of information from the data system. That included a finding that when splitting infants into two subgroups, aged zero to 37 days and 38 days to just younger than 8 months of age, there was not a statistically significant risk of seizures.

“These are truly remarkable products,” Dr. Cody Meissner, an ACIP member who studied them as part of a committee workgroup, said after the presentations and before the vote. “They are safe and they’re effective.”

Malone said before the vote that “concerning this product, it has been very actively debated internally and I’m satisfied that, given the short period of time we have to address this, that I’m comfortable that we have sufficient information.”

Retsef Levi, one of the no votes, said that he was voting no “based on the fact that I don’t feel this is ready to be administered to all healthy babies” and how he wanted to take a more precautionary approach.

The presentation did not include a pooled analysis or seizures from the combined infant population.

Maryanne Demasi, a journalist and researcher who holds a doctorate in rheumatology, later performed an independent analysis of the seizure data, pooling the two infant populations. She found that infants who received nirsevimab were four times more likely to suffer seizures.

Malone said on Aug. 20 that, based on that new information, as well as other concerns raised about the presentations, such as the lack of inclusion of data from other government-run safety systems, it appears that his vote in favor of the new antibody “based on the information and logic presented” was actually “on manipulated data analyses.”

“That trust in the data presented now appears to have been ill-advised. Going forward, speaking for myself, based on these findings, I will no longer be able to trust that what is presented in CDC summaries to the ACIP is transparent, accurate, and unbiased,” he said.

Levi told The Epoch Times in an email that “we all need to aspire to higher level of transparency and deeper discussions of potential safety signals.” He declined to comment further.

Other members did not return requests for comment or could not be reached.

Merck and AstraZeneca, which manufacture the antibodies, did not reply to requests for comment.

The CDC and Daley did not respond to inquiries.

“Dr. Malone was speaking in his personal capacity on his own blog, outside of his responsibilities as an ACIP member,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told The Epoch Times via email. “ACIP remains committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.”

The department, the CDC’s parent agency, is headed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who appointed Malone and others to the ACIP after removing the existing members.

Dr. Jake Scott, a clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote on X that he did not agree with concerns about the presentations.

Pooling the subgroups of infants should not be done, he said, because most infants in the first group did not receive vaccines at the same time as the antibody, while many in the second group did.

“Vaccines are well-established fever triggers, and febrile seizures are documented vaccine side effects. When you pool newborns who got minimal vaccine exposure with 2-month-olds receiving … vaccines, you’re not measuring nirsevimab effects, you’re measuring vaccine-induced fever effects and misattributing them to the antibody,” Scott said on X.

During the ACIP meeting, Daley said 20 percent of the younger age group received hepatitis B vaccines on the same day as nirsevimab, while 84 percent of the infants in the older group received simultaneous vaccination of various shots.

“So essentially the safety evidence that I presented yesterday, in particular for that group who were 37 days to less than 8 months of age, does represent safety with simultaneous vaccination,” he said.

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Authorities in Los Angeles County have cracked a storefront operation trafficking millions of dollars worth of goods allegedly stolen in train and cargo burglaries, officials announced on Aug. 20.

A total of $4.5 million in stolen property—including power tools, appliances, and electric bikes—was recovered on Aug. 14 and Aug. 19 when investigators searched two locations of DJ General Tool and Wire, located in Montebello and Huntington Park.

Several pricey brands were uncovered, including Dyson, Milwaukee, DeWalt, and Makita products. Many of the items were being sold at the stores and online, according to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

LAPD detectives worked with the Union Pacific Police Department and the Los Angeles Port Police during the operation.

Dojoon Park, 41, of Montebello, was arrested on Aug. 14 and booked at the LAPD’s Metropolitan Detention Center on suspicion of receiving stolen property, a felony.

Park was released the same day, in accordance with the county’s zero-bail policy. He is scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 8.

Neither DJ General Tool and Wire nor Park could be reached for comment.

“Organized cargo and retail theft strikes at the heart of our economy, impacting local businesses, workers, and everyday families,” said LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell. “This operation underscores our department’s commitment to dismantling criminal networks that profit from stolen goods.”

The investigation is ongoing, and detectives anticipate more arrests, the LAPD said.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s office is expected to file charges against Park. The office did not return a request for information about the charges.

“Cargo theft is not a victimless crime,” Hochman said in a statement. “It hurts businesses, damages the supply chain, and drives up costs for everyone.”

The Port of Los Angeles has been a hot spot for cargo crime in recent years. Authorities have reported a surge in thefts, driven by organized crime rings.

Cargo theft in the United States and Canada reached a record high of 3,625 incidents in 2024, up 27 percent from the previous year, according to CargoNet data reported by wholesale insurance broker Burns and Wilcox.

California’s cargo theft incidents rose by 33 percent last year from 2023, the data showed.

In April, the LAPD arrested two prominent members of a South American theft group after an extensive investigation into cargo theft in the Los Angeles area.

Detectives arrested Oscar David Borrero-Manchola, 41, and Yonaiker Rafael Martinez-Ramos, 25, after investigators uncovered more than $1.2 million in stolen tequila, speakers, coffee, clothing, shoes, body wash, and pet food at storage facilities in the San Fernando Valley.

Authorities also recovered a stolen shipment of bitcoin mining computers valued at $2.7 million from Los Angeles International Airport. The computers were about to be loaded onto a plane headed to Hong Kong, the LAPD reported.

A new survey by Choice Mutual has revealed what Americans would most want for their last meal. The results show a mix of indulgence, comfort food, and sentimental favorites, with some clear winners across the country, according to MentalFloss.

At the very top of the list is steak, chosen more often than any other dish. Potatoes followed in second place, while pasta and noodle dishes came in third, and pizza fourth. Vegetables ranked fifth, with bread in sixth, lobster in seventh, fries in eighth, mac and cheese ninth, and burgers rounding out the top 10. Fried chicken placed 11th, ice cream 12th, salad 13th, sushi 14th, and cake 16th. Seafood lovers also voted in crab (18th), shrimp (19th), and salmon (25th).

Drinks were more straightforward. Soda was the favorite in every state, with wine coming second and water third. Tea, beer, juice, coffee, cocktails, hard liquor, and milk completed the top 10. When broken down by brand, Coca-Cola led the way, followed by Dr. Pepper, Diet Coke, Pepsi, and Sprite.

State-level data showed steak on top in 25 states, including Texas, California, and Florida, and tied in two others. Pasta took the number one spot in eight states and tied for first in two more, while potatoes claimed first place in four. For beverages, soda dominated across the board, with wine second in 17 states and tying in eight others.

MentalFloss writes that beyond individual dishes, nearly 40 percent of respondents said they would simply choose their favorite food, while about one-third preferred something comforting. One in six wanted something fancy, one in eight would go for a dish with sentimental value, and just 1 percent said they’d use the opportunity to try something new.

When asked who they would want preparing the meal, almost 30 percent chose a friend or family member. Around 16 percent preferred a celebrity chef, nearly 11 percent wanted their favorite restaurant’s chef, and just under 7 percent said they’d cook it themselves. The majority had no preference, as long as the food was good — a reminder that, even for a final meal, taste comes first.

Driving under the influence of alcohol remains a serious public safety issue across the United States. According to the NHTSA, 34 people across the country die every day from drunk-driving crashes.

In this visualization, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu shows the rate of DUIs per 1,000 drivers across America’s 50 biggest cities, based on an analysis conducted by LendingTree.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization is based on LendingTree’s analysis of “tens of millions” of insurance quotes from 2024.

They ranked the 50 largest U.S. cities by the number of DUI violations per 1,000 drivers, highlighting regional differences in driving behavior and law enforcement.

Omaha Leads the Nation in DUIs

Omaha, Nebraska tops the list with 4.48 DUI violations per 1,000 drivers. That’s nearly 10 times the rate seen in Chicago, which ranks lowest at 0.45.

While it’s hard to say why Omaha took the top spot, possible reasons could include higher car dependency or stricter DUI enforcement. Either way, it stands out significantly from the national average.

California Dominates the Top 10

Six of the top 10 cities with the most DUIs are located in California. San Jose, Sacramento, Fresno, Long Beach, Bakersfield, and Oakland all report high DUI rates ranging from 2.76 to 3.68 per 1,000 drivers.

This may reflect the state’s large population and vehicle-centric culture, though variations in enforcement or reporting practices could also play a role.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Violent Crime Rates by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

It’s important to recognize that world orders are nothing new.

World orders have long been the frameworks through which major global powers set the rules of the game. They define the structure of international political relations.

Thinking in terms of world orders requires zooming out entirely—taking the geopolitical view from 40,000 feet.

On a smaller scale, it’s similar to how the most powerful criminal organizations in a city—such as mafias and street gangs—form agreements to divide their activities and territories among themselves.

Eventually, though, these arrangements always break down, leading to violent power struggles until a new agreement is reached, reflecting the shifting balance of power.

A similar dynamic is at play with the most powerful countries, world orders, and world wars.

You can think of world orders as epochs—distinct historical periods marked by evolving global power structures.

Peace of Westphalia (1648 to 1803): This agreement ended the Thirty Years’ War and established a framework for European international relations for over two centuries by maintaining a balance of power among major European states. It involved the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, the Dutch Republic, and various German territories. This world order persisted until the Napoleonic Wars disrupted the balance, necessitating a new international arrangement.

Congress of Vienna (1814 to 1914): The military defeat of Napoleon I led to this world order, which cemented Britain as the dominant global power. The Congress of Vienna set the foundation for European politics until the onset of World War 1 in 1914.

Treaty of Versailles (1919 to 1939): The victors of World War 1 established this world order, introducing institutions like the League of Nations. However, it collapsed when Germany, Italy, and Japan sought to overturn it and impose their own world order during World War 2.

The Current US-Led World Order (1945 to Today): The victors of World War 2 created the current world order with the US as its leader. This system includes institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund—all headquartered in the US. This world order has largely been unipolar, with the US exerting significant influence over international policies and decision-making.

World War 3

While many don’t realize it, World War 3 is already underway.

Let me explain…

Total war between the world’s largest powers that reshuffled the international order defined the previous world wars.

However, with the advent of nuclear weapons, total war between the largest powers today—Russia, China, and the US—means a nuclear Armageddon where there are no winners and only losers.

That could still happen despite nobody wanting it, but it’s not the most likely outcome.

World War 3 is unlikely to be a total war between the world’s largest powers, like the previous world wars.

Instead, the conflict is playing out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological warfare, deniable sabotage, and information warfare.

In that sense, World War 3 is already well underway, though most fail to recognize it.

Russia, China, and their allies are seeking to reshape the US-led world order that has been in place since the end of World War 2.

While they resent US dominance, both Russia and China hold a position—albeit a subordinate one—within the current system. They have permanent seats on the UN Security Council and are members of key international institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

Unlike Germany and Japan in World War 2, Russia and China do not appear intent on completely overturning the current world order. Doing so could invite nuclear Armageddon. Instead, they aim to shift the balance away from US dominance to a multipolar world where they wield greater influence.

The conflict is playing out just below the threshold of direct military conflict. Nevertheless, it is a high-stakes struggle among the world’s major powers to determine the future world order, just as in previous world wars.

This is World War 3. It’s happening right now and unfolding rapidly.

In fact, World War 3 has been ongoing for over a decade.

While WW3 lacks an official starting date, two pivotal events in 2013 and 2014 signaled the beginning of this global struggle between Russia, China, and the US to reshape the world order.

The first was the rise of Xi Jinping in March 2013. It quickly became evident that China was no longer content with being a junior member of the US-led system. Instead, Beijing sought a role commensurate with its power—at minimum, equal to the US, if not the world’s dominant force.

The second was the US-backed coup in Kiev in February 2014, which led to the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian government and its replacement by a pro-US administration.

Ukraine is Russia’s most vital neighbor—both culturally and strategically. Slavic nations, including Russia, trace their heritage to the Kievan Rus’, a federation of tribes centered in present-day Ukraine that existed from the late 800s to the early 1200s.

Ukraine is also of immense geopolitical value. For years, US strategists have pursued the idea of integrating Ukraine into NATO, a move that would significantly weaken Russia’s military position and further isolate Moscow—an appealing prospect for those favoring a unipolar world.

After the 2014 coup, Moscow became convinced that the US was determined to bring Russia under its control. In response, Russia saw no choice but to push back—primarily by aligning with China and other nations to shift the world order from unipolar to multipolar.

I believe these two events marked the beginning of a global struggle among the most powerful nations to reshape the international order—World War 3.

Since then, the conflict has only escalated and may soon reach a tipping point that changes everything.

The graphic below (click to enlarge) maps out the timeline of recent world orders and world wars, offering a clearer perspective on their evolution—and where we may be headed next.

The US-led world order has undergone several distinct phases since the end of World War 2.

From 1945 to 1991, it was defined by the Cold War—a global struggle between the US and the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the post-WW2 world order experienced a massive shift, with the US emerging as the undisputed global superpower. This era, often called the “unipolar moment,” lasted from 1991 until Trump’s inauguration in 2025.

Though it endured for 34 years, the notion that the US could maintain a unipolar world order indefinitely was never realistic.

President Trump seems to recognize that maintaining it is not just unrealistic but unsustainable. He appears to have decided that it is in the US’s best interest to transition to a multipolar reality on its own terms rather than be forced into it by a chaotic collapse.

We are now in a volatile adjustment period as the unipolar world order gives way to a multipolar one.

Does that mean World War 3 is over?

I don’t think so. But it does mean we have entered a new phase of it.

There is still much to be determined—most crucially, the boundaries of the US, Russia, and China’s spheres of influence in this emerging multipolar world.

With the war in Ukraine all but lost and the prospect of victory in Taiwan shrinking by the day, the US government appears to have accepted that the complete subjugation of Russia and China under its unipolar dominance is no longer an achievable goal.

The goalposts of World War 3 have shifted.

Rather than total victory and preserving the unipolar world order, the US is now focused on maximizing its power within the new multipolar landscape—while limiting the influence of its most formidable rivals: Russia and China.

While the US seems to be moving away from the unipolar model and begrudgingly acknowledging the existence of rival powers (Russia and China), it still seeks to be the dominant force in a multipolar world.

The boundaries of the US, Russia, and China’s spheres of influence in this emerging multipolar world have yet to be defined, and the situation remains volatile and dangerous. Whether Trump can successfully guide the US—and the world—through this transition without descending into greater conflict remains an open question.

On a smaller scale, this mirrors how powerful criminal organizations—such as mafias and street gangs—operate within a city. Ideally, a gang or mafia would eliminate all rivals. However, when certain rivals prove too strong to destroy, the conflict shifts toward defining boundaries until a formal arrangement is reached that divides territories.

The same dynamic is now unfolding on a global scale between the US, Russia, and China as World War 3 plays out.

Each side is maneuvering to expand its power and influence until a new arrangement is reached that defines the balance of the multipolar world.

Determining the precise boundaries of various spheres of influence in a multipolar world—and formalizing them into an agreement—will be a complex and prolonged process. It won’t happen overnight.

Until a formal agreement is reached among the world’s major powers—much like the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, the Treaty of Versailles following World War 1, and the Yalta Conference at the close of World War 2—World War 3 will continue.

The Middle East: The Decisive Battleground of WW3

The Middle East presents one of the greatest uncertainties in the emerging multipolar world. I believe the region will be pivotal.

If the US and its allies prevail there, it could open the door to containing Russian and Chinese influence within a multipolar world.

But if Russia and China gain the upper hand in this strategic region, the US will suffer a major geopolitical downgrade, much like the British Empire after World Wars 1 and 2.

The region is further complicated by the presence of powerful regional players like Turkey, nuclear-armed Israel, and Iran, all of whom have their own interests.

The US, Russia, and China will not only need to define their boundaries in the Middle East, but so will these regional actors. There’s no sign of a resolution anytime soon. The region remains volatile, and the potential for a regional conflict escalating into a global confrontation remains a real possibility.

A key question is Iran’s role in the multipolar world order. If the Middle East is pivotal to the global balance of power in a multipolar world, then Iran is pivotal to the balance of power within the Middle East.

Control of Iran would give the US even greater leverage over the Middle East’s hydrocarbon resources. A US-aligned government in Tehran could help block China’s Belt and Road Initiative from pushing further west and potentially cut off 14% of China’s oil imports. It would also hinder Russian trade through the Caspian Sea and serve as a launchpad to destabilize Russia from its southern flank.

In short, bringing Iran under US influence would open the door to further undermining both Russia and China. For them, Iran is strategic depth.

Russia and China cannot afford to let Iran fall—and the US and Israel cannot afford to let it stand. The question is: who will prevail?

It’s doubtful that the US and its allies can win the war in Ukraine against Russia or a potential war over Taiwan against China. Their best shot at rolling back Russian and Chinese influence in a multipolar world is through striking Iran.

That’s why I believe the US and its allies will make their last stand to preserve global preeminence by attempting to overthrow Iran’s government—likely through full-scale war. Whether they’ll succeed is another question entirely.

As the Middle East becomes the decisive battleground in the struggle to shape the new world order, the consequences are not just geopolitical—they are deeply personal. The outcome of this conflict could trigger the most dangerous economic crisis in a hundred years, one that threatens your financial stability, personal freedom, and way of life.

To help you navigate what’s coming, I’ve prepared an urgent Special Report: “The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… and the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now.” It explains the global forces at play, what they mean for you, and the critical steps you can take today to prepare. Click here to access the report and read it now. History is moving fast. Don’t get left behind.

Just as President Trump has of late highlighted the severe starvation crisis impacting Gaza’s children and vast majority of civilians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday has confirmed that he has instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages. 

He declared that he wants to end to the war in Gaza on terms “acceptable to Israel”. Still, his expanded ground operation will proceed, and while addressing Israeli troops he made clear that his cabinet approved plans for a large-scale assault on Gaza City.

His dispatching a negotiating team once again (to an as yet undetermined location – probably Doha) appears in immediate response to Hamas reportedly agreeing to a proposal drawn up by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire.

Also, huge protests against Netanyahu’s policies have persisted in Tel Aviv and other cities have only grown over the past days and week.

Netanyahu did not yet accept the deal, and is at least ready to ‘talk’ about it – but this pattern of futile engagements in Qatar or Egypt has happened plenty of times before.

“I have come to approve the IDF’s (Israel Defense Forces) plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas,” Netanyahu said.

“These two matters – defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages – go hand in hand,” Netanyahu added, without disclosing any further details.

He’s long come under fire domestically, and from the political opposition, for prioritizing a military solution ahead of the return of the hostages.

It’s not just Israeli media documenting starvation in Gaza. Trump himself said Gazan children are suffering from starvation and that only the “coldhearted” or “nuts” deny it.

Yet Bari Weiss and Free Press cling to their government’s line of denialism:pic.twitter.com/WQXqVni9nN https://t.co/T9bJOtxvyh

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 21, 2025

Meanwhile, Israel and Mideast regional sources are reporting on a “classified Israeli military database shows the vast majority of Palestinians killed in Gaza are civilians, according to a joint investigation by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call.” This figure is put at 83% of the war dead as being civilians.

“Figures reviewed by the outlets revealed on Thursday indicate that, as of May 2025 – 19 months into Israel’s war on Gaza – Israeli military intelligence had listed 8,900 fighters from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as confirmed or ‘probably’ dead,” according to the fresh reporting.

The agency responsible for the Pentagon’s supply chain, which organizes, buys, and stores critical materials ranging from rare earth minerals to fighter jet parts, is seeking to purchase a massive stockpile of cobalt for the first time in decades, as the world fractures into a dangerous bipolar state prone to supply chain disruptions. This comes as the U.S. moves to bolster domestic production of rare earths in an effort to reduce reliance on foreign adversaries such as China and Russia. 

According to the System for Award Management (SAM) website, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued a solicitation to purchase cobalt cut cathode/rounds – sheets of cobalt metal designed for storage – to stockpile up to $500 million worth of the industrial metal (or about 7,500 tons), which is used in numerous defense applications ranging from jet engine turbines to armor-piercing munitions to high-strength permanent magnets in rockets.

Here’s an excerpt of the solicitation from SAM’s website:

This acquisition is NOT set aside for small businesses.  The applicable NAICS code is 331410 – Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining with a size standard of 1,000 employees.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) by and through DCSO-C3 intends to award a contract minimum of $2,000,000 and a contract maximum of up to $500,000,000 of cobalt cut cathode / rounds. The Government reserves the right to award less than the maximum dollar value. All cobalt to be delivered under any resulting contract shall have a form and packaging conducive to long-term storage in an enclosed Government warehouse per the Statement of Work (SOW).

A source familiar with DLA’s solicitation told Bloomberg this is the first time the agency has sought to purchase cobalt since 1990, marking a sharp reversal after decades of selling down stockpiles after the buildup during the Cold War. 

With the world entering a period of heightened geopolitical risk and supply chain fragility, the move underscores Washington’s urgency to revive domestic supply chains – from semiconductors to rare earths – ahead of the 2030s, a decade widely expected to bring even greater geopolitical volatility. 

At the moment, China dominates the global rare earths industry, including the processing of cobalt and other battery metals, and has built up massive strategic reserves. Meanwhile, the U.S. is signing deals with allies and domestic firms to bolster rare earth production and diversify away from China, with the latest example being the Pentagon’s deal with MP Materials.

Submitted by Forward Observer, 

A Color Revolution is a coordinated campaign to force political change (revolution) by mobilizing mass protests; undermining government legitimacy, authority, and capacity; and persuading citizens, elites, and institutions to withdraw their support – often backed by foreign funding, media, and training.

HAPPENING NOW 🚨 MULTIPLE SELF DRIVING WAYMO CARS SET ON FIRE AMID UNREST IN LOS ANGELES

pic.twitter.com/OIn6EUJ98a

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) June 9, 2025

Bottom Line Up Front: The anti-Trump resistance has adopted a Protest > Resistance > Revolution strategy that will take them through the 2026 midterms and into the 2028 presidential election season. The brunt of organized resistance is likely to occur after the midterms, with an often unstated option to transition from resistance to revolution coinciding with the outcome of the 2028 presidential election. – Mike Shelby, founder of Forward Observer

Last month, the nation’s largest anti-Trump resistance group announced its phased strategy to resist and ultimately end the Trump administration by any means necessary.

Efforts over the past six months have focused on local outreach and organizing, culminating in several “national days of action.” These protests have been symbolic and mostly toothless, but these groups have demonstrated an ability to sustain a national protest movement. At least two protests have mobilized roughly three million participants, with others numbering in the hundreds of thousands. This is an important metric, and we’ll come back to it later.

Broadly, this strategy is broken up into three phases: Protest > Resistance > Revolution. 

Protest (You Are Here)

Phase 1 exhibits relatively low-risk actions such as protests at government buildings and other demonstrations against symbols of power. These pose no threat to a government, but are used to gauge popular support for the opposition movement, building legitimacy for passive and active resistance, and boost the confidence of actors for larger demonstrations in the future.

Selective Resistance (2025-2026)

After support and legitimacy are gained through symbolic protests, an organized resistance movement can begin engaging in selective political defiance. These actions include civil disobedience such as sit-ins and occupations, boycotts, and sustained, disruptive demonstrations that garner media attention, build support, and cause embarrassment for the authorities, often leading to government overreaction (which reinforces the Color Revolution narrative).

Mass Resistance (2027-2028)

When Selective Resistance achieves active support from a substantial portion of society (typically 15-30% or more), a resistance movement can begin coordinated, targeted, and nonviolent strategic action like national strikes and boycotts, large scale disruption to economic activity and civil society, and other forms of mass political defiance designed to damage a government’s legitimacy, authority, and capacity.

Revolution (2028-2029+)

Revolution — the active campaign to oust a leader from power — is not a foregone conclusion. Historically, failed or contested elections are the primary trigger for these Color Revolutions, which is to say that a revolution is much more difficult to execute following a clean and uncontested election. This is because of the perception of legitimacy, or the recognized right of a leader to be in power. 

Leaders with weak claims of legitimacy are at higher risk, whereas those with firm legitimacy — like the 2024 election, where President Donald Trump won both the electoral college and popular vote — are virtually unassailable.

This is important because a Color Revolution movement actually needs a contested or highly unpopular outcome. Roughly 75% of all Color Revolutions over the past 25 years have coincided with disputed election results.

Otherwise, a resistance movement is left to de-legitimize a leader through other means, namely:

• Media narratives and information operations

• Defections of elites

• Institutional noncooperation

• International pressure

The methods above, when combined with mass resistance, are designed to weaken the “pillars of support” that keep a government functioning. This is key to the anti-Trump resistance strategy. These groups often cite two pieces of Color Revolution doctrine: The Six Pillars and the 3.5% Rule.

The Six Pillars

Noncooperation, also referred to as “strategic noncooperation” is the core of the strategy — you can erode a government’s legitimacy by reducing society’s cooperation with it.

The Six Pillars describe the underlying foundations that keep a government functioning. Taken from the training slide below, they are: Business, Labor, Faith, Education, Civil Service, and Military/Police. I’ll describe each of these in detail in a future brief, but for now, a quote from Gene Sharp — the godfather of Color Revolutions — will explain:

“By themselves, rulers cannot collect taxes, enforce repressive laws and regulations, keep trains running on time, prepare national budgets, direct traffic, manage ports, print money, repair roads, keep markets supplied with food, make steel, build rockets, train the police and army, issue postage stamps or even milk a cow. People provide these services… If people would stop providing these skills, the ruler could not rule.”

In short, a government — a dictator, an autocracy, even a legitimately elected president — depends on these lines of support to function. When a resistance movement convinces elements of these pillars with withdraw their support, the regime collapses.

The 3.5% Rule

In her book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, researcher and strategist Erica Chenoweth claims that no regime has survived a resistance campaign that includes 3.5% of a country. 

In other words, a study of over 300 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns finds that every campaign that achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5% of the population succeeded in toppling a government.

So to put this into perspective: the anti-Trump resistance needs 3.5% of the United States, or roughly 12 million people, to participate. In two national days of protests, we’ve seen mobilizations of around three million protesters, or roughly 25% of what’s needed to achieve the 3.5% Rule.

Near-Term Assessment (2025-2026)

Anti-Trump protests have so far not been politically significant, but organizers have made substantial progress from a lackluster start. Inauguration Day 2025 protests were roughly a third — maybe as large as one-half — of the 2017 Inauguration Day protests. Since then, organizers have grown the movement rapidly, surpassing the previous largest single-day protest mobilization of the Trump era.

While progress had been steady, the movement does appear to have plateaued. Recent national days of protest have been muted (did you even hear about the last one on the news?), and this in the summer months when mobilizing capacity is at its highest. The lack of growth is a limiting factor, but it’s not a sign of weakness. The ability to repeatedly mobilize protesters in the low millions is indicative of a sustained protest movement able to transition into organized resistance.

This mid-decade redistricting plan by Texas, Ohio, and possibly other Red and Blue states, will likely encourage wider protest mobilization. Meanwhile, escalation from protest (Phase 1) into organized resistance (Phase 2) is almost certain if redistricting enables Republicans to keep a House majority after the 2026 midterms.

In the interim, anti-Trump organizers will likely spend the next roughly 14 months developing the human networks, communications infrastructure, and training/education to help Democrats win back the House.

Escalation after the midterms is a certainty, either way. If Dems break the Trump trifecta by regaining a House majority, resistance groups will gain legitimacy and use the “inside-outside” strategy to undermine the legitimacy, authority, and capacity of the Trump administration. If Republicans keep the House majority, especially through mid-decade redistricting, resistance groups will have the narrative they need to escalate through 2028. Pending anything else, it’s going to be a disruptive few years. 

*   *   * 

Mike Shelby, a former Intelligence NCO and contractor, with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2016, he founded Forward Observer, a private intelligence firm that focuses on domestic and international conflict. His team writes a daily Early Warning intelligence briefing, which is available through forwardobserver.com.

The Trump administration has expanded its punitive measures against the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its going after Israel, on Wednesday imposing sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors from the ICC. This is also based on the court’s past decision to investigate US officials over alleged war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the The Hague-based court a “national security threat” and accused it of being used for “lawfare” against the US and Israel – at a moment a warrant for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still active. 

The sanctioned judges and deputy prosecutors have been identified as Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada – as named by the Treasury and State Department.

The list of people have all have been involved in ICC cases related to the US or Israel – but Washington says they’ve been involved in the politicization and overreach represented in the court’s recent actions.

“United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach,” Rubio stated.

This is the second wave of sanctions in only less than three months – with the first involving action against four additional judges.

In reaction, the court condemned the new US sanctions, saying “These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all regions.”

“They constitute also an affront against the Court’s States Parties, the rules-based international order and, above all, millions of innocent victims across the world,” it continued.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has prepared arrest warrant applications for Israeli ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich on charges of apartheid.

However, ICC sources are concerned they will not submit them for fear of sanctions. pic.twitter.com/wNq1wT4tfV

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) August 16, 2025

Additionally she statement published to the ICC website said, “The Court calls upon States Parties and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes.”

Trump intensified the effort shortly after resuming office in January 2025. Within days, he issued an executive order warning that sanctions would be imposed on anyone participating in ICC investigations concerning alleged war crimes by the US or Israel.