The top economies in this ranking are heavily tied to the oil sector, meaning fluctuations in production can have a drastic effect on GDP.
See below for the raw data behind this graphic.
Let’s take a closer look at the top two.
South Sudan (+27.2%)
South Sudan’s GDP has fluctuated up and down in recent years due to an ongoing civil war that has thrown its population into extreme poverty.
As a landlocked country, South Sudan also relies on pipelines that run through its northern neighbor, Sudan, to transport its oil to the Red Sea.
In 2024, South Sudan’s most important pipeline ruptured, putting massive strain on government revenue. Repairing the pipeline is difficult because parts of it lie in active conflict zones.
According to Bloomberg, South Sudan has been seeking alternative routes to export its oil, as well as cash bailouts from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to stay afloat.
Guyana (+14.4%)
Guyana is the only South American country featured in this ranking. It was once one of the poorest countries in the region until major oil deposits were discovered off its coasts in May 2015.
According to a 2023 article from the Associated Press, oil production in Guyana began in December 2019 and has generated over a billion dollars in revenue.
The Guyanese government is using this money to fund a massive infrastructure boom which includes new hospitals, schools, highways, and its first deep-water port.
Analysts expect the country’s total oil revenues will reach $157 billion by 2040.
Earlier this month in The National Catholic Register, Pope John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, called Russia, “a modern Moloch, the bloodthirsty Canaanite god against whom the prophets of ancient Israel railed” – in a breathless criticism of President Trump’s Ukrainian peace efforts.
On February 12, 2025, he penned a rant syndicated by The Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver. Titled Russia’s Sacrilegious War on Ukraine, the piece advocated continued war in Ukraine until Russia loses:
There is no happy or just solution to Putin’s aggression that does not end with Putin losing. How that happens is subject to debate. But Putin must lose, both for Ukraine’s sake and for Russia’s…. for America’s sake, and for the world’s.
Weigel has served on the board of the CIA cutout, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), with Victoria Nuland. His advocacy helped save the organization in 1993, when it was almost (and should have been) shut down at the end of the Cold War.
For over a decade, Weigel has acted as a reliable mouthpiece for NED in its efforts to cause war in Ukraine. Mostly, he has provided a Catholic pretext for awful stuff, based on a tangential association with a long-dead pope.
Whatever its initial intentions – and they were chiefly benevolent – by 2025 NED had become the driving force in a Frankenstein foreign policy that that took its initial design to its rational conclusion: chaos and death.
The details of the Ukraine conflict are rarely covered in the Western media, but they are available to piece together from open sources. In 2010, Ukraine elevated Viktor Yanukovych to president in a democratic election. As reported at the time:
A total of 3,779 observers, including 650 from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, were dispatched to monitor the election. Ukraine’s presidential election, the fifth since the country regained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, was democratic and “organized in a transparent manner,” the OSCE said today in an e-mailed statement.
In 2013, Yanukovych would make the mistake of not signing an association agreement with the European Union and, instead, entertaining a regional economic alliance with Russia. John McCain and other prominent American politicians flew to Kiev to rally support for the EU.
Yanukovych tried to pass a law that prohibited Americans from meddling Ukraine. Weigel then got involved and wrote on January 16, 2014:
Following recent Russian precedents, one of the new laws “against extremism” also attempts to cut civil-society activists and their organizations off from their Western allies… the intent is clear enough: Any Ukrainian civil-society organization that accepts funds for civil-society or pro-democracy work from, say, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (full disclosure: I serve on the NED board)…. will be considered a “foreign agent.” It must identify itself as “as a civil association performing the functions of a foreign agent.” It must submit monthly financial and program reports to the state, and it must now pay income taxes.
Weigel called Yanukovych’s proposed measures Stalinist and anti-democratic. If you are looking for a moment when Washington lost all self-awareness and turned full-Orwellian, that might be it. The piece was unironically titled Gutting Democracy in Ukraine.
A week later, in a January 22, 2014 article published in the Kyiv Post, Weigel called Yanukovych’s government a “dictatorship,” a “thugocracy,” and its leaders “bandits,” even opining – in perfect Newspeak – that insurrectionists seeking to topple the democratically elected government were a “democracy movement.”
An American, he advocated for the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected leaders in favor of “competent technocrats.”
There followed a successful coup that replaced the democratically elected Ukraine government with a Western puppet. President Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that he had “brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” The word “brokered” suggests that the Obama administration successfully replaced a government half a world away at the behest of Washington’s smart people.
A recorded phone call was leaked in which the American ambassador worked with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to choose the replacement government before the coup occurred.
The new U.S. backed government proceeded to use Nazi extremists to persecute ethnic Russians who had sided with Yanukovych. A civil war ensued. Readers are encouraged to watch the PBS Frontline documentary produced in 2014, previously linked, for more detail on these events.
Weigel did not raise a voice against the persecution of citizens by the government he helped to install on behalf of the Obama administration. For anyone looking beyond his religious branding, that was true to form.
In the 1980s, Weigel was a bit player in the field of international politics, peddling what little influence he had on matters like arms control. He fell in with some bad people, eventually winding up with Allen Weinstein, who founded NED.
Allen Weinstein is just one of many overt operatives who helped prepare the way for the political miracles of the past two years by sponsoring exchanges and other contacts with liberal reformers from the East. It’s worth naming a few more of them, to show the breadth of this movement for democracy: William Miller of the American Committee on U.S.-Soviet Relations; financier George Soros of the Soros Foundation; John Mroz of the Center for East-West Security Studies; John Baker of the Atlantic Council; and Harriett Crosby of the Institute for Soviet-American Relations. This has truly been a revolution by committee.
As a Catholic, the moment Ukraine’s new government started persecuting people, Weigel should have said, “I’m out.” Instead, he and his Washington-insider friends doubled down in spectacular fashion.
In September 2015, Vladimir Putin made a speech at the UN in New York harshly critical of NATO expansion on Russia’s borders, citing “the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War” that was having devastating effects in places like Ukraine. He said:
Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.”
The Republican Party’s then vanity candidate who had just declared his intention to run for president, Donald Trump, gave Putin’s speech a stellar review. He would appear on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX the next day and say, “I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, [Putin] is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well. They did not look good together.”
Trump spent the next few months distinguishing himself from all other Republican candidates by praising Putin, even daring to question the Russian president’s role in poisoning political opponents: “In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that. I don’t know that he has. Have you been able to prove that?”
Trump’s Russian heterodoxy uttered in 2015 is what made him, for the first time, a viable candidate – go back and see his polls rise after every such contrarian statement. Ordinary people appreciated the candidate who would defy Washington’s bipartisan warmongering.
Then powerful politicians from both sides of the political aisle – with no evidence – projected that Putin was responsible for Trump’s success. George Weigel supported the lie, writing in July 2017, “[Russia’s] purpose is to undermine and demoralize us, destabilizing Western societies by throwing election results into question, creating suspicions about Western intelligence services, and generally mucking things up.”
The absurd details of the Russia hoax are covered in Trump v. Atlanticism: Understanding Russiagate, for all who need a primer. As the previous quote demonstrates, the Pope’s biographer was firmly on the side of the intelligence services.
The diplomatic rift caused by Russiagate contributed mightily to the current war in Ukraine. Was any of it true? No. Even the Columbia Journalism Reviewhas reported that the whole thing was a fabrication.
Since 2014, Weigel has used the worst calumny to advocate for division among Christians in Ukraine. The slander was so extreme that in 2015 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church sent Weigel a letter imploring him to stop the name calling. The introduction to An Open Letter to George Weigel states the problem succinctly:
A very unpleasant rhetoric is being propounded by some Catholic writers against the Russian Orthodox Church as supposedly something of an agent of President Putin, who, according to the same rhetoric, is a monster beyond all description. It is blown so largely out of proportion that it could even be ignored by sober people, if there weren’t such overt pressure (one could say, bullying) being applied not only to force other Catholics to think the same way….
The letter provides an insightful historical accounting of Russia’s “Symphonia – Not ‘Separation’ – of Church and State” which, as the writers point out, “is obviously antithetical to the neo-Jeffersonian principle of strict ‘separation’ of church and state, now political dogma in virtually all Western countries imbued with the notion of secular liberal democracy.”
With that, the priests laid bare the fundamental theological problem with Weigel’s advocacy. He champions not Catholicism but neo-Jeffersonian dogmas as moral absolutes – a trite jingoistic view that is the philosophical basis of neoconservatism.
Undeterred by the thoughtful letter, Weigel spent over a decade casting Vladimir Putin as Hitler. It never occurred to him that formulating policy based on bad historical analogy is illogical and can work great harm. He has done little to reconcile the Catholic Church’s condemnation of liberation theology with his support for arming factions in far-away conflicts against perceived despots.
There is an undeniable religious reawakening in Russia that makes attacks by the Pope’s biographer especially indefensible. Putin has been critical of the West’s spiritual decay, comparing it to communism. In Putin’s words:
We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress…. The demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family, and even gender – they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal. The advocates of so-called “social progress” believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness…. [these] prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs. And not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today…. Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism.
Putin speaks of his own baptism, his beliefs, and the positive role of Christianity in Russian history. He put the girl rock band, Pussy Riot, in prison for desecrating an altar. The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church works in close cooperation with the government.
In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on the advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle in the presence of children, strictly limited advertisements for abortions, and prohibited elective abortions later than 12 weeks after conception. The Sochi Olympics closing ceremonies in 2014 featured a tribute to Russian writers, including communism’s most eloquent Christian critic, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose books are required reading in Russian schools.
Putin’s Christianity-sourced populism is anathema to godless factions in the West. President Obama personally boycotted the Sochi Olympics and sent in his place a delegation of gay athletes, to protest Russia’s laws against LGBT advocacy.
In 1983, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn issued the following criticism of the West in his “Men Have Forgotten God” speech at Buckingham Palace, upon his acceptance of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion:
[O]ur godless age has discovered the perfect anesthetic – trade! Such is the pathetic pinnacle of contemporary wisdom.
Today’s world has reached a stage which, if it had been described to preceding centuries, would have called forth the cry: “This is the Apocalypse!”
Yet we have grown used to this kind of world; we even feel at home in it.
Dostoevsky warned that “great events could come upon us and catch us intellectually unprepared.” This is precisely what has happened. And he predicted that “the world will be saved only after it has been possessed by the demon of evil.” Whether it really will be saved we shall have to wait and see: this will depend on our conscience, on our spiritual lucidity, on our individual and combined efforts in the face of catastrophic circumstances. But it has already come to pass that the demon of evil, like a whirlwind, triumphantly circles all five continents of the earth.
As Solzhenitsyn scoffed, “Trade!” The unvarnished truth is that the Ukraine war started in 2014 when the democratically elected government was toppled because it chose the wrong trading partner – Russia and not the EU. Catholic thought leaders like Weigel have been all-in on the blasphemy.
Today, tens of thousands of Ukrainians are dead. Putin and Russia are winning the war, and America has lost much of what was left of its diplomatic clout to conduct real foreign policy.
The slaughter of Christians as a direct result of the godless neoconservatism advocated by people like Weigel certainly seems like a pattern at this point. As I wrote in USAID, Soft Power, And How Solzhenitsyn Predicted this Crisis, “Ancient Christianity has been expelled from every place in the Middle East where American soft power has meddled.”
Ordinary Americans voted for a rapprochement with Russia in 2016. President Trump was investigated and impeached for even trying to pursue it. Instead, at the behest of institutions like Weigel’s National Endowment for Democracy, America acted on behalf of godless “Trade!” to fan the flames of war.
In his second term, President Trump neutralized NED and, a month later, negotiated a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. He cannot, unfortunately, restore the lives that have been lost or fix the damage done to American prestige by the coup in Kyiv in 2014.
Footnote 1: Weigel’s writing is replete with anecdotal citation to Russian atrocities in conducting war. His readers should be careful. Atrocities occur on both sides of war and are often not the result of national policy, but individual failure. A primary reason to avoid war is the moral quandaries it causes for people handed weapons and told to kill or be killed. And, too, atrocities are sometimes fabricated as a casus belli.
On the latter point, the think tank Weigel runs in Washington D.C. has on its website an article penned by its founder titled, The Essential CIA. The article speaks favorably of “massive deception” to achieve foreign policy objectives, quoting Churchill: “In wartime truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
The events in Kyiv may provide a prime example. Ukraine’s democratically elected government was toppled in 2014 after snipers fired into a crowd of protesters. Weigel immediately connected the attack to Yanukovych in the Kyiv Post, calling it murder, and comparing it to the Holodomor, Stalin’s Soviet backed famine in Ukraine.
Mostly, what makes Weigel’s citation to atrocity particularly out of place is his failure to ever address alleged war crimes committed by the Ukraine regime, except with absolute dismissiveness. A true moral leader would criticize the sin regardless of his political alignment for or against the sinner.
Footnote 2: The title of this essay may seem to denigrate St. John Paul II. It is not meant to. The book Weigel wrote is not an official biography. Whatever St. John Paul II’s beliefs were about American soft power, George Weigel, and the National Endowment for Democracy, he kept them to himself. Likely, if presented the facts recounted above, he would have wagged his finger and chastised Weigel, because he disagreed to the point of visible anger with those who incite wars in the name of Catholicism.
Yet, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, data from a Statista Consumer Insights survey reveals, a sizable chunk of respondents questioned in 2024 said they regularly drink bottled water (daily or weekly consumption).
This is despite the fact that the plastic waste generated is allegedly harmful to the environment, and that bottled water is much more expensive: up to 100 times more expensive than tap water. What’s more, several scientific studies have shown that bottled water is a leading source for human intake of microplastics, and could therefore potentially have harmful effects on health.
As the chart shows, of the 21 countries covered by the study, Italy, Mexico and Brazil are home to the most regular consumers of bottled water, at between 65 to 70 percent of the population.
For the first time under President Donald Trump, the US military engaged in trilateral exercises with Japan and South Korea. The move will be viewed as a provocation by the DPRK, which views US-led war games in the region as preparation for regime change in Pyongyang.
On Thursday, US Indo-Pacific Command announced that it had wrapped up four days of military drills in the East China Sea with the two allies. This week’s war games “build upon the regular, increasingly complex trilateral cooperation of the three nations, including the January 2025 trilateral bomber escort flights, as the three nations continue integration across the Joint Force,” INDOPACOM explained in a press release.
It added, “This current activity builds on previous exercises like Freedom Edge and our continuing operations together, advancing doctrine as well as tactics, techniques and procedures among our combined forces.”
The games were led by the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group. The South Korean Defense Ministry said the latest drills were also meant to prepare for conflict with North Korea.
“The exercise focused on enhancing trilateral cooperation for South Korea, the US and Japan’s deterrence and response capabilities against North Korea’s nuclear, missile and underwater threats and… bolstering their maritime security capacity,” the ministry said in a statement.
In response to the Vinson’s arrival in South Korea last month, Kim Yo-jong, the sister of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, said that Washington “is repeatedly committing provocative acts that ignore North Korea’s security concerns and worsen the situation.”
“The United States is openly demonstrating its intention to be the most hostile and confrontational toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through these practical actions,” she added.
“The root of the escalation of the situation on the Korean Peninsula clearly lies with the United States and its allies, who are further intensifying their military moves to transplant NATO’s infrastructure into the region and raise the level of war preparedness.”
Other than stoking tensions with Pyongyang, war games on the Korean Peninsula have had other consequences. In February, nearly 30 South Koreans were injured after the country’s warplanes accidentally bombed a civilian area during live-fire military drills with the US.
As of 2024, nearly two-thirds (65.7%) U.S. households owned their home, while the rest rented.
However, homeownership rates vary widely across states and between urban, suburban, and rural areas, reflecting differences in affordability, housing availability, and local economic conditions.
In the map below, by USAFacts,Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu visualizes the share of households that are owner-occupied by state in 2023.
Below, we show home ownership rates by state in 2023.
State/Area
Share of households that are owner-occupied (2023)
West Virginia
77.0%
Delaware
75.7%
Mississippi
75.5%
Maine
75.5%
Wyoming
74.5%
New Hampshire
74.3%
Michigan
74.1%
Minnesota
74.0%
Alabama
73.8%
Vermont
73.7%
Indiana
73.3%
South Carolina
73.0%
Iowa
71.8%
Maryland
71.6%
Montana
71.0%
Idaho
71.0%
Pennsylvania
71.0%
Utah
70.3%
New Mexico
70.3%
Arizona
69.7%
South Dakota
69.3%
Wisconsin
69.2%
Virginia
69.1%
Tennessee
68.9%
Missouri
68.7%
Kansas
68.5%
Nebraska
68.4%
Kentucky
68.4%
Connecticut
68.2%
Oklahoma
68.0%
Illinois
67.8%
Louisiana
67.3%
Florida
67.3%
Colorado
67.2%
North Carolina
66.9%
Ohio
66.6%
Washington
66.3%
Arkansas
65.9%
North Dakota
65.7%
Georgia
65.5%
Rhode Island
64.4%
Alaska
64.3%
Oregon
64.10%
Texas
63.6%
New Jersey
62.7%
Massachusetts
61.9%
Hawaii
61.8%
Nevada
61.2%
California
55.8%
New York
53.3%
District of Columbia
40.2%
West Virginia had the highest homeownership rate in 2023, with 77% of households owning their homes.
One key factor behind West Virginia’s high ownership rate is its relative affordability. The state consistently ranks among those with the lowest median home sale prices, and it has the lowest home price-to-income ratio in the country.
Additionally, the state’s largely rural landscape and lower population density may contribute to its high homeownership rate, as housing availability is less constrained than in densely populated urban markets.
In contrast, states with the lowest homeownership rates such as Hawaii, California, and New York, also have some of the highest home prices and home price-to-income ratios, making ownership less attainable.
Places like New York and Calfornia also face high demand in urban centers, a greater share of renters due to job concentration and lifestyle preferences, and tend to have stricter zoning regulations.
This pattern highlights that while affordability plays a significant role, homeownership rates are also influenced by factors like housing supply, economic opportunities, and regional job markets.
Learn more about U.S. real estate in this this graphic, which visualizes the annual nominal change in house prices by state as of the first quarter of 2024.
Every decade has a new food enemy. First, it was fat. Then, it was sugar. Now, seed oils are under fire—blamed for causing obesity and chronic disease.
They’re almost impossible to avoid. Seed oils are in everything—from salad dressings and fast food to protein bars and even baby formula. Critics claim they’re harmful, while supporters argue they’re safe, affordable, and even good for you.
However, the truth is more nuanced. The debate is often oversimplified. Even the term “seed oil” is misleading, lumping together oils that have been part of traditional diets for centuries with those created for large-scale food production.
At its core, the controversy isn’t just about whether seed oils are inherently good or bad—it’s about how they’re processed and consumed.
What Are Seed Oils, Really?
If you’ve been following health trends, you’ve probably heard claims that seed oils are toxic and should be avoided. What exactly are seed oils, and why do some people consider them harmful?
At their most basic, seed oils are extracted from seeds. This might seem harmless—after all, olive oil comes from olives, and coconut oil from coconuts.
But not all seed oils are the same. Some, like sesame and flaxseed oil, have been integral to traditional diets for centuries and are extracted through natural, cold-press methods that preserve their nutrients and antioxidants.
Others, however, are highly processed. Industrial seed oils—like soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, and rice bran—are mass-produced through high-heat extraction and chemical refining.
Manufacturers frequently use solvents like hexane to extract the maximum amount of oil. These oils are refined, bleached, and deodorized, earning them the label “RBD” oils. This process makes them neutral in taste and more shelf-stable, but it also removes beneficial compounds like vitamin E and antioxidants.
Many industrial seed oils were never intended for human consumption. Canola oil began as rapeseed oil, primarily used as a machine lubricant until Canadian scientists modified it in the 1970s to remove toxic compounds. The name itself—a blend of “Canada” and “oil”—was a marketing invention. “Vegetable oil” is another misleading term—it’s often a blend of industrial seed oils marketed to sound healthier than it is.
Cate Shanahan, a Cornell-trained physician-scientist specializing in dietary fats, explains that industrial seed oils were not developed with nutrition in mind.
“The crude oil from these seeds is inedible,” she told The Epoch Times. “Soy and canola weren’t bred for nutrition—they were bred for high yields and industrial durability.”
Most soy grown in the United States isn’t intended for human consumption at all. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, more than 70 percent of U.S. soybeans are used for animal feed, while another 5 percent is processed into biodiesel. What remains is primarily refined into soybean oil—a product stripped of much of the soy plant’s original nutritional value.
Additionally, more than 90 percent of American soy is genetically modified to withstand herbicides like glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray entire fields without harming crops. This high-intensity farming, combined with heavy industrial processing, results in oil far removed from its original form.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which retain their natural antioxidants, industrial seed oils require extensive refining to become shelf-stable. Shanahan argues that this process removes beneficial compounds, making them more prone to oxidation and degradation.
“What works for machines doesn’t always work for humans,” Shanahan said.
Are Seed Oils Good or Bad for Your Health?
Seed oils’ health effects are hotly debated. Some experts say they’re a heart-healthy alternative to butter and other animal fats, while others believe they might contribute to inflammation and disease.
The Case for Seed Oils As a Heart-Healthy Alternative
For decades, scientists have debated the role of different fats in heart health. Research suggests that replacing saturated fats—found in butter and red meat—with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from seed oils may offer cardiovascular benefits.
Advocates argue that the science is well-established.
“The research on seed oils is consistently positive,” Matthew Nagra, a naturopathic doctor, told The Epoch Times. “Numerous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that replacing saturated fat with seed oils rich in polyunsaturated fats can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, America’s top killer, without any clear detriment.”
Large-scale studies support this claim. A 2021 study of more than 500,000 people found that those who replaced saturated fats with oils like canola, corn, and olive oil had a lower risk of heart disease and early death.
“Our findings support shifting the intake from solid fats to non-hydrogenated vegetable oils for cardiometabolic health and longevity,” the authors wrote. Examples of solid fats include butter and lard.
A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine study reinforced these findings, showing that people who ate more plant-based oils—such as olive, soybean, and canola—lived longer and had lower heart disease and cancer rates. Meanwhile, those who ate more butter had a higher risk of early death. The researchers estimated that swapping butter for plant oils could reduce overall mortality risk by 17 percent, including a 17 percent drop in cancer-related deaths.
Because of this growing evidence, the American Heart Association (AHA) continues to recommend seed oils as part of a heart-healthy diet.
The Case Against Seed Oils: Oxidation and Inflammation
Not everyone agrees with the AHA’s endorsement of seed oils, and some experts question the research behind it.
“This study is of low quality,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Epoch Times in an email. “It lumps extra virgin olive oil with soybean and safflower oil, which is ridiculous.” He also criticized the study’s methodology, arguing that it fails to accurately measure butter consumption and instead relies on an imprecise estimation method. “This kind of nutritional epidemiology fuels dogma rather than providing clarity,” he said.
Beyond concerns about research methods, critics argue that the real issue with seed oil is oxidation.
Refining makes seed oils more resistant to spoilage, allowing them to last longer on store shelves. However, once exposed to heat, air, or light—especially during cooking—their chemical structure begins to break down.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which naturally contain antioxidants that help prevent degradation, industrial seed oils lose these stabilizing compounds during processing. As a result, they are more vulnerable to oxidation, a process that creates byproducts like aldehydes and free radicals. These compounds can damage cells, promote inflammation, and contribute to chronic disease.
Heat accelerates this process. Studies show that repeatedly heating vegetable oils—such as those used in restaurant fryers—can generate oxidative byproducts linked to tissue damage and increased cholesterol levels in lab animals. Some research has also found oxidized linoleic acid, a degraded form of omega-6 fat, accumulating in human fat tissue and artery plaques, raising concerns about long-term health effects.
Not all experts agree that oxidation is a major threat.
“These processes have pros and cons,” says Christopher Gardner, a nutrition professor at Stanford. “They help prevent oils from breaking down but also strip away some beneficial components.”
A review in The Scientific World Journal found that while refining removes antioxidants like vitamin E and polyphenols (compounds that help protect cells), it also eliminates impurities, making the oils more stable and less likely to spoil.
Still, oxidation happens faster in seed oils than in other fats. Research shows that PUFAs degrade more quickly when exposed to heat, light, and air, whereas monounsaturated fats (found in olive oil) and saturated fats (found in butter and beef tallow) remain more stable.
The Processed Food Connection
If there’s one thing both critics and defenders of seed oils agree on, They’re everywhere. And that’s no accident.
Cheap, abundant, and heavily subsidized seed oils are a pillar of the modern food industry. The U.S. government pours billions into supporting crops like soybeans, corn, and cottonseed, making their oils far more affordable than alternatives like olive or avocado.
Soybeans dominate the market, accounting for about 90 percent of U.S. oilseed production. In 2016, the soybean industry alone received $1.6 billion in subsidies—helping to keep production high and costs low.
Government support doesn’t just make seed oils cheap for home cooks—it makes them the backbone of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which now make up nearly 60 percent of the American diet. Along with refined grains and added sugars, seed oils form the foundation of modern processed foods, used to enhance texture, extend shelf life, and boost flavor at a low cost. These ingredients appear in everything from breakfast cereals to frozen dinners, making them nearly impossible to avoid in a typical supermarket.
A 32-ounce bottle of canola oil costs about $5.79, while the same amount of extra virgin olive oil can cost $13.99 or more. For food manufacturers trying to keep costs down, the choice is obvious. Because they’re inexpensive, neutral in flavor, and relatively shelf-stable, seed oils are a food manufacturer’s dream—allowing processed foods to last longer, taste better, and remain profitable.
Shanahan estimates that seed oils account for 20–30 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake. This figure wasn’t easy to calculate, as seed oils aren’t tracked as a category. Shanahan analyzed decades of production data from crops like soybeans and canola, using government and industry reports to uncover the extent of seed oils’ presence in modern diets.
“Humans have never consumed polyunsaturates at this level before,” she warns. “Historically, diets relied mainly on animal fats, not oils rich in PUFAs. If you don’t know to avoid them, you’re eating vast quantities.”
Gardner agrees—but says the issue isn’t just seed oils. The rise in seed oil consumption isn’t because more people are making homemade salad dressings, he said. It’s because ultra-processed foods—where these oils are used heavily—now dominate the American diet.
Gardner argues that even if seed oils were removed from the food supply tomorrow, ultra-processed foods wouldn’t disappear—they’d just be reformulated.
“If the same UPFs were made with another oil like butter, beef tallow, lard, or coconut fat, those foods would not suddenly become health foods.”
At its core, the debate over seed oils is about more than just the oils themselves. It’s about the processed foods they’re in—and whether we should be eating so many of them in the first place.
So, What Should You Cook With?
Rather than fixating on eliminating seed oils altogether, experts say the bigger issue is reducing ultra-processed foods and choosing high-quality, stable fats when cooking at home.
“If you want to improve your health by cutting back on seed oils, the best way to do that is by eating fewer ultra-processed foods,” Gardner advises. “That would be a win in several ways—less sugar, less refined grain, and less sodium.”
For those looking to make better choices in their kitchens, experts recommend using stable, minimally processed oils that are less prone to oxidation:
Better Options for Cooking
Avocado: High in monounsaturated fats, stable for high heat
Extra virgin olive: Rich in antioxidants, ideal for drizzling or light cooking
Butter and ghee: Naturally stable for high-heat cooking
Coconut: High in saturated fat, making it oxidation-resistant
Oils Best Used Cold
Flaxseed: High in omega-3s, best for dressings
Walnut: Antioxidant-rich, flavorful in salads
Sesame: Aromatic and moderately heat-stable
Industrially Refined Oils
Soybean
Corn
Canola
Cottonseed
Sunflower
Safflower
Grapeseed
Rice bran
While some specialty versions exist in cold-pressed forms, they are far less common than their mass-produced, highly processed counterparts.
The Bottom Line
The debate over seed oils is far from over, but one thing is clear: How you consume them matters.
A drizzle of canola oil on a homemade salad is not the same as eating French fries fried in old restaurant oil. Relying on ultra-processed foods filled with cheap oils, sugar, and additives is where the larger problem lies.
For most people, the best way to improve their diet isn’t to worry about every drop of seed oil—it’s to eat more fresh, unprocessed foods, says Gardner.
“It seems bizarre to blame the plant oils and not the foods they’re in.”
European Leaders Start Drafting 5-10 Year Plan To Replace US In NATO
In the ultimate act of seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ the NATO alliance, even well into the future, Europe’s largest military powers are now drawing up plans to keep the alliance strong in case of a US exit from leadership over the next five to ten years.
Informal discussions have involved the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Nordic countries, who are envisioning a managed transfer of power and leadership reshaping the NATO bloc.
Financial Times writes that “The discussions are an attempt to avoid the chaos of a unilateral US withdrawal from Nato, a fear sparked by President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to weaken or walk away from the transatlantic alliance that has protected Europe for almost eight decades.”
Concern has grown in European quarters not only due to the White House’s Ukraine policies, but given that close Trump adviser Elon Musk had this to say earlier this month:
Billionaire Elon Musk threw his weight behind a US exit from NATO, saying on his social media platform that it “doesn’t make sense for America to pay for the defense of Europe.”
The senior adviser to US President Donald Trump was responding to a post on X early Sunday that asserted the US should “Exit NATO *now*!”
“We really should,” the Tesla Inc. co-founder and chief executive officer said. On March 3, Musk wrote on X he agreed with a suggestion by a conservative commentator that the US should leave both NATO and the United Nations.
And this sentiment was quickly seconded by some Republicans in Congress. Rep. Thomas Massie said on X that “NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be relegated to a talking kiosk at the Smithsonian.”
And Utah Rep. Mike Lee as well…
NEW: Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has issued a statement on what would happen if U.S. withdraws from NATO.
“If the U.S. withdrew from NATO, Europe would have to fund more of its own security needs—forcing it to choose between security and socialism.”
One central irony in these new discussions among European NATO countries is that they plan to do what Trump has been pressuring them to do all along – ramp up defense spending and stop forcing Washington to shoulder most of the burden.
The proposal would include firm commitments on increasing European defense spending and building up military capabilities, in an effort to convince Trump to agree to a gradual handover that would allow the US to focus more on Asia. The US, which spends more on defense than all other Nato allies combined, is indispensable to European security.
In addition to its nuclear deterrent, which is committed to the defense of Europe with several European air forces carrying US nuclear weapons, it provides military capabilities that continental allies do not possess, runs air, naval and troop bases and has 80,000 troops stationed in Europe.
Recently France’s Macron has floated the possibility of extending France’s nuclear deterrent over the continent. France remains the only EU country that possess nuclear weapons.
All of this also comes as Bloomberg is freshly reporting that NATO will askEurope and Canada to boost its weapons and equipment stockpiles by 30%.
NATO sources say the aim is to adopt these dramatic increases in weapons stockpiles and defense spending commitments by early June. Without doubt, Trump’s prior days-long temporary halt in arms for Ukraine has hastened these discussions and decisions in Europe, given the ‘alarm’ caused among Kiev’s most hawkish backers.
So far, Elon Musk’s DOGE has swept through government agencies like USAID, brushing off cobwebs and uncovering skeletons as it goes. Now, DOGE is set to enter a much bigger agency whose shortfalls demand reform: the Department of Defense (DoD).
Long criticized for its budget woes, the DoD has recently faced accusations of overspending, underspending, and even simple misspending – criticisms which are all well founded. In fact, the DoD consistently mismanages its budget, a fact that’s led it to fail all of its last seven audits.
To address these issues, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that he would work with DOGE to conduct a DoD-wide budget review. Already, this initiative has revealed $80 million in wasteful spending, including $1.9 million in “DEI transformation and training” and $3.5 million in “Defense HR Support for DEI.”
While the Pentagon is notoriously resistant to change, additional pressure from DOGE and the administration could finally force the reforms needed to modernize the American military, refocus on warfighting capabilities, and rid the Pentagon of absurd budget line items.
But DOGE’s mission isn’t just to slash budgets: it’s also to restore efficiency. Specifically, DOGE’s role is to ensure the federal government makes the most effective use possible of American taxpayer dollars.
Fundamentally, the DoD exists to ensure America’s warfighting capability—a task DOGE has no intention of obstructing. And even as the DoD’s mission grows more and more urgent, Pentagon dollars continue to be misused, a flaw that cries for immediate correction.
Hegseth recently announced he’d be implementing a DoD budget “cut” of 8%, or about $50 billion. Rather than simply imposing strict cuts, this plan seeks to “refocus… and reinvest… existing funds” to build a more lethal fighting force, restore “warrior ethos,” and reestablish global deterrence.
This shift is essential at a time when our arsenal is severely depleted and outdated and we lack the ships and planes to deter China from launching an attack in the Indo-Pacific. To fix this, Secretary Hegseth should prioritize reinvesting funding cuts into procurement and, specifically, into the construction of new of ships, planes, and munitions.
Hegseth should also divert dollars from personnel – a category that accounts for almost a quarter of the DoD’s budget.
Already, he and Musk have announced plans to reduce the civilian workforce by between 5% to 8%, a cut that will save the DoD between $9 and $14.5 billion. So far, he’s implemented this plan via a hiring freeze and the firing of probational employees and recent hires.
Many have sought to villainize the Pentagon’s budget purge. Yet those in national security should recognize the need to cut defense budget waste, especially given recent developments on the international stage.
There, China continues to rapidly modernize its military to challenge U.S. dominance, while Russia persists in its aggression in Eastern Europe. North Korea still pursues its ever-growing nuclear ambitions (and strengthens its support for Russia), while Iran maintains its destabilizing influence in the Middle East.
These various actors all share one common feature: a vicious antipathy toward the United States.
The burden falls on the Pentagon and the DoD to protect the American people. DOGE represents a historic opportunity for the DoD to further this mission by rethinking how it organizes, supports, and employs its people. The goal isn’t to cut corners—it’s to reinvest in the capacity and capability of America’s warfighting force.
In a world of rising global threats, America cannot afford inefficiency. The Pentagon must embrace DOGE’s mission to break free from outdated bureaucracy and inefficient spending. Only then will the DoD be able to enhance American warfighting capability and ensure our security and prosperity.
Wilson Beaver is a Senior Policy Advisor for defense budgeting at The Heritage Foundation.
Anna Gustafson is a member of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program.
Instead Of Suing, Columbia University Bends Knee – Agrees To Trump Conditions To Restore $400 Million Federal Funding
Columbia University has agreed to meet wide-ranging conditions set by the Trump administration to restore $400 million in federal funding, according to a memo sent by the university to the federal government reported first by the Wall Street Journal.
In response to demands from the Trump administration, Columbia will implement several notable changes, including ending mask mandates on campus, granting 36 campus police officers expanded authority to arrest students, and appointing a senior vice provost with extensive oversight powers for its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department, as well as the Center for Palestine Studies.
Control of the Middle East department has been a central dispute in negotiations and sparks controversy across campus. Faculty at Columbia and nationwide are expressing deep reservations about letting the federal government dictate how they can operate an academic department. The new vice provost, appointed by Columbia, will review curriculum, nontenure faculty hiring and leadership “to ensure the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced.” -WSJ
Columbia’s agreement represents a turning point in ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and some elite universities. President Trump has emphasized the need to address alleged antisemitism on campuses, particularly singling out Columbia due to recent controversies and protests regarding the Middle East conflict.
Earlier this month, Trump administration officials suspended federal grants and contracts to Columbia, alleging insufficient protections for Jewish students during pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations. Following intense negotiations, Columbia agreed to multiple demands outlined by the federal task force on antisemitism, and even committed to additional reforms promoting intellectual diversity.
“We have worked hard to address the legitimate concerns raised both from within and without our Columbia community, including by our regulators, with respect to the discrimination, harassment, and antisemitic acts our Jewish community has faced in the wake of October 7, 2023,” the university stated in the memorandum.
A senior Columbia administrator indicated that while the university considered legal action against the federal government, officials ultimately concluded that cooperation was necessary due to the federal government’s significant financial influence. Some reforms listed by the administration were already under consideration, according to the university.
Among the new policies, Columbia will prohibit disruptive protests involving the occupation of campus buildings, require protesters to identify themselves, and ensure an unbiased admissions process. The university also plans to closely investigate a recent decrease in enrollment among Jewish and African-American students.
Although Columbia stands among the country’s wealthiest universities, with an endowment of about $15 billion, it wouldn’t take long for it to cease to operate in any recognizable form without government money.
That stark reality hovers behind the school’s concessions. Columbia has agreed to curtail protests that take over buildings and disrupt classes. The school will require protesters to identify themselves and will review admissions practices to “ensure unbiased admissions processes.”
Columbia noted they have “identified a recent downturn in both Jewish and African-American enrollment, and we will closely examine those issues.”
Additionally, Columbia will adopt a specific definition of antisemitism developed by its own antisemitism task force, clarifying what constitutes antisemitic speech or behavior, including exclusion of students based on views toward Israel or the celebration of violence against Israelis or Jewish individuals.
The university emphasized steps beyond federal demands, including institutional neutrality on political issues, launching educational programming at its Tel Aviv hub, and developing a free K-12 curriculum focused on promoting open inquiry and civil discourse.
To further enhance academic diversity, Columbia announced it will hire faculty jointly affiliated with the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments such as Economics, Political Science, and the School for International and Public Affairs.
Other universities nationwide are closely observing Columbia’s concessions, as many depend on federal funds, student loans, and research grants critical to their operations. The outcome may influence negotiations at other institutions facing similar government scrutiny.
New York Attorney General Letitia James has made a name for herself prosecuting landlords and real estate fraudsters. Yet our investigation reveals troubling discrepancies in her own property filings—irregularities that would likely result in stiff penalties for most New Yorkers.
Documents from the NYC Department of Buildings show a pattern of inconsistencies about a Brooklyn property James owns—inconsistencies that mysteriously received special treatment when reported.
The Discrepancy: Official Records vs. James’ Filings
Note: Links to NYC Department of Buildings records may load slowly due to system capacity limitations. Please be patient as they connect to the city’s database.
At the heart of the issue is a contradiction between what the city officially permits and what James’ filings claim.
The Certificate of Occupancy for 296 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn—issued January 26, 2001—clearly states the property is a five-family dwelling regulated under NYC housing laws. James purchased this property on February 14, 2001, just two weeks after this Certificate of Occupancy was issued. This official classification has been on the books for more than two decades.
Yet James repeatedly filed permit applications identifying the same property as a four-family dwelling—a classification subject to different regulatory requirements under New York City building codes. Under NYC building code classifications, her property with five units would be classified as C2 (which applies to buildings with 5+ units), while her filings list it as C3 (which applies to 3-4 unit buildings). This fundamental contradiction between the long-established Certificate of Occupancy and her permit applications raises serious questions about regulatory compliance.
Multiple Discrepant Filings Show Pattern, Not Mistake
This wasn’t a one-time error. We uncovered multiple DOB permit applications containing identical discrepancies:
July 2020 Application (Job #340743146):Documents show “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4” despite the Certificate of Occupancy listing five units for the past 19 years.
September 2020 Application (Job #340768510): Another filing repeats the same inconsistent information.
The permit application details are explicit, stating: “Total Number of Dwelling Units at Location: 4” for a property documented in the Certificate of Occupancy as a five-unit building since 2001.
This discrepancy goes far beyond a simple administrative error. As noted in my previous post, mortgage documents signed by Letitia James repeatedly characterize the property as a four-unit building—a critical representation that directly contradicts the official Certificate of Occupancy, which clearly designates the structure as a five-family dwelling. This inconsistency carries significant legal and financial implications, potentially allowing James to secure more favorable lending terms or avoid stricter regulatory requirements that apply to larger multi-unit properties.
The applications to the Department of Buildings were submitted through the city’s professional certification program, under which the architect affirmed:
“I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXERCISED A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE IN CERTIFYING THAT THE FILED APPLICATION IS COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS… I FURTHER REALIZE THAT ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSIFICATION OF FACTS MADE KNOWINGLY OR NEGLIGENTLY BY ME, MY AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, OR BY OTHERS WITH MY KNOWLEDGE, WILL RENDER ME LIABLE FOR LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION…”
This sworn certification underscores the seriousness of the discrepancy. It was not merely a clerical oversight, but a representation made within a process where legal and professional accountability is explicitly defined—yet seemingly unenforced in this case.
Why It Matters: Critical Regulatory Differences
The implications of this discrepancy go far beyond paperwork—it affects compliance with safety and occupancy laws that vary based on unit count. According to the NYC Administrative Code, buildings with different unit counts face materially different regulatory requirements, particularly in safety standards. The NYC Building Code mandates different fire protection protocols based on dwelling unit count, affecting everything from required safety systems to inspection frequency.
The difference between a four-unit and five-unit building is particularly significant, as five units triggers additional regulatory oversight. By listing a five-unit building as having only four units, these applications potentially circumvented proper regulatory review—an action that, if done knowingly, may constitute a violation of state and city law.
The Case of the Missing Unit
This pattern raises a disturbing question: What happened to the fifth unit? If the Certificate of Occupancy legally certifies five units since 2001 but James’ filings consistently reference only four, we face a straightforward logical conclusion: either the property currently has five units and the filings contain false information, or the property has four units and an unauthorized conversion has occurred. In the latter case, for ordinary property owners, such unauthorized alterations trigger immediate investigations, stop-work orders, and significant penalties. The NYC Department of Buildings routinely issues violations for exactly this type of undocumented change to a building’s legal occupancy configuration.
Legal Framework: False Statements in Building Documents
These discrepancies potentially implicate several New York laws:
NYC Administrative Code §28-211.1: This section explicitly prohibits “false statements in certificates, forms, written statements, applications, reports or certificates of correction” related to building permits and compliance documents.
NY Penal Law §175.30: This statute defines the offense of “Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree” as “knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, [when one] offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.” This offense is classified as a Class A misdemeanor.
NY Penal Law §175.35: This elevates the offense to a Class E felony when done “with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state.”
Building code compliance is not discretionary. The NYC Administrative Code §28-202.1 establishes a framework for enforcement through both civil and criminal penalties for violations, stating “violations of this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution or other laws or rules enforced by the department shall be punishable by civil penalties.”
A Double Standard in Action: DOB’s Puzzling Response
Perhaps most revealing is how the city’s Department of Buildings responded when the discrepancy was brought to its attention.
The most troubling aspect emerged when a complaint was filed about this discrepancy. The DOB’s response was surprisingly dismissive:
“MINOR ERROR, C/O 3P0010437 LIST 5 FAMILY BLDG.”
The original complaint was quite specific, stating:
“THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BUILDNG PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – APPLICATIONS LIST THE BUILDING AS A 4 FAMILY BUT C OF O INDICATES A 5 FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT APPLICATIONS SIGNED BY LETITIA JAMES APPEAR TO CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION.”
Yet instead of typical enforcement action, the agency simply labeled it a “minor error”—not even disputing the factual claim, just minimizing its significance despite the discrepancy persisting for nearly two decades.
One Rule for James, Another for Everyone Else
This lenient treatment stands in stark contrast to how the DOB typically handles similar inconsistencies. Consider this example:
Under the NYC Administrative Code §28-213.1, “in addition to any penalties otherwise authorized by law pursuant to article 202 and the rules of the department, whenever any work for which a permit is required pursuant to this code has been performed without a permit, a penalty shall be imposed by the department.” For ordinary property owners, such violations can result in significant fines and mandatory remediation requirements.
Questions That Deserve Answers
Our investigation raises several troubling questions:
Why were James’ applications approved despite containing information that contradicts the Certificate of Occupancy that has been in place since 2001?
Why did DOB dismiss as “minor” what would typically trigger enforcement actions for ordinary property owners?
Is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent differential treatment?
Given the building is legally certified for five units for over 20 years but consistently described as having only four, has an unauthorized unit conversion occurred without proper permits or inspections? This would constitute a serious violation that typically results in immediate enforcement action for non-public officials.
As the state’s chief legal officer, James has a duty to explain these irregularities. If regulatory enforcement varies based on power or position, the public is owed not just answers—but accountability.
We’ll continue monitoring this situation. Stay tuned for updates.
