The Congressional Budget Office may claim it is apolitical and/or bipartsian, but in reality they have few reservations in throwing under the bus any politician(s) that are not viewed as part of the establishment inner circle, and “kitchen sink” them with all the accumulated financial troubles that have piled up in the US. That politician is Donald J. Trump, who is about to be inaugurated as the 47th US president, and who will soon see US debt – already at a ridiculous $36.2 trillion – really explode during his second administration, Musk’s pet project DOGE notwithstanding.

According to the latest CBO budget and economic outlook for the decade 2025 to 2035 the situation is hopeless and getting worse, and even though the budget office doesn’t use those actual terms, it does get pretty close.

While the economic picture presented by the CBO is hardly shocking, if as ridiculous as always, with zero recessions expected over the coming decade when the CBO projects GDP growing at a 1.8% annual pace, with inflation magically flat at 2.0%, unemployment rate a sticky 4.4% and a 3.2% fed funds rate (translating into 3.8% 10Y yield)…

… it gets more exciting when looking at how all this growth is going to be funded. And the answer, of course, is through trillions more in unsustainable deficits, although according to the CBO these are perhaps sustainable since they never seem to end.

So starting with the deficit projection, the CBO expects a 2025 federal deficit of $1.9 trillion, a number which grows to $2.7 trillion by 2035. And while it amounts to 6.2% of GDP in 2025, and then drops to 5.2% by 2027 as revenues increase faster than outlays, this modestly beneficial trend quickly reverses and in later years, outlays once again increase faster than revenues, and by 2035, the deficit once again equals 6.1% of GDP, a number which according to the CBO is “significantly more than the 3.8 percent that deficits have averaged over the past 50 years.” It goes without saying that the actual deficit number will be far, far greater because even a modest recession will assure a surge in government spending (i.e., much more debt-funded deficit) which however will not result in faster growth.

It gets better. In an attempt to entrap Trump, who will very extend extend the expiring TCJA, or Trump tax cuts, the CBO amusingly enough cuts its long-term deficit forecast by $1 billion, but not because of higher growth or anything like that, but because it forecasts “increases in projected revenues from individual income taxes” even as “legislative changes and technical (that is, neither economic nor legislative) changes boosted projected deficits.” As a result, the cumulative deficit from 2025-2034 is expected to decline by $1 trillion, from $22.1 trillion to $21.1 trillion.

That way, in one year when the Trump tax cuts are extended, the CBO will throw the book at trump and blame him when it once again revises its deficit forecast dramatically higher.

As for the real reason why the US deficit is about to go exponential has little to do with taxes, and everything to do with the stratospheric levels of US debt, or rather interest on that debt, we find that while things are more or less normal for the next 3 years, then they go vertical, to wit:

“Federal outlays in 2025 total $7.0 trillion, or 23.3 percent of GDP. They remain close to that level through 2028 and then rise, reaching 24.4 percent of GDP in 2035 (if adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments). The main reasons for that increase are growth in spending for Social Security and Medicare and rising net interest costs.”

Unfortunately, there is no such hockeystick effect to US government revenues which total $5.2 trillion, or 17.1% of GDP, in 2025, then rise to 18.2% of GDP by 2027, which according to the CBO is “because of the scheduled expiration of provisions of the 2017 tax act”, which obviously will not expire and instead will be extended, meaning revenues will not increase and while the CBO knows this, it will instead wait for 6-12 months before letting the hammer fall in its next, far uglier forecast.

But even without the 2017 tax act, the CBO projects that revenues as a share of GDP will then decline over the next two years, falling to 17.9% in 2029, and flatline around 18.3% in 2035. In reality, this number will be far lower, perhaps around 15% if note worse, due to the extension of the Trump tax cuts which means that the next CBO forecast will be substantially worse than the current one.

Alas, this one is also a disaster, and one has to look no further than the CBO’s debt forecast to see that. That’s because while debt held by the public (which conveniently excludes debt used to fund Social Security), is currently at $28.2 trillion, this number nearly doubles by 2035, when it is expected to hit $52.1 trillion.

But wait, wouldn’t debt only increase as GDP also increased, with the relative ratio improving? Actually no, because as the infamous CBO “chart of doom” shows, as debt held by the public rises each year, it does so at a faster pace than GDP; in fact, from 2025 to 2035, debt/GDP swells from 100% to 118%, an amount which as the CBO admits, is “greater than at any point in the nation’s history.”

Now the reason why the CBO published a report that saw a modest improvement in the US fiscal picture over the next decade is not because the US fiscal picture is actually improving, but on the contrary, was to entrap Trump and republicans. As ABC notes, “the analysis paints a difficult picture for an incoming Republican administration bent on cutting taxes in ways that further widen deficits unless they’re also paired with major spending cuts.” Indeed, Trump’s proposed extension of his 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire after this year along with new cuts could easily exceed $4 trillion and his nominee to be treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, warned Thursday that the economy could crash without them.

“We do not have a revenue problem in the U.S.,” Bessent insisted at his confirmation hearings. “We have a spending problem.”

He’s right, but the even bigger problem is that cutting any spending, whether discretionary or mandatory, would lead to unprecedented economic devastation for a country that is used to issuing debt and spending it like a drunken sailor.

While tax revenues as a share of the total U.S. economy are close to the 50-year average, government spending is poised to continue growing, largely because of the unprecedented $1.2 trillion in gross interest expense, a number that will almost certainly never go down again, because even if interest rates do drop briefly, the total amount of debt will just keep rising, more than offsetting any rate decline. Meanwhile, discretionary spending on national security and social programs will account for $1.85 trillion next year. The CBO already has spending in these categories on a downward trajectory as discretionary spending would equal 5.3% of GDP, down from the half-century average of 7.9%.

CBO Director Phillip Swagel told reporters at a press conference Friday that net interest costs are a major contributor to the deficit and “in the coming years, net interest costs are projected to be similar to the amounts of discretionary spending for either defense or non-defense” programs.

And all of that is, of course assuming no recession and a demographic picture that remains unchanged; alas both assumptions are ludicrous.

With an aging population, government spending would largely increase because of Social Security and Medicare — two programs popular with voters that many Republicans and Democrats alike have vowed to protect, despite clear signs that they’re on an unsustainable path.

Swagel said. “We’re already an aging society and the aging of our society is driving mandatory outlays.”

And as American women wait later in life to have children and have fewer of them, “the change of fertility sometimes accelerates that pattern of the aging of our society,” he said.

Michael Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation — which among other things tracks the federal debt — said in a statement that “as lawmakers consider the range of expiring tax policy at the end of the year, they should make a commitment to at least ‘do no fiscal harm’.”

“They should avoid budget gimmicks and base their assumptions on neutral, nonpartisan estimates like this one from CBO,” he said.

Unfortunately for the US, it is now way too late to change the inevitable outcome of an existence that has been driven by exorbitant debt-funded spending. Indeed, when it comes to normalizing or “doing no fiscal harm” that ship has sailed, and as much as we would like for there to be some happy ending, we are terrified at what will happen when the brightest minds in the room admit that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been a failure, and that nothing can prevent the inevitable US implosion.

More in the full CBO bidget forecast.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

As lawyers, we often take a series of steps to protect the interests of our clients when it becomes necessary to sever or end representation. The dropping of a client can have a damaging impact on the reputation or standing of a client. That is why it was surprising to see Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor publicly denounce Mark Zuckerberg as part of social media tirade. It is a deeply concerning lesson for students at a law school already rocked by prior controversies over intolerance for opposing viewpoints.

When we take on a client, we are closely identified with their interests and their case. That creates a deep professional obligation not to use that relationship for our own benefit against the interests of our client. Thus, a lawyer cannot sever an unpopular criminal defendant by denouncing him as morally reprehensible.

We continue to shoulder that obligation even after we end our representations. (I have had to sever clients in the past and avoided any public statement on the reasons or critical comments tied to the cases).

Professor Lemley did not represent Zuckerberg in a criminal matter. However, he was counsel in the high-profile representation of Meta in 2023 after comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors sued the company for alleged copyright violations.

After Zuckerberg recently pledged to restore free speech protections on Meta, many on the left went positively berserk.

This week, Lemley, a partner at the law firm Lex Lumina, decided that he was not content with simply severing the representation without fanfare or embarrassment to his clients.

Instead, he decided to publish a tirade on LinkedIn to denounce Zuckerberg’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.”

He declared “While I think they are on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute in which I represented them, and I hope they win, I cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.”

He further declared that he deactivated his Threads account because he did not want to “support a Twitter-like site run by a Musk wannabe.”

Rather than expressing concern over the trashing of a former client, Rhett Millsaps, managing partner of Lex Lumina, stated, “Money can’t buy everyone. We’re proud to be a firm that doesn’t sell out our values. Sadly, it seems this is becoming a rarer and rarer quality in America today.”

The incident raises a question that can be uncertain and difficult for many lawyers. I do not believe that Professor Lemley should be forced into a life of monastic silence over Meta policies unrelated to his litigation. Zuckerberg is a public figure and Lemley often engages in public commentary.

What concerns me is the nexus drawn by both Lemley and Lex Lumina to their representation of Zuckerberg to magnify their message of opposition. They could have simply severed representations without comment while Lemley could have continued his commentary in opposition to the new free speech policies. Frankly, while Professor Lemley is a respected and accomplished academic, it is doubtful that such criticism would have generated significant media attention. It was the connection to severing representation that amplified the message and caused the criticism to go viral.

Instead, the media is aflame with stories of how even Zuckerberg’s own lawyer and law firm cannot abide him. That was the obvious result of the public statements made by Lemley and the firm in demonizing their former client and citing their severance as morally compelled by his policies.

This can clearly be a gray area for many lawyers. The rules expressly prevent a lawyer from representing a client in an adverse case against a prior client or using information derived from the prior case. That is not the case here. Indeed, Professor Lemley appears to stand by the merits of the earlier case. The question is whether lawyers should use their prior representation as a type of cudgel in a public denunciation of a former client, using their prior representation to elevate their own voices.

None of this sits well with me, but I may be “old school” on such professional conduct issues. I would feel the same way if a lawyer attacked an anti-free speech figure like Hillary Clinton by emphasizing their prior representation. Once again, I am not suggesting that representation bars lawyers from criticizing former, high-profile clients. Professor Lemley has free speech rights and strong opinions in this area. However, the use of the severance or termination of representation as part of that criticism is deeply problematic in my view.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

“He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.” – James Garfield

From economic history to in-depth analysis of today’s financial plumbing, last night’s MMT Vs Austrian debate assessed the roles of debt and currency within the State.

In the Austrian corner was Bob Murphy, senior fellow at the Mises Institute. Across from him, Fields Institute researcher Nathan Tankus, made the case for Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Moderating was Jack Farley of Monetary Matters.

Here were the key moments:

Austrians & The Great Depression: The Textbooks Lied

Did “free market excesses” cause The Great Depression? This is what Americans learn in public school. Murphy, however, provided counterpoints to the narrative. Principally, Herbert Hoover was not laissez faire:

“Contrary to what people may have heard, Herbert Hoover had the largest peacetime deficits in US history up to that point. And then FDR came and his new deal really just expanded upon what Hoover did.”

pic.twitter.com/O0Tl5MTXhf

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 17, 2025

MMT & Central Planning: Carbon Taxes?

Government must curb people’s behavior. That is the argument from Tankus during his opening remarks, saying Climate Change necessitates a “massive mobilization of resources.” 

“The private sector and some fancy price game is not going to be the thing that  makes decisions about how our electricity grid works,” he said. “We kind of have to make choices on how our electricity grid works.”

According to Tankus, by shifting the understanding of money from conventional budget-constraint focus to the inflation-constrained view, these mass changes in human choices can be achieved.

“You need to make design choices to incentivize certain outcomes… we need public money to incentivize people to make choices.”

pic.twitter.com/5DDxivottA

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 17, 2025

Asked how to deal with climate change without government, Murphy said he does not believe it is an existential threat nor would he put his faith in government if it were.

“If the governments of the world limited global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, that would be worse for humanity than doing nothing.”

pic.twitter.com/j649cBvR7N

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 17, 2025

Watch the full debate below:

These debates would not be possible without our sponsor, JMBullion.com, trusted and used by ZeroHedge.
 

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Possibly one of the most inane phrases ever uttered about modern governments is Oliver Wendell Holmes’s oft-quoted phrase stating that “taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

This reflected the naïve view, often pushed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, of the so-called “social contract.”

According to this idea, we pay taxes, and in return the state provides order, protection, and all the blessings of civilization. 

Presumably included among all those taxpayer-funded civilizational “services” provided by governments one can find “fire suppression.”

But, you wouldn’t know it from watching tens of thousands of residents flee their homes in southern California and Los Angeles County as fires rage. As of Wednesday at midday, five different fires in southern California are still zero-percent contained. Nor is this some hard-to-reach rural area with few roads and little infrastructure. These fires are right in the middle of suburban cities and towns. Yet, it is all apparently too much for lavishly-funded government agencies to handle. 

Indeed, government authorities in Los Angeles County and California had neglected infrastructure to the point that it became useless in many areas in terms of battling the blazes.

In the early hours of the Palisades fire, firefighters found themselves hamstrung by a lack of water from fire hydrants. In spite of years of warning about the growing threat of fires in the region, California bureaucrats couldn’t be bothered with upgrading the water system to ensure reliable water supply and pressure in case of a major fire. 

Since 2022, California firefighters have been bragging that they’ve been sending fire suppression equipement to Ukraine. This wasn’t paid for by firefighters, of course. It was funded by the taxpayers. 

Meanwhile, the mayor of the City of Los Angeles—who is paid more than $300,000 per year—is on a taxpayer-funded trip to Ghana to attend the inauguration of the new president of that west African country. What possible benefit this could bring to ordinary people in Los Angeles remains a mystery, but residents are certainly paying for what is essentially a vacation for the mayor. 

Before she left for her vacation, however, the mayor supported large budget cuts to fire suppression services, as well as to other basic services like sanitation and public works. This was necessitated by the city’s budget crisis stemming from years of waste, mismanagement, and legal settlements. In 2024, the city owes $47 million to residents who have sustained injuries from the city’s crumbling infrastructure and police incompetence.

Is all this failing infrastructure a result of cuts to taxes in the city? Of course not. Taxes in Los Angeles are among the highest in the nation. And, all of that is on top of California’s debilitating income taxes which include the highest progressive state income taxes. California has the highest tax burden in the nation. 

Moreover, it’s hard to hire sufficient fire suppression workers when unionized firefighters earn outrageously inflated government salaries. As The Daily Mail reported in 2024, the LA fire captain Jason Getchius earned $823,000 in 2023. In California is it not unusual to find government employees earning mid-six-figures by milking the government overtime system. 

The police are notorious for doing this as well. Naturally, these enormous salaries for police don’t translate into low crime rates. 

The woman in charge of water and public works in Los Angeles, Janisse Quinones, makes at least $750,000. Like most government officials, her salary does not correlate with her competence. 

This is the real reason we pay taxes: to keep the ruling class (high ranking officials) and the larger parasite class (government employees and government contractors) living lifestyles of relative opulence and ease while private sector workers toil to produce all the real wealth. If it seems worse in California it’s because the grift is at a far more advanced stage there. For example, government services like fire suppression and infrastructure are cut in order to fund lavish pensions for state employees. This is true in many states, but it’s especially bad in California. 

Dry fire hydrants. Millionaire firemen. High crime. Crumbling infrastructure. Is this that “civilization” that Oliver Wendell Holmes was talking about? Possibly. Contra the clueless Holmes, however, taxes are definitely not the price we pay for civilization. If anything, taxes destroy civilization by funneling resources to extractive state organs which work primarily to enrich themselves and the ruling oligarchy. 

And why should ordinary people expect any real services in exchange for all those enormous taxes they pay, year after year? They shouldn’t. The state looks out for the state and its closest friends. It doesn’t look out for the people who pay the bills, except on occasion and by accident in pursuit of some good public relations. Instead, state organizations like the City of Los Angeles will spend endless hours and mountains of resources on rewarding politically connected interest groups and on endless meetings about micro-aggressions and diversity hires and on censoring critics. Fighting fires? That’s a mere afterthought. 

For the first time since attacks in the Red Sea began in 2023 in response to the Israeli military onslaught in Gaza due to Oct.7, Yemen’s Houthis have signaled they will stop their attacks if the new Gaza truce and hostage exchange deal holds.

Houthi leader Abdulmalik Al-Houthi in his first announcement since the impending truce, which is expected to take effect Sunday, said that his group plans to respect the agreement but that attacks on Israel and Red Sea shipping could continue.

“We will continue to follow the stages of implementing the agreement,” Al-Houthi said in a speech Thursday. On Friday the deal was still moving past the final bureaucratic hurdles in Israel with an expected full cabinet vote.

“Any Israeli breach, massacre, or siege — we will be immediately ready to provide military support to Palestinians,” he continued, strongly suggesting that if the ceasefire collapses then Houthi attacks would be back on. 

He said his movement, formally known as Ansar Allah, will “confront any aggression, whether by the Israelis, the Americans, or their allies, or any attempts to divert our country from its liberated jihadist path.”

The Houthis have indeed been seeking to target American, British, and coalition warships – though it’s unclear if there have been any direct strikes or damage to military vessels of late.

A Wednesday statement claimed that missiles and drones were launched against the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier and other US warships patrolling the Red Sea. It’s unknown whether if all projectiles were intercepted.

“This targeting of the carrier is the sixth since its arrival in the Red Sea,” the Houthis stated. The Iran-backed group has clearly remained committed and defiant as it blocks Red Sea shipping, despite several rounds of US-UK-Israeli bombing campaigns, though it seems the only thing that may halt this is a lasting Gaza truce.

Bloomberg has meanwhile reviewed that “Most Western-linked container ships have over the past year chosen to take the much longer route around southern Africa when sailing between Asia and Europe, and kept clear of the Red Sea. That’s squeezed global shipping capacity, lifting freight rates and boosted the earnings of carriers like Mitsui OSK.”

“Container-shipping giants A.P. Moller Maersk A/S and Hapag-Lloyd AG last year announced a vessel-sharing partnership for the alternative route,” the report continues.

Egypt has said its taken a $7 billion hit in revenue decline from the Suez Canal for 2024, which marks about a 60% drop from prior years.

Very important for oil, LNG and container-shipped commodities (like coffee)

The Yemen-based Houthis signaled a pause in their months-long attacks on commercial ships following a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas https://t.co/H3ZfndcgzO

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) January 17, 2025

The Houthis have consistently demanded that for it to halt its Red Sea attacks there must be full Israeli military withdrawal from the Strip. It’s anything but certain whether that will actually happen should the ceasefire reach phase two or phase three implementation.

If the Yemeni operations do persist in face of the truce, it would complicate or damage efforts to keep the peace in the Gaza Strip, as it’s already sure to be an extremely delicate and fragile truce. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Joe Rogan unloaded on California governor Gavin Newsom during an episode of his podcast, calling him “disgusting” for smiling, dancing, and acting excited to talk with speculators about developing on the land where people’s homes are burning down.

Rogan played the now viral clip of Newsom bobbing his shoulders around while standing in front of destroyed houses and yapping on about property speculators getting involved.

“The governor gave this creepy speech where he was talking about speculators coming in, and talking about what to do with the land of all these homes that have been burnt down,” Rogan explained.

“It’s still only 6% contained,” he continued, referring to the devastating fires.

“He did this little dance like I’ve been talking with these, you know, with the governor of Hawaii about what to do. We got some ideas,” Rogan further urged.

He also criticised Newsom for failing to adequately prepare for the fires, noting “The fire insurance pulled out of California like, I think, like 69% of fire insurance pulled out of California because they’re, like, this is too crazy. Like you guys aren’t doing jack to manage this. You’re not clearing the brush.”

“The amount of money they could have saved by just clearing brush. By filling the reservoir, that 11-million-gallon reservoir was completely empty during the time of full fire season. Like, why didn’t you fix that?” Rogan asserted.

Watch:

Joe Rogan on Newsom’s Viral Dance Clip

“It’s all insanely mismanaged and then this guy is on television doing a dance in front of the burned down home that people used to sleep in, where their children would sleep. This is so disgusting.” pic.twitter.com/FoQiGvauPE

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 17, 2025

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Here’s Gavin Newsom literally dancing while LA burns. Smiling and chuckling about how all these speculators will land grab while standing in front of the piled ashes of people’s homes. Is this guy a psychopath?

— MichaelG (@Michael888G) January 17, 2025

He couldn’t contain his excitement smh

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 17, 2025

for those new on @X, here is the @GavinNewsom‘s viral dance clip. Fire him ASAP California! pic.twitter.com/mEq4dJna5W

— Chansoo Byeon (@ByeonChansoo) January 17, 2025

The Mayor of Los Angeles has also been blasted for smiling throughout a PR video as the city burns to the ground.

The pair have overseen disastrous DEI policies that have completely hampered the ability of the LA fire department to prepare for or respond to the devastation.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

An Input, Not An Output

China just hit its 2024 growth target, as it always does. According to Bloomberg, an “11th-hour stimulus blitz” and “some export boom turbocharged activity” were required to get it over the line, but here we are. Gross domestic product rose 5.0%, exceeding forecasts of 4.9% growth. The December data showed a rapid rise in industrial production, up 6.2%, with some tentative signs that domestic demand is picking up as well. Retail sales rose 3.8% in the last quarter, its fastest pace in 2024. That said, its trade surplus surged to nearly $1 trillion last year – roughly the size of Poland’s entire economy. That means China needs the rest of the world for its growth; not the other way around.

Growth for 2025 is targeted at 5% again. Of course, we all pretend to forecast it as if it may not happen, but in China, GDP is an input, not an output. The global consensus among policymakers and analysts is that China will have to pivot from its export-dependent, investment-heavy growth model toward one centered on domestic consumption. Yet, this structural shift remains constrained by the ideological preferences of Chinese leadership, which continues to prioritize state-driven economic strategies. Even so, there are some indications of rebalancing. Money supply growth appears to be stabilizing, and after three consecutive years of contraction, the real estate sector may have bottomed. However, policy efforts to bolster consumer spending tend to underwhelm, contributing to uncertainty on how that 5% target will actually be achieved.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., economic data was mixed. Jobless claims edged slightly above expectations, while retail sales underwhelmed. However, control-group sales – the metric feeding directly into GDP – rose faster than forecast, contributing to a modest uptick in the Atlanta Fed’s Nowcast for Q4 GDP, which now projects a 3.0% annualized growth rate. Despite this, the data lacked the heft to prompt a significant market reaction, especially compared to Wednesday’s exuberance when both stocks and bonds rallied after a small beat in core inflation.

More notably, the Philly Fed survey surprised with a headline reading of 44.3, its highest since April 2021 and the largest positive surprise since 1998. This could reflect tariff-related front-loading activity, as such a surprise is otherwise hard to rationalize, but it may be mirrored in the January Manufacturing ISM.

Treasury yields eventually did fell another 2-4 basis points across the curve. This followed comments from the Fed’s Waller, who said the FOMC could lower rates more and sooner should inflation data continue to be favorable in the months ahead. His remarks threw a bit of cold water on the narrative that the Fed may be done cutting rates.

And then there was Trump’s Treasury pick, Scott Bessent, who had his hearing. He stated that the FOMC should remain independent, vowed to protect the USD’s status as the world’s reserve currency, loathed for China’s export-dependent growth model, advocated for ramping up sanctions on Russia, and pledged to work across the aisle to remove the debt ceiling if that’s what Trump wants. Additionally, he said he wants to prioritize extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, while cutting the deficit by slashing discretionary spending.

President-elect Donald Trump has ordered Monday’s inauguration to be moved indoors.

In a post to Truth Social, Trump said that the weather forecast, including “the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows.”

“There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way,” Trump’s post continued, adding “Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985.”

So basically this:

Of course, it may be the weather, or it may be something else. As Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene opined on X, “I have personally attended countless rallies where President Trump spoke in extreme weather conditions from cold to rain to heat,” adding “Is there a security threat other than extreme cold temperatures?”

I have personally attended countless rallies where President Trump spoke in extreme weather conditions from cold to rain to heat.

Is there a security threat other than extreme cold temperatures?

Not only for him but for the people? https://t.co/YQ2pfn6IYh

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) January 17, 2025

In one last masterstroke of incompetence on her way out the door, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has had her computer hacked by China. We don’t really care about the integrity of the U.S. economy, we just hope to God there’s no nudes to leak.

Chinese hackers who breached the Treasury Department were focused on “sanctions, international affairs and intelligence”, according to a new report from Bloomberg that detailed the breach. 

The breach reached “more than 400 laptop and desktop computers”, the report says. 

Hackers accessed employee credentials and over 3,000 files from unclassified personal computers, including policy documents, travel records, organizational charts, and sensitive law enforcement data, the report revealed. While they likely stole some material, classified and email systems were not breached.

The Bloomberg report said the hackers also accessed files related to investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which assesses national security risks of certain real estate and foreign investments.

A report to Congress reveals that Chinese state-sponsored hackers, identified as Silk Typhoon or UNC5221, breached the Treasury Department through a contractor’s network, prioritizing document theft and operating stealthily.

While no malware or long-term intelligence gathering was detected, sensitive systems remained uncompromised. Treasury reported the breach promptly and sought assistance from federal agencies. Treasury and FBI representatives declined to comment.

China has denied allegations of state-sponsored cyberattacks, dismissing claims of involvement in the Treasury hack as “groundless.”

Hackers accessed 419 computers between late September and mid-November, targeting offices dealing with foreign assets, international affairs, and intelligence, as well as senior officials and personal financial records.

A damage assessment is ongoing, and Treasury staff are set to brief the Senate Banking Committee. Treasury disconnected BeyondTrust, the compromised contractor, and is considering alternatives, though no immediate failures have been identified.

Reuters reported the hackers even breached U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s computer and computers of two of Yellen’s lieutenants, Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo and Acting Under Secretary Brad Smith. 

“The hackers accessed fewer than 50 files on Yellen’s machine,” Reuters concluded. 

Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times,

One day after delivering his farewell address, President Joe Biden sat down for the last interview of his term.

The Oval Office interview, which was recorded earlier in the evening on Jan. 16, saw the outgoing president in a friendly exchange with MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell. Biden is famously attuned to one of MSNBC’s morning hosts, ex-Republican Joe Scarborough.

The two discussed Biden’s economic record, his confrontation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and the new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Biden Warns of Concentration of Wealth

Echoing yesterday’s farewell address, Biden warned of an “enormous concentration of wealth and power,” saying that it threatened democracy.

“I have no problem with people making millions of dollars. For God’s sake, pay your fair share in taxes and participation,” he said.

He said the world was approaching an inflection point, chalking it up to changes in communications made possible by technology.

The ultra-wealthy, he said, were gaining leverage over the media as well as the economy.

The theme follows an election upended by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who endorsed Trump after the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Along with a growing number of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, Musk donated heavily in support of the candidate. He also campaigned for him in Pennsylvania ahead of Election Day.

While Trump enjoyed more public backing from the ultra-wealthy this time than in previous contests, an October 2024 analysis from Forbes found that Kamala Harris, Biden’s vice president and the loser against Trump, received significantly more support from prominent billionaires.

Biden Says He Changed ‘Basic Formula’ For the Economy

Biden told O’Donnell his administration had a transformational impact on America’s economy, criticizing supply-side, or “trickle-down,” economics.

“We changed the basic formula of how to make an economy work,” he said, saying he and his team had empowered labor unions.

He said former President Barack Obama, whom he served as vice president, did not go far enough. One of Obama’s signature bills, the 2009 Recovery Act, included $831 billion in spending amid the Great Recession.

“We were doing the old basic, old economics from the 50s, 60s and 70s,” Biden said.

President Joe Biden addresses union workers at Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 in Philadelphia, Pa., on Sept. 4, 2023. Mark Makela/Getty Images

Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer has argued that Biden and his party have embraced modern monetary theory (MMT), which holds that the United States’ dominant position in the world economy means long-running deficits are acceptable.

Stephanie Kelton, a progressive economic advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) presidential campaigns and author of a unity report with the Biden 2020 campaign, wrote in 2021 that the president “has adopted MMT.”

As an example of his own economic legacy, Biden cited the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, bipartisan legislation intended to bolster the domestic semiconductor industry through the authorization of $280 billion in funding for research and semiconductor production. Taiwan currently dominates the manufacturing of that technology.

Biden said that sector originally left the United States because corporations wanted cheaper workers. The COVID-19 pandemic, he said, revealed the importance of local supply chains.

He also took credit for linking American prosperity to its posture in the world in a new way.

“There’s no way to implement our foreign policy unless, in terms of our economic policy, we’re in a strong position to do it,” Biden said.

No Mention of Trump Envoy as Biden Talks Ceasefire

The outgoing president also discussed a new ceasefire and hostage release agreement between Israel and Hamas. The deal was signed in Doha, Qatar, on Jan. 17.

Biden said he had not spoken to Trump about the ceasefire negotiations in the previous two weeks.

Pressed by O’Donnell, he said he had discussed it “very, very briefly” with Trump after the election.

“I did really put together—if it doesn’t work, I’ve got to take the blame for it—a plan with my national security team,” Biden said.

The president said he did not believe Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, had delayed a ceasefire to help Trump. He also voiced sympathy for the embattled leader.

“He’s got a tough coalition too, man. He’s got the most conservative cabinet of any Israeli prime minister ever,” Biden said.

President Joe Biden (R) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on July 25, 2024. Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

He did not mention real estate investor Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to the successful Doha talks.

Israeli and other Middle Eastern media sources have credited Witkoff with swaying Netanyahu.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations credited the president-elect with “putting pressure on all parties, including Netanyahu, to reach a deal.”

The Union for Reform Judaism thanked both Biden and Trump, the latter for helping to “make this elusive agreement a reality.”

Biden Talks NATO and Putin

Biden and O’Donnell also discussed the Russia-Ukraine war and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which grew under Biden. Against the backdrop of that conflict in Eastern Europe, NATO admitted both Finland and Sweden.

“We tightened NATO—made it stronger,” Biden said.

The president said the larger alliance has weakened Russia’s position in Ukraine, which it initially invaded in February 2022, a little more than a year after he took office.

He said Ukraine would not be able to join NATO, a major concern for Russia, “until they change their system significantly.”

“We’re going to continue to help them grow, if we can,” Biden added.

In the days before Putin’s invasion, the Biden administration went public with U.S. intelligence suggesting the Russian leader planned to attack Ukraine.

Biden spoke about why his administration took that approach.

“I wanted people to believe me,” he said. “I knew more what I was talking about at that point because the position I was in than anybody else did.”

Biden Says He Didn’t Want to Sacrifice Employment to Curb Inflation

O’Donnell asked the president about criticism he had taken from economist Lawrence Summers.

In early 2021, Summers warned that the administration’s stimulus policies, pursued during the COVID-19 pandemic, would unleash significant inflation.

Biden-era inflation peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022. It has since fallen to 2.9 percent as of December 2024, higher than it was through most of the Trump era. After reaching a low of 2.4 percent in September, inflation has increased slightly in recent months.

Biden told O’Donnell he was unwilling to tackle inflation in a way that cost jobs. Low inflation typically comes alongside higher unemployment.

“If you conclude the only way to deal with inflation is to create unemployment and another recession, because you had to make sure that we lost jobs, that’s another way to keep the inflation down. But guess what? I was absolutely convinced—give the American people half a shot,” he said.

The broad decline in the rate of inflation, Biden said, showed that the economy had executed a “soft landing.”