Food prices remain one of the most persistent cost pressures for households worldwide. In 2026, grocery bills are projected to rise sharply in some countries, while remaining relatively stable in others.

According to new forecasts from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food inflation will vary dramatically across 160 countries in 2026, ranging from double-digit surges in some economies to outright price declines in others.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, ranks 160 countries by their projected year-over-year change in food prices, highlighting where households are likely to face the steepest increases in 2026.

The Countries Facing the Steepest Food Price Increases

Today, inflation pressures remain strongest in emerging and import-dependent economies.

Food inflation is influenced by currency movements, commodity prices, trade disruptions, and domestic supply conditions. Countries experiencing currency depreciation or ongoing economic instability tend to see sharper increases in food costs.

At the top of the ranking is Iran, where food prices are forecast to rise 55.9% year-over-year.

Iran’s currency depreciation and prolonged inflationary pressures have already pushed food inflation to extreme levels in recent years. The 2026 forecast suggests those pressures may persist.

Several Sub-Saharan African economies—including Nigeria (17.1%), Angola (14.8%), Zambia (10.8%), and Ethiopia (10.1%)—also rank among the highest. In many of these countries, food inflation is closely tied to currency volatility, import dependency, and supply-side disruptions.

Regional Differences in Food Inflation

While the global average is projected at 3.2%, the regional breakdown shows stark differences in how food prices are expected to evolve in 2026.

The Middle East and North Africa region stands out, with nearly triple the global average.

North America sits around the middle of the pack, with food prices projected to rise 4.3%. In the U.S., prices are expected to increase 2.7%, while in Canada, prices could climb at more than twice that pace.

Meanwhile, much of Asia-Pacific is projected to see relatively modest food price growth.

While global food inflation is expected to fall in the single digits in 2026, the regional picture tells a far more uneven story. For millions of households in high-inflation economies, grocery bills may remain one of the most persistent economic pressures in the year ahead.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the U.S. cities with the highest grocery costs.

Three months after Australia banned minors under the age of 16 from accessing social media, Poland is preparing to do the same thing.

A bill is currently being prepared by the largest party in Poland’s ruling Civic Coalition Party that would prohibit children under the age of 15 from using social media platforms, and would require tech companies to verify users’ ages. 

Education Minister Barbara Nowacka laid out the plan on Friday, which include fines of up to 6% of the worldwide (global) revenue of social media companies if their services remain accessible to under-15s. 

“We need to limit access to social media for children under 15. At the same time, we need to work on mental health and raise awareness among children, parents, and the entire Polish society about the dangers of social media,” Nowacka said. 

If sped through legislation, Poland’s bill could take effect as early as 2027, however the coalition hasn’t fully signed off yet, and it will undoubtedly face legal pushback from US tech giants. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, on Dec. 10, Australia became the first country to impose nationwide restrictions on minors accessing social media, banning those under 16 from a dozen platforms.

The restrictions were brought in amid concerns over mental health, online harms, and screen addiction affecting Australian children.

Poland is the latest country in the European Union to say it was planning to introduce a ban or some other form of restriction, with other member states similarly citing concerns over children’s mental health.

In France, legislation is moving through parliament to ban children younger than age 15 from accessing social media platforms. Denmark and Slovenia are likewise looking at bans for under-15s.

Spain will follow Australia in banning social media for minors under age 16.

Portugal is taking a different approach. Rather than introducing an outright ban on children under a certain age from accessing social media, it aims to require explicit parental consent for children aged 13 to 16 to access the platforms.

Other countries around the world are making similar plans, including Malaysia, which says it will ban social media accounts for children younger than age 16 this year.

‘Age-Gating’ Social Media

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a series of new proposals earlier this month aimed at protecting young people from social media addiction, including a proposed ban for under-16s, subject to a public consultation.

Some measures by the UK and the EU to curb online harms have led to tensions with the United States, home of many big tech companies, around issues of free speech and regulatory overreach.

Privacy and free speech advocates, such as UK-based Open Rights Group, say that a social media ban for under-16s would be an ineffective response to online harms.

The Open Rights Group says it would lead to “age-gating” across all social media platforms, requiring users to prove their age.

“Protecting children online should not mean building a surveillance infrastructure for everyone,” Open Rights Group spokesman James Baker said.

“We need regulation that puts users back in control, not policies that force people to trade their privacy and voice for access to modern life.”

Rachel Roberts and Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Five Persian Gulf nations that host U.S. military installations claim they have collectively shot down more than 1,500 Iranian missiles and drones since the United States and Israel launched their joint attack at 9:45 a.m. Tehran time on Feb. 28.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE)—whose forces have battled Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen—has borne the brunt of the Iranian attacks.

While numbers are fluid and reported timelines varied, as of 6 p.m. ET on March 1—2:30 a.m. March 2 in Iran—the UAE Ministry of Defense reported it had knocked down 165 ballistic missiles, two cruise missiles, and more than 540 drones.

Debris from destroyed projectiles crashed into several Abu Dhabi residential neighborhoods, killing at least one civilian, the ministry reported, also stating that at least three people have been killed in Iranian strikes in UAE.

The attacks are “a blatant violation of national sovereignty and international law,” the ministry said in a statement, warning UAE would “take all necessary measures to protect its territory, citizens and residents, and to safeguard its sovereignty, security and stability.”

Bahrain’s military said March 1 that its air defense systems had intercepted at least 45 missiles and nine drones, with the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama and a British navy base specifically targeted.

No casualties were reported at the U.S. and UK bases. British forces reported shooting down a drone in Manama. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on March 1 said the British have accepted a U.S, request to use its bases across the Middle East, including its large air base in Cyprus, to strike Iranian missile launchers.

Kuwait’s military reported it shot down nearly 100 missiles and almost 300 drones during the first 24 to 36 hours of the conflict.

The Iranian attacks focused on Ali Al-Salem Air Base where American and other international forces are stationed. Drones also struck Kuwait International Airport on Feb. 28, causing minor injuries and “limited damage.”

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani, however, told Italian news outlet ANSA that a Kuwait International Airport runway sustained extensive damage.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defense said it shot down 65 ballistic missiles and at least 12 drones fired at it from Iran. “We possess the full ability to protect the country and fend off any external threat,” the Qatari ministry said, adding Qatar is “secure and stable,” although the country’s air space has been temporary closed to commercial traffic.

Two ballistic missiles struck the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base causing no reported casualties and little damage, while a drone strike disabled an early warning radar installation.

Most U.S. Air Force airmen and aircraft normally stationed at Al-Udeid, including KC-135s in-flight refueling jets, C-17A Globemaster transports, and C-130 Hercules airlift transports, were moved to other bases in the Mediterranean and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in the days preceding the attack.

Jordan’s armed forces reported March 1 that they had intercepted 13 ballistic missiles and knocked down nearly 50 drones targeting U.S. forces at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base.

“The armed forces engaged 49 drones and ballistic missiles targeting Jordanian territory today,” the Jordanian armed forces said in a statement, adding “13 ballistic missiles were successfully intercepted by Jordanian air defense systems, while drones were shot down.”

An undetermined number of missile and drone attacks have also been reported in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria.

U.S. forces at Harir Air Base in Erbil in northern Iraq’s Kurdistan area were attacked with missiles and drones with no casualties and little damage reported. British forces report they knocked down several missiles in Iraq.

Leaders from Germany, the UK and France are waving their fists over Iran’s “reckless” retaliatory strikes in the region, and say they’re ready to throw down to stop Tehran from further responses. 

On Sunday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron stood in solidarity, saying in a joint statement that they were “appalled” by Iran’s “reckless” retaliatory strikes that targeted not only US and Israeli military sites in the region – but other allies as well (Dubai got the business, among others). 

“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” the statement reads. “We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.” 

British forces have already engaged – with a Typhoon fighter jet shooting down an Iranian drone with an air-to-air missile during a defensive air patrol in Qatar. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, Starmer addressed his nation on the matter later on March 1, revealing that he also granted a request from the United States to use UK bases in the region to attack Iranian missile sites. But he affirmed that this did not mean that he was tasking British armed forces to join the United States in offensive action.

“Iran has launched sustained attacks across the region, at countries who did not attack them,” Starmer said. ”They’ve hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. This is clearly a dangerous situation.”

The prime minister noted that at least 200,000 British citizens were in the Middle East, including residents, families on vacation, and others in transit.

He defended his government’s decision to allow the United States to use British bases to attack Iranian missile launchers and storage depots, calling it a “defensive” action and saying the only way the threat will be stopped is by destroying the missiles at their source.

“Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, so we are supporting the collective self-defense of our allies and our people in the region, because that is our duty to the British people,” Starmer said.

Meanwhile, Merz announced on X that he would meet with U.S. President Donald Trump on March 3 to discuss the latest developments, noting that he remained in close contact with other European powers, Israel, and the affected region.

“Now is not the time for finger-pointing, but for unity and joint action,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

It took some time for the supposed difference between Annalena Baerbock’s feminist foreign policy and the approach that the diplomatic corps under Chancellor Friedrich Merz would take to become clear. What has changed is less the substance than the performative act. Under the Sauerland-born Merz, tone and gestures shifted—the staging is meant to appear more masculine, sober in style, perhaps more professional, less embarrassingly activist—but the content remains largely unchanged.

Ironically, arch-enemy Donald Trump became the spiritus rector of a new theatrical element in the Chancellor’s media showcase. In Trump-style, Friedrich Merz announced on February 25 the climax of his China trip: the conclusion of a major order for the European aerospace giant Airbus. China will acquire 120 aircraft, models A320, A350—details to follow later—ordered from the company that has become the most successful “success child” of the European project.

The Chinese hosts are politely attentive: they don’t let the Chancellor return home empty-handed and grant him quick fame in the 2026 super-election year. Images, headlines, pathos—the stage is set. The Chancellor as doer, as promoter of German and European interests, as a foreign-policy acquirer in global competition—a German Donald Trump?

A sober look at the numbers puts the theatrics in perspective. Year after year, Chinese customers fill Airbus’s order books with hundreds of aircraft. Major orders from China are no exception; they are part of a long-established procurement rhythm. Demand is structural, not spontaneous—the production slots had long been planned and coincided with the Chancellor’s trip by chance.

A media storm in Trump-style, with the small but crucial difference that the U.S. president returns from foreign trips with real investments in his industry’s production capacity. Factories are built, sites expanded, capital flows measurably into American value creation. Whatever the magic formula—tariffs, deregulated economy, robust growth—America attracts real investments, binding capital and industrial substance domestically.

Friedrich Merz, by contrast, presents routine industrial orders as personal triumphs. He frames scheduled large orders as the result of his diplomatic prowess—a German deal-maker in action. But the crucial difference is that for career politician Merz, only media impact counts. One brings production capacity home; the other brings press releases.

Let’s credit Merz: his trip falls during a critical election phase. In such moments, images, gestures, and quickly digestible wins matter. Fleeting triumphs feed the narrative of the doer in the chancellery, regardless of catastrophic domestic performance.

It is also reassuring that Germany continues to receive the highest protocol honors in China and that Beijing evidently values German history more than the sad present. Reception in the Great Hall of the People by Premier Li Qiang, a personal audience with President Xi Jinping, evening dinner, military welcome at the airport. The choreography is flawless: flags, honor guards, carefully staged images. Protocol-wise, Germany still plays in the Champions League.

Geopolitically, however, the picture is different. Merz called China a “strategic partner” before the trip without defining what this means in the current world situation. Beijing firmly backs Moscow in the Ukraine war. How does the Chancellor think the EU’s 20 sanction packages against Russia affect relations with Beijing? Every new measure against Russia is not just a signal to the Kremlin but also a geopolitical marker toward China.

Merz could personally observe China’s perspective on Germany and the EU’s growing isolation in geopolitics. Protocol pomp does not reverse strategic erosion. From Beijing’s perspective, the question is simple: what offer should one make to a delegation from a country that has weakened its industrial base through self-inflicted dismantling while simultaneously complaining about trade disadvantages?

The consequences of European eco-socialism are immense. Germany has become a net importer of capital in trade with China. The trade balance increasingly tilts against it. In key industrial sectors, competitive advantages have eroded; energy-intensive value creation is under pressure.

Against this backdrop, sympathy for the Chancellor and his economic representatives is limited. The misery is homegrown. Every new regulation, levy, or transformation mandate tightens industry further, reducing Germany’s flexibility in global competition.

In China—a political dictatorship under a single party but economically largely guided by market efficiency—German-European moralizing meets maximum incomprehension. There, scale effects, productivity, market share, and technological sovereignty matter. Moral self-assurance does not replace industrial strength.

Merz lamented unfair Chinese trade practices given Germany’s deep trade deficit. Market access must be fair, disadvantages avoided. The words sound determined, aimed at reciprocity in global trade. And they sound naive.

Because isn’t it worth asking whether Europeans have long been world champions of hidden protectionism? Whether German and European policies repeatedly sparked the grotesque race toward emission-free economies via maximal repression? Regulatory hurdles, taxonomies, supply-chain laws, CO₂ border adjustments—all form a dense mesh of indirect market barriers.

It is by no means China’s fault that Germany’s economic propulsion—industry, engineering, machinery, automotive—has, under EU regulations and energy-transition fanaticism, disassembled at accelerated speed. Those who systematically eliminate their own cost advantages lose ground globally and geopolitically.

Merz exemplifies a European political class eager to blame external actors for structural weaknesses. He is living proof that Europe and Germany have a long way to go before a brutally honest assessment of problems.

Flattering China and the apparent alignment on population surveillance and censorship expansion makes Europe, at best, an unloved vassal of Beijing.

Europe, as a cultural entity, should seek salvation in alignment with Americans. In the bastion of free markets, deregulation, and rational energy policy—in the land of ICE and Christian-humanist cohesion—lies the most likely, only acceptable future for European policy.

China sees Europe as a dumping ground for surplus production—Europe as a decaying heir of the colonial era. European markets absorb domestic overcapacity. Structural dependency on resources like rare earths and energy grows. The leverage is not in Europe.

The era of European dominance is over. Moral self-assertion against factual dependence? Helpless. Puerile. Expensively paid.

Friedrich Merz’s visit to China was a campaign appearance for the CDU. He followed diplomatic protocols but was substantively unremarkable. The images were staged; strategic impact remains limited. Europe deserves better policy.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The goal is to obtain proxy control over Iran’s enormous oil and gas reserves so that they can be weaponized as leverage against China for coercing it into a lopsided trade deal that would derail its superpower rise and therefore restore US-led unipolarity.

Trump claimed that the US’ military campaign against Iran is to “defend the American people”, while many critics have alleged (whether in jest or not) that it’s to distract from the Epstein Files, but few observers realize that it’s actually all about China. It was explained here that Trump 2.0 “decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.”

To elaborate, “The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure on Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise.”

The resource dimension that’s relevant to Iran is a major part of the US’ “Strategy of Denial”.

That’s the brainchild of Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, and it was expanded on in this analysis here from early January.

As was written, “US influence over Venezuela’s and possibly soon Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China could be weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal”, which is to coerce China into indefinite junior partnership status vis-à-vis the US through a lopsided trade deal.

Most observers missed it, but the new National Security Strategy calls for ultimately “rebalance[ing] China’s economy toward household consumption”. This is a euphemism for radically re-engineering the global economy through the previously described means, namely curtailing China’s access to the markets and resources responsible for its superpower rise, so that it no longer remains “the world’s factory” and thus ends its era of being the US’ only systemic rival. US-led unipolarity would then be restored.

Circling back to Iran, “[it] represented about 13.4% of the total 10.27 MMbpd of oil [that China] imported by sea” last year per Kpler, hence why the US wants to control, curtail, or outright cut off this flow. ‘Plan A’ was to achieve this through diplomatic means for replicating the Venezuelan model that entered into effect after Maduro’s capture. Iran flirted with this but didn’t commit since it would entail the country’s strategic surrender, ergo why Trump authorized military action for achieving this instead.

In pursuit of this, Trump promised the IRGC in his video announcing his country’s military campaign against Iran that they’d have immunity if they laid down their arms. This reinforces the abovementioned claim that the US wants to replicate the Venezuelan model since it strongly suggests that he envisages newly US-aligned IRGC running Iran in the political interim before new elections just like the newly US-aligned Venezuelan security services run their own country during their own current political interim.

Such a scenario would avert Iran’s possible “Balkanization”, thus preserving the state so that it can then resume its prior role as one of the US’ top regional allies, which might then aid the Azeri-Turkish Axis’ efforts to project Western influence along Russia’s entire southern periphery. In that event, the US would simultaneously obtain unparalleled resource leverage over China via proxy control of Iran’s oil and gas industries while tightening its encirclement of Russia, which would deal a powerful blow to multipolarity.

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

Via The Cradle

The unprovoked US-Israeli war against Iran launched on Saturday had “been planned for months, and the ⁠launch date ⁠decided ⁠weeks ago,” even as the US and Iran carried out indirect nuclear negotiations, an Israeli defense official told Reuters.

Washington and Tel Aviv renewed negotiations in February over Iran’s nuclear program. President Trump was under pressure from Israel force Iran to give up uranium enrichment, as well as its ballistic missile program and support for regional resistance forces (such as the pro-Iranian Iraqi popular mobilization units, and Hezbollah, etc). Amid the negotiations, Trump sent an “armada” of US naval ships and warplanes to the region, threatening to launch an attack if officials in Tehran refused to make a deal. After the latest round of talks on Thursday, a senior US official told Axios the talks were “positive.”

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who mediated the talks, said the talks had shown “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also expressed optimism, saying both sides had shown a “clear seriousness” about getting a deal. However, the US and Israel launched large-scale attacks against Iranian targets early Saturday, suggesting the negotiations had never been serious. In the wake of the attacks, Omani Foreign Minister Albusaidi said that the negotiations he mediated had been “deliberately undermined.”

Mehran Kamrava, director of the Iranian studies unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, stated that Israel “appears to have launched an attack designed to derail the negotiations.“

A planning document prepared years ago by the US think tank Brookings Institution provided a blueprint for regime change in Iran that outlined such a strategy. 

“Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” written by analysts at the Brookings Institution in 2009, recommended that the US carry out negotiations ahead of a planned attack to give the false impression that the US had done everything possible to avoid war.

Iran could then be blamed for rejecting a “good deal,” thereby shifting blame onto the Islamic Republic for what would be an unpopular war both among the US public and internationally.

“The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down,” the document stated.

“Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians’ brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal,” the document added.

🇺🇸/Iran: The US is going to attack Iran as soon as preparations are final and if Iran and its allies fail to sufficiently deter US aggression.

There were never any real negotiations.

The decision to attack Iran was made in the 1970s when Iran rightfully ousted the US… pic.twitter.com/v0CsZmP6mB

— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) February 20, 2026

After the start of the US and Israeli strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched barrages of ballistic missiles and drones at targets in Israel and US bases in the region.

Damage to targets within Israel is difficult to assess due to media censorship imposed by the Israeli military. However, sirens were heard across Israel as the military issued a “proactive alert to prepare the public for the possibility of missiles being launched toward the state of Israel.”

The military announced the closure of schools and workplaces, with exceptions for essential sectors. The Israel Airports Authority announced its airspace had been closed to all civilian flights.

One official describes Kushner reading the Iranian 7 page proposal, which they say the US team could not take with them. It does not sound like they understood even a symbolic minimal research enrichment proposal at all, not just as not good enough, but as sinister

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) February 28, 2026

Amid the Iranian attacks, Israel’s energy sector shifted into emergency mode. Israel’s energy ministry instructed Greek firm Energean to temporarily suspend production at its offshore Karish gas field.

The ministry also ordered the closure of the country’s largest gas field, Leviathan, as a precautionary measure. Some units of the Haifa oil refinery were also shuttered.

* * *

Iranian FM statement:

https://t.co/otRcg14Y0h

A deal was within reach. We left Geneva with understanding that we’d seal a deal next time we meet. Those who wanted to spoil diplomacy succeeded in their mission. But it was Mr. Trump, yet again, who ultimately ordered bombing of the negotiating table.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 1, 2026

Former President Joe Biden made one of his rare post-presidential appearances Friday in Columbia, South Carolina, stepping onto a stage at a downtown art museum to accept a lifetime achievement honor from the state’s Democratic Party. 

During the speech, Biden claimed that Donald Trump is rigging the 2026 midterms before a single vote has been cast. 

“Here’s the good news,” Biden told the crowd. “In America, the power still belongs to the people for now. And the way to show the power is vote, show up, and vote. And folks, when we do that, that’s bad news for Donald Trump, and he knows it. That’s why he’s trying to pull out more and more barriers – put them up. He’s trying to steal the election because he knows he can’t win your vote, so he’s going to do everything he can to prevent you from wanting to vote.” 

BREAKING: Joe Biden warns that Trump is “trying to steal the election because he knows if he can’t win your vote so he is going to do everything he can to prevent you from wanting to vote.” pic.twitter.com/C75Mftkxda

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) February 28, 2026

The “barriers” Biden was referencing are Trump’s push for photo ID requirements and proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration –  the two key components of the SAVE America Act currently awaiting a Senate vote. 

Biden framed these measures as existential threats to democracy.

What he did not mention is that the American public has already rendered its verdict on these policies — and it is not remotely close.

A Pew Research Center survey found that 83% of Americans support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote, including 71% of Democrats, 76% of black Americans, and 82% of Hispanics. 

Gallup found nearly identical results: 84% in favor of photo ID requirements, with 98% of Republicans, 84% of independents, and 67% of Democrats on board. Eighty-three percent also support requiring proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration. 

“The bottom line is this,” CNN’s chief data analyst Harry Enten said earlier this month. “Voter ID is not controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party, and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree … that, in fact, you should have a photo ID to be able to vote.”

Americans agree with Nicki Minaj when it comes to voter id.

83% of favor photo voter id to vote per Pew. This includes 70%+ of Democrats and Republicans, as well as 75%+ of Americans across races…. White, Black, and Latino.

It’s not controversial. pic.twitter.com/9Kocw85Uh8

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) February 3, 2026

Biden was speaking, in other words, about a policy his own base largely supports — insisting it’s election theft. 

Biden also attempted to rewrite his legacy by claiming he had secured the southern border.

“The day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered an office inherited from Trump,” he said. “He is — I won’t say it. That’s just a fact.” 

FORMER PRESIDENT BIDEN: “The day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered an office inherited from Trump. He is — I won’t say it. That’s just a fact.”

“On the day I left office, I handed Trump the strongest economy in the world.… pic.twitter.com/ZfB0eKkrEF

— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 28, 2026

What Biden failed to mention was that border crossings hit record highs on his watch. The numbers were so high that even Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said back in 2024 that they were unsustainable.

🚨TRUMP SEALS THE US BORDER: ILLEGAL CROSSINGS PLUMMET BELOW 10,000 A MONTH IN 2025‼️

🚨President Trump promised to secure the border – and he’s delivered‼️

🚨Under Biden, monthly encounters hit over 250,000. Now in Trump’s second term they’re averaging under 10,000 – a massive… pic.twitter.com/7ZQk24kp42

— Gauci Reports (@GauciReports) December 30, 2025

During his presidency, he claimed that he needed new legislation to address the border crisis and insisted that it was up to Congress to give him the authority he needed to close the border. The Biden administration only chose to act on the border when polling showed that Trump had a significant advantage on the issue of immigration.

No matter how hard he tries, Joe Biden can’t rewrite his record on the border. Rather than own his legacy, he’s proving exactly why Donald Trump won in 2024.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Respectfully, f–k off.” Those words by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson, Izzy Gardon, summed up the current race to the bottom of American politics.

Democrats appear in a competition of the profane where voters are now subject to a virtual carpet-bombing of f-bombs and other indecent language.

Gardon’s response was to a standard media inquiry after Newsom’s controversial statement to a black interviewer.

In an Atlanta event, Newsom declared: “I’m like you … I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy … literally a 960 SAT guy. You’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.” It was widely denounced as racist, but Newsom insisted that he was only talking about his struggle with dyslexia.

The spin quickly fell apart after his statement, “I’m like you … I’m no better than you,” which suggested he thought the audience in Atlanta had low scores.

Reporters followed up to ask for proof about his disability, including his claim that “I cannot read.” The response was an f-bomb from Gardon.

Newsom, too, unleashed a profane attack on Sean Hannity of Fox News — who gave the California governor a chance to respond to his critics.

When Hannity criticized Newsom’s comments in Atlanta, the governor posted several four-letter words on X, concluding with: “Spare me your fake f—ing outrage.”

There was a time when political leaders maintained basic standards of civility and avoided profanity in public.

Presidents like Lyndon Johnson could be quite salty in private, but drew a line in public.

Notably, one of Richard Nixon’s objections to his tapes being made public was the inclusion of foul language used in the Oval Office. He noted in his book In the Arena that “since neither I nor most other presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked.”

It was not long ago that Trump’s then-new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci shocked many with a profane diatribe.

He defended it as “an Italian thing.”

At the time, I wrote that, as someone who was raised in an Italian family, we clearly had a different upbringing. I noted that if I used that language in public, my Sicilian grandmother would have ended the diatribe with a backhand.

Profanity sometimes added to the mystique of military leaders who sought to convey that they were unconcerned with social norms as warriors.

Gen. George Patton was known to drop some doozies. In one scene in the famous eponymous movie, Patton is asked about the Bible next to his bed and whether he really prayed. Patton responds, “I sure do … Every godd–n day…”

Politics was different. The public once looked to political leaders as role models who exemplified social norms.

It now appears that profanity is viewed as an essential element of political speech on the left.

Katie Porter this week thrilled a crowd by waving around a sign reading “F–k Trump.”

Porter was previously criticized for using such language to abuse staffers to “get out of my f–cking shot” in an interview.

At the State of the Union, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wore a button on the House floor reading “F–k Ice.”

Such behavior is not just limited to Democrats. President Trump has used profanity on occasion.

However, the Democrats appear to have made profanity a signature element in their campaigns.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, seems a perpetual profanity machine, regularly telling figures like Elon Musk to “f–k off” and dropping the f-bomb at a higher rate than prepositions.

Some are virtually giggly over swearing in public. Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) declared, “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f–k Trump. Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.” The crowd roared with approval that Dexter was feigning being naughty with dirty words.

There is a belief that profanity is a way to connect to younger voters who trash-talk and seem to like what was once called “potty mouths.”

However, there is also a clear use of profanity as a way to establish your bona fides with the mob.

Trashing conventions of civility and decency is a way to convey that you are part of a radical chic.

Figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have tried cringeworthy efforts to connect with voters by dancing or cooking burgers. Schumer then joined his colleagues in dropping the f-bomb to show that he is very, very angry.

The use of profanity has risen alongside the rise in rage rhetoric.

Democratic politicians now regularly call Trump, Republicans, and law enforcement “Nazis” and “Gestapo.” Many are promising to carry out a crackdown on Trump supporters once they are returned to power, including through criminal prosecutions.

Figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have tried cringeworthy efforts to connect with voters.

The devolution of American politics is occurring as politicians and pundits call for radical changes to our constitutional system. Showing that you do not respect social conventions adds to your cache as a radical leader.

In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore comparisons with our current politics and the conditions that led to the French Revolution.

There is a value to dehumanizing one’s opponents to justify radical, even violent, action. Profanity conveys your self-authenticating anger to the mob. You may be an establishment politician, but you are one of them.

It rarely lasts. Revolutions tend to devour their own.

Swearing up a storm will not satisfy the mob very long. Democrats hope to ride the rage wave back into power and assume that, once they have that power, the mob will simply disappear in gratitude.

It is likely that politicians of both parties will continue this trend toward potty-mouth politics. If you are speaking with civility, you are not mad enough.

These politicians are feeding a rage addiction in this country by showing that they do not respect any limits of decency or decorum in seeking radical changes.

Mark Twain said that “under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.”

The difference today is that the profanity itself is a prayer by politicians seeking power.

There is a belief that, if you want to be sworn in as the new governor of California or senator from Texas, you’d better start swearing now.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Just days after Senate Democrats introduced a bill seeking tariff refunds after the Supreme Court struck down many of President Trump’s (IEEPA-backed) tariffs, the Trump administration says it needs months of additional time to weigh its steps, as a wave of refund requests pours in from importers seeking billions of dollars in tariffs.

The bill, sponsored by 22 Senate Democrats led by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds over the course of 180 days and pay interest on the refunded amount.

“Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” Wyden said in a statement.

“Senate Democrats will continue fighting to rein in Donald Trump’s price-hiking trade and economic policies. A crucial first step is helping people who need it most, by putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”

The Epoch Times’ Aldgra Fredly reports that, according to the senators, tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) brought in about $175 billion in revenue. 

However, in a late-night Feb. 27 filing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to delay for roughly four months before taking a procedural step that would begin refund proceedings.

While the justices invalidated the tariff regime, they did not lay out a detailed roadmap for what should happen next, or how the government should handle the tens of billions of dollars already collected.

Bill Pan reports for The Epoch Times that, the DOJ’s filing urged the Federal Circuit to wait until the Supreme Court’s judgment is finalized, a process that can take 32 days.

After that, it requested an additional 90-day delay to “allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.”

DOJ lawyers also pushed back at the companies pressing to restart refund litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) as soon as possible, accusing their attorneys of seeking an accelerated schedule out of an “apparent desire to be the center of attention” in the proceedings.

“Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed,” the government wrote, arguing that a delay would not irreparably harm importers because monetary losses can be remedied through repayment with interest.

While acknowledging a refund process is likely to follow its loss at the Supreme Court, the DOJ warned that “the coming process will take time.”

To underscore that point, DOJ cited a 1998 mass-refund dispute over a harbor maintenance tax. In that case, American importers won a $730 million refund in the CIT, but it took years for the government to fully distribute the money, and the DOJ emphasized that the Trump tariff case involves a substantially larger sum.

The DOJ did not say it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case. Trump has said he intends to explore the option.

“It doesn’t make sense that Countries and Companies that took advantage of us for decades, receiving Billions and Billions of Dollars that they should not have been allowed to receive, would now be entitled to an undeserved ‘windfall,’ the likes of which the World has never seen before, as a result of this highly disappointing, to say the least, ruling,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier on Feb. 27.

“Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???”

Similar concerns were echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in his dissenting opinion that “refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.”

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,“ Kavanaugh wrote. ”That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”