Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a major verdict out of Texas where a mother and an attorney were ordered to pay millions for perpetuating an alleged hate crime hoax that was eagerly spread by the mainstream media.

Asher Vann, a minor at the time, was labeled a racist maniac who tortured SeMarion Humphrey, his black classmate, with other classmates.

After the jury found that the allegations constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the same media that spread the story remained conspicuously silent.

Crickets.

Major media outlets from NBC to CBS to the Daily Mail published the account of how Humphrey was tortured, shot with BB guns, and forced to drink urine during a sleepover.

The NAACP and Black Lives Matter protested the lack of action from officials ignoring the alleged racist attack.

Good Morning America aired a segment featuring ABC host Linsey Davis, who promoted a GoFundMe account that raised approximately $120,000 for “therapy and private schooling.”

In her interviews, Humphrey’s mother, Summer Smith, called Vann “evil” and described his depravity to enabling reporters like Linsey Davis.

Some, however, were not convinced. 

Washington Free Beacon reported that Smith spent less than $1,000 of the donated funds toward her son’s schooling while spending funds on items including a designer dog, dining, travel, beauty products, liquor and vapes.

Parents rallied around the Humphrey family and held events at the school.

Eventually, the case against Vann was submitted to a grand jury, despite later testimony by Plano Police Department officer Patricia McClure that she did not believe there was probable cause for any charge. Given the pressure campaign, it was given to a grand jury anyway. The grand jurors then refused to indict.

Vann sued and testified that the alleged racist act occurred at a camp that was caught in a snowstorm.  Unsupervised, the teenagers engaged in dumb games and pranks. He said that, after unsuccessfully searching for small game, they decided to shoot each other. All of the kids were wearing thick clothing and shot each other with the BB guns for fun.

He testified that Humphrey participated in the game with everyone else in both being shot and shooting others.

The urine was described as a prank that was played on various boys, according to Vann, but no one actually drank from the cup.

Under the common law, the elements of the tort of an intentional infliction of emotional distress require a plaintiff to show that the defendant “(a) intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff considered outrageous and intolerable in that it offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (b) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and (c) that severe emotional distress resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant’s conduct.”

A racially diverse jury handed down a verdict against Humphrey’s mother and the family attorney, Kim Cole. The inclusion of the lawyer in the verdict makes this a relatively rare case.

Smith and Cole were ordered to pay $3.2 million in damages to Vann, now an adult in college. Both the mother and the lawyer were ordered to pay $1,599,000.00.

The case raised obvious analogies to other cases that were eagerly promulgated by the media but later disproven, such as the Jussie Smollett hoax.

The Smollett story of MAGA-associated racists roaming the streets of Chicago was irresistible as politicians like Nancy Pelosi and others piled on. ABC’s Robin Roberts gave Smollett an interview that was breathtaking in its lack of substantive questions or even curiosity about glaring red flags in his account. Roberts described Smollett as “bruised but not broken” and nodded as he described his narrow escape from being lynched in America. She concluded the interview with “Beautiful, thank you, Jussie.”

The Texas case followed the same trajectory as the media built up the story and then went silent as countervailing facts were produced by the family.

Once again, the role and liability of counsel Cole is particularly interesting. We discussed a claim of defamation by counsel in the Depp-Heard case.

Attorneys are protected by absolute privilege in court in making harmful and even false statements. This privilege is best stated in the Restatement of Law (Second) of Torts section 586 “to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceedings.”

However, it also means that “statements made during an occasion outside a judicial proceeding are not covered.” Thus, while “[t]he duties and actions of a lawyer in representing a client are not confined to judicial proceedings,” the court ruled that interviews with a reporter would fall outside of the privilege. Most courts reject the notion of an absolute privilege while considering a more limited possible privilege for out-of-court statements. See Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 182 A.2d 54, 58 (1962) (the “absolute privilege will not attach to counsel’s extrajudicial publications, related to the litigation, which are made outside the purview of the judicial proceeding”).

Likewise, actions by counsel can be deemed as the intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as privacy violations. This can be a dangerously fluid line, since all litigation causes some degree of emotional distress, particularly in tort cases, where reputations are attacked. Moreover, lawyers often assist clients in seeking donations to GoFundMe accounts, which may help defray legal fees. Such public advocacy, however, entails a greater risk of liability.

The key in this case was the actions taken outside of the court as well as the alleged falsity of the underlying representations.

The targeting of a minor is particularly notable in this case and raises memories of the disgraceful media attacks on Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media continued to attack him.

The Vann case is likely to be reviewed by many lawyers outside Texas.

It is a case that could be replicated in future cases involving lawyers accused of fueling reckless or inflammatory public claims.

The fact that the damages were evenly divided between the mother and the lawyer shows the level of culpability that the jury assigned to the role of the lawyer.

Here is the jury verdict form: Jury-Verdict

NYPD officers were ordered to stand down on enforcement in the subway system during last weekend’s deep freeze, halting removals and holding off on cracking down as windchills dropped below zero, according to ABC.

“We put a complete stop to all ejections, even people who could potentially be causing problems in the subway system,” said Alex Crohn, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives.

That decision emerged during a City Council oversight hearing examining how the Mamdani administration managed more than two weeks of snow and dangerous cold. Eighteen people died outside during that stretch, at least 15 of them believed to be from hypothermia.

Council members pressed officials on why more people weren’t compelled to seek shelter.

“How can a person refusing to come indoors in freezing weather where they are obviously at great risk of potentially dying, not be assessed to be a danger to themselves?” asked City Council Speaker Julie Menin.

Department of Social Services Commissioner Molly Wasow Park said the legal threshold is specific and was followed, adding that 52 people were taken indoors against their will.

“Are they exhibiting signs of mental illness and are they a danger to themselves or others? Right. So, if an individual is completely lucid, they are dry, they are wearing enough layers of clothing and they do not want to come inside. They have the right not to come inside,” Park said.

She also told lawmakers the cold intensified quickly over a weekend, leaving many caught off guard.

“We had this very dangerous situation happening very quickly on a weekend and I think it caught people by surprise,” Park said.

Advocates acknowledged some of the city’s efforts but highlighted breakdowns, including a case described by Coalition for the Homeless leader David Giffen.

“We saw one individual who was discharged from a city hospital out to the streets. And that person a few hours later was found dead,” Giffen said. “That never should have happened. Hospitals should not be releasing people or discharging them if they’re inpatients, out to the streets.”

City officials testified that about 600 outreach workers are assigned to engage people living outside, though 10 to 20 deaths linked to extreme weather still occur each year. Several council members suggested that boosting staffing levels could reduce that toll.

On the heels of all that Somali fraud in Minnesota, the US Treasury Department on Friday launched a new portal where people can report suspected fraud, money laundering and sanctions violations. 

According to officials, tips should be submitted with supporting documents. “FinCEN’s Office of the Whistleblower is accepting tips involving violations and conspiracies related to the Bank Secrecy Act, U.S. sanctions programs, and several other laws critical to safeguarding the U.S. financial system and national security. “

Individuals who voluntarily provide information about such violations or conspiracies to commit violations may be eligible for awards if the information they provide leads to a successful enforcement action by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) or the Department of Justice (DOJ) that results in monetary penalties exceeding $1,000,000, and the requirements in 31 U.S.C. § 5323 and its implementing regulation are otherwise met. A copy of the statute is available here. -FINCEN

How much are we talking about? Between 10-30% “of what has been collected of the monetary sanctions imposed in the action or related actions,” and it’s got to be north of $1 million. 

“President Trump has been clear that Americans have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being diverted to fund acts of global terror or to fund luxury cars for fraudsters,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, adding that whistleblowers may receive financial rewards. 

“At Treasury, we follow the money. We did it with the mafia, we have done it with the cartels, and we’re doing it with the Somali fraudsters,” he added. “We are going to offer whistleblower payments to anyone who wants to tell us the who, what, when, where, and how this fraud and money laundering has occurred.”

Bessent told CNBC‘s “Squawk Box” “It’s going to be a great way to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse,” adding “We’re setting up a website and we will be giving rewards up to 10% to 30% of the fines that we levy.”

Minnesota has seen a series of large-scale fraud schemes targeting state-administered federal programs, including child nutrition (Feeding Our Future), housing stabilization services, autism/early intervention (EIDBI), and other Medicaid-funded services. The largest single case, Feeding Our Future, involved a $250 million COVID-era scam where largely Somalian defendants submitted fake meal claims and invoices for nonexistent food distribution, with proceeds funding luxury purchases, real estate, and overseas transfers.

Wider probes into 14 high-risk Medicaid programs (totaling ~$18 billion spent since 2018) estimate that half or more may be fraudulent, pushing overall losses potentially into the billions; additional schemes in personal care assistance, home/community-based services, and substance-use programs have added hundreds of millions more. Many operations involved Somali-run nonprofits, providers, or shell companies that billed for undelivered or fabricated services, though the Feeding Our Future “mastermind” (Aimee Bock) was not Somali. Suspected fraud has extended to child-care/daycare centers (sparked by a late-2025 viral video alleging $30–100 million in overbilling) and other providers, prompting active FBI/DOJ investigations into dozens of centers.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has focused on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and his state, including its Somali community of up to 80,000 – alleging fraud dating to 2020 by some nonprofit groups which were backed by federal programs administering the state’s childcare and other social services programs. 

The IRS is also launching a dedicated fraud task force focused on targeting the misuse of funding by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, Reuters reports.

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Brazilian lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to create a national Strategic Sovereign Bitcoin Reserve, known as RESBit, proposing the gradual acquisition of one million bitcoins over five years. 

The bill, presented by Federal Deputy Luiz Gastão (PSD/CE), outlines a comprehensive framework to integrate Bitcoin into the country’s financial strategy and diversify national reserves.

The proposed legislation establishes several guidelines for RESBit.

First, the plan calls for a gradual accumulation of at least 1,000,000 BTC over five years.

It prohibits the sale of bitcoins seized by Brazilian judicial authorities, ensuring that these assets remain within public control. 

The bill also allows for the collection of Brazil’s federal taxes in Bitcoin and offers incentives for public companies to engage in Bitcoin mining and storage.

Transparency is a central feature of the proposal. The bill mandates public disclosure of RESBit’s bitcoin holdings through internet-based platforms, enabling auditing by the public.

It emphasizes secure storage of digital assets using technologies such as cold wallets, multisignature wallets, and other internationally recognized mechanisms.

In addition, the legislation permits temporary holdings of spot ETFs backed by bitcoin in the reserve portfolio, subject to urgent and limited circumstances.

If approved, Brazil could join a small group of countries actively holding Bitcoin at a national level, potentially surpassing major holders like the United States and China. 

Other countries like Brazil exploring Bitcoin reserves 

Quite famously, El Salvador holds the mantle as the ‘world’s first country’ with a strategic Bitcoin reserve, reporting over 7,560 Bitcoin under President Nayib Bukele’s program.

Despite scaling back mandatory Bitcoin acceptance under IMF agreements, the government has maintained regular purchases, citing long-term financial sovereignty and reserve diversification. The National Bitcoin Office now splits holdings across multiple addresses to bolster security and transparency.

The Central American nation’s approach has inspired policymakers worldwide. In the United States, the BITCOIN Act of 2025 proposed somewhat of a federal strategic Bitcoin reserve, while several states, including New Hampshire and Arizona, have passed or proposed laws allowing portions of public funds to be invested in digital assets.

President Trump’s March 2025 executive order further directed federal agencies to explore Bitcoin accumulation from seized assets without new taxpayer costs.

In Europe, the Czech National Bank has a similar allocation in bitcoin, while Switzerland sees a citizen-led initiative proposing a constitutional mandate for Bitcoin holdings. 

Hong Kong, Ukraine, and Pakistan are also exploring frameworks to hold Bitcoin at the national level, with Pakistan pledging never to sell its future reserves.

President Donald Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday afternoon that he plans to visit Venezuela, but offered no details or timeline. If it happens, it would be a historic trip, coming as Venezuelan oil flows accelerate under tighter U.S. oversight.

“I’m going to make a visit to Venezuela… We haven’t decided [when],” Trump told reporters, adding that he also had a “good meeting” with Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia.

.@POTUS: “I’m going to make a visit to Venezuela… We haven’t decided [when].” pic.twitter.com/yLADVt37Co

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 13, 2026

Reuters said that Trump praised Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez.

“We have a very good relationship with the president of Venezuela,” Trump said, noting that the U.S. is “working together very closely” with Rodriguez on access to oil.

Asked by Reuters if he will recognize Rodriguez as the official government, Trump responded, “Yeah, we have done that. We are dealing with them, and really, right now they have done a great job.”

On Thursday, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told NBC News that Venezuelan oil revenue is no longer being deposited into a Qatari account.

“An account was set up in Qatar, controlled by the U.S. government the whole time, to land that money in and then send the money from there down to Venezuela,” Wright said.

The energy secretary continued, “Now we have an account at the U.S. Treasury. The money won’t go to Qatar anymore.”

Wright also said that revenue from Venezuelan oil sales now tops $1 billion.

The last sitting US president to visit Venezuela was in 1997, when Bill Clinton traveled to Caracas and met with Rafael Caldera.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The Chicago mural honoring Iryna Zarutska, the innocent Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death in cold blood on a Charlotte light rail train, has been vandalized again—just two weeks after its unveiling.

This latest defacement underscores how deranged leftists will go to any lengths to suppress reminders of the deadly fallout from their soft-on-crime policies, even when the victim is a refugee who fled war.

The mural, painted on a three-story brick building at West Montrose and North Western avenues in Chicago’s North Center neighborhood, depicts Zarutska’s face gazing solemnly, a stark memorial to her senseless murder last August by repeat offender Decarlos Brown Jr.

?#BREAKING: The Chicago mural of Iryna Zarutska has been defaced for a 2nd time in just 14 days.

I don’t understand how anyone could do this…

You have to be a complete sociopath to want to vandalize a mural of an innocent refugee who was m*rdered in cold blood/

Disgusting. pic.twitter.com/VNzaGz22dl

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) February 11, 2026

The artwork was defaced for the second time in just 14 days. Video footage shows the vandalism, highlighting the graffiti scrawled across the tribute.

This incident follows a pattern of attacks on similar murals nationwide, as we previously reported.

In Brooklyn’s Bushwick, a massive mural was tagged with “F-ck Trump” shortly after completion, while Manhattan’s Lower East Side version was hit with “Please vandalize this” spray-painted over Zarutska’s face.

Florida’s Pensacola mural faced repeated assaults, defaced at least three times with mockery of her death.

Zarutska, 23, escaped the horrors of Russia’s war in Ukraine, seeking safety in the U.S. as a refugee. Her killer, Brown, had been arrested and released 14 times prior, a direct result of Democrat-run cities prioritizing criminals over public safety.

Surveillance footage captured the brutal attack, with Brown reportedly boasting, “I got that white girl,” as bystanders tried to save her. The racial angle was downplayed by corporate media, in stark contrast to their amplification of other cases.

President Trump highlighted Zarutska’s murder in speeches, vowing to crack down on “savage bloodthirsty criminals” unleashed by leftist agendas. 

The mural campaign, backed by over $1 million from Elon Musk and others, aims to keep her memory alive and spotlight these policy failures.

But leftists can’t tolerate it. Outlets like The Guardian have smeared the effort as “weaponizing her memory” through “sterile” art, ignoring the real hypocrisy: Zarutska embodies the very refugees they claim to champion, yet her story is erased because it bolsters Trump’s push for law and order.

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.

Authored by Edward Woodson via American Greatness,

The Minnesota nonprofit fraud scandal, now expected to cost taxpayers more than $9 billion, is being dismissed by many as an isolated failure. However, this is far from the case, and writing it off as such would be a colossal mistake.

What it actually revealed is a broader problem in the Swamp—that institutions claiming to represent others often operate with little accountability and then quietly drift away from the very people who are footing the bill.

In Minnesota, nonprofit organizations became the perfect vehicle for abuse—shielded from scrutiny, politically protected, and flush with public money. However, in Washington, trade associations operate in largely the same way. They collect millions in dues from American businesses while increasingly choosing to serve their own leadership’s personal and political interests instead of those of their dues-paying members.

Their members only care about being able to deliver good-paying jobs to their employees and securing a more favorable regulatory climate so they can deliver lower-priced goods for the American people; however, you’d never know that if you looked at the public policy priorities of their association leadership officials, who seem more interested in fitting in at woke radical leftist cocktail parties.

Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, has repeatedly broken with Republicans by sharply criticizing Donald Trump, including after January 6, when he called Trump’s actions “mob rule,” urged Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, and faulted the administration’s handling of COVID-19. Despite that record, Timmons later congratulated Trump on his November 2024 victory and suggested they should “work together like we did before.” At the same time, Timmons praised and partnered with Joe Biden, backing the administration’s COVID-19 vaccine campaign and publicly supporting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act. In 2022, he also donated to Adam Kinzinger’s leadership PAC just days after Kinzinger was censured by the Republican Party.

If a presidency was truly so dangerous five years ago that it was deemed incompatible with democracy itself, it is fair to ask how the same association leadership can now claim alignment and cooperation without any explanation, accountability, or evident change in approach.

That kind of abrupt pivot invites skepticism from dues-paying manufacturers who expect their trade groups to be guided by member interests, not political positioning or reputational hedging.

The problem is compounded by a reliance on press releases in place of real relationships. Press releases don’t move policy—relationships do. Manufacturers don’t pay dues for moral posturing, elite signaling, or ceremonial access; they pay for results. When leadership spends years attacking an administration only to reverse course once the election is settled—substituting optics for engagement—it raises a fundamental question about who the organization is really serving.

Then there’s the Investment Company Institute, which represents asset managers navigating an intensely regulated environment. Its CEO, Eric Pan, earns roughly $3 million a year while publicly aligning himself with progressive causes and donating to Democratic candidates—even those running against Republican senators who oversee key committees affecting pensions and financial markets.

Under Pan’s control, the ICI went head over heels for Biden’s climate change agenda, endorsing a proposed rule by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would push to mandate climate-impact disclosures. Critics warned the proposals blurred the line between securities regulation and social policymaking, forcing companies to engage in politically charged “compelled speech” untethered from core financial risk.  They cautioned that the rules would impose significant compliance costs, expose firms to heightened litigation risk, and overwhelm investors with data of dubious relevance. This makes sense from the standpoint that Pan brags about teaching his students at Columbia Law a “rich, progressive curriculum.” This kind of political posturing is putting the organization’s member companies at odds with the very policymakers who shape their regulatory futures.

Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long seen as the flagship advocate for free enterprise, lost credibility with many small businesses during the Biden years. While its executives collected multi-million-dollar compensation packages, the Chamber backed COVID mandates, massive spending bills, and climate policies that drove up costs for employers and workers alike.

When small businesses were struggling to stay afloat, the Chamber’s Washington insiders were doing just fine. The CEO, Suzanne Clark, earned $6.6 million, and the Chief Policy Officer, Neil Bradley, earned nearly $2 million.

For small businesses writing checks every year, what are those association dues actually buying? Better free-market conservative policies? Measurable regulatory relief? Or just access, prestige, and fat salaries for executives whose priorities no longer align with the firms they represent?

Trade associations should exist to fight relentlessly for free enterprise—predictable rules, property rights, competition, and growth. When they become tollbooths to Washington rather than shields against it, they fail in their mission.

The Minnesota NGO scandal should serve as a textbook warning of how institutions that operate without accountability eventually stop serving their stated purpose. Businesses, especially small businesses, should demand better.

Any group, whether in Minnesota or in DC, that claims to represent the American people should be able to answer three basic questions:

• Who do you actually speak for?

• What concrete wins have you delivered in the last 12 months for the people you serve?

• Whose interests come first—your members or your executives?

Right now, too many are not able to answer these basic questions.

Ronald Reagan once said, “We must be willing to pay for excellence in government or risk a government run only by people of wealth or by those beholden to special interests.”

If we don’t demand the same for the groups that represent us at the government negotiating table, then those same negative consequences will arise. And that’s in no one’s interest.

It’s time we demand better.

The European Union is weighing plans to set up two military bases inside Ukraine to train fresh troops – a move Moscow has already warned could make them targets of military strikes.

“We have been discussing the training of the Ukrainian soldiers, also on the soil of Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Wednesday. “We have identified two training centers that could be used for that purpose.”

The Kremlin made clear just a month ago: “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warns that the deployment of military units, military facilities, warehouses, and other infrastructure of Western countries on Ukrainian territory will be classified as foreign intervention, posing a direct threat to the security of not only Russia but also other European countries,” according to the warning of spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

Western governments have already trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the course of the four-year grinding war with Russia – but this has been concentrated in countries like Britain, Denmark, and Poland.

The Western training of Ukraine forces was happening long before the current war: Below is a Spanish military instructor (right) training a group of Ukrainian soldiers at the army base of Toledo, on December 2, 2022 – according to El Pais…

On Thursday, Colonel General Andrey Serdyukov accused Europe of accelerating preparations for direct confrontation. “The militarization of Europe is continuing at an accelerated pace, openly aimed at preparing for a military confrontation with Russia,” he said.

He added that “The territories are being rapidly fortified, and the relevant infrastructure is being improved.”

The alleged ‘NATOization’ of Ukraine was a prime reason Moscow listed for going to war in the first place. Since Putin’s ‘special military operation’ next door, the opposite trend has happened: NATO is firmly ensconced in Kiev, in terms of the billions in weapons, equipment, and funds already poured in.

Meanwhile, the EU has just this week approved a fresh $100 billion loan package for Ukraine.

As for proposed ‘EU bases’ – it’s hard to see this as in reality less than a full NATO established outpost in Ukraine. Russian leadership will see it as a recipe from taking the proxy war toward a full blown conflict directly with NATO.

The minute an ‘EU base’ comes under Russian aerial attack, the gloves would  be off, and NATO would likely seize the opportunity to enter the conflict directly against a nuclear-armed superpower.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from cutting more than $600 million in public health grants to four Democratic-led states, siding with the states’ argument that the cuts appeared politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Manish Shah issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from rescinding the funds allocated to California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.

The ruling came a day after the states filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s directive, with officials in the filing calling it unconstitutional.

The cuts, directed by the White House Office of Management and Budget under Director Russell Vought, mostly go to the Public Health Infrastructure Grant, which funds public health departments to recruit and train workers, improve organizational systems, and modernize data infrastructure.

HHS said in a notice to Congress that the grants are “inconsistent with agency priorities,” according to the filing.

The priorities include modernizing public health infrastructure and not supporting illegal immigration, the lawsuit states.

The states alleged the reductions were retaliation for their policies on immigration, “gender-affirming care for minors,” and other issues opposed by President Donald Trump.

Trump has said that agencies should stop paying sanctuary cities, and the Office of Management and Budget has said that it directed health officials to withdraw the $600 million from the states.

“Starting February 1, we’re not making any payments to sanctuary cities,” Trump said during a Jan. 13 speech in Detroit, referencing jurisdictions whose policies prohibit local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

Trump said that such cities “do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens, and it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary.”

Shah wrote in his two-page order that the states had shown a likelihood of success in proving the cuts were “based on arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional rationales.”

The judge found the states would suffer “irreparable harm” without the injunction, while the public interest favored maintaining the funding. The temporary restraining order keeps the grants flowing while the case proceeds.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who led the lawsuit, said the directive threatened more than $100 million in grants for the state, including programs at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names Vought, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill, Trump, and other federal entities as defendants. It alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, claiming the cuts impose post hoc conditions on congressionally approved funds.

Specific reductions include $7.2 million from the American Medical Association in Illinois for supporting transgender procedures for children, and broader cuts to STI prevention and public health monitoring. The administration has prioritized banning federal funding for youth “gender-affirming care” and revoking certain childhood vaccine recommendations, drawing criticism from medical groups.

HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

By Bas van Geffen, Senior Market Strategist at Rabobank

Russian officials have drafted a memo that pitches a re-convergence of US and Russian interests. The proposal consists of seven points, including cooperation on critical raw materials and energy, and the possibility that Russia could return to the US dollar settlement system.

The memo was conveniently ‘leaked’ during an informal retreat of EU leaders to discuss the future of the bloc, and ahead of the Munich Security Conference. It’s a plan that Europe and China would hate, but President Trump may love the idea – especially with “preferential conditions for US companies to return to the Russian market” to sweeten the deal.

It’s unclear if any of these points were ever pitched to Trump. And why would Russia be so eager to return to dollar settlements, after the US has demonstrated willingness to cut them off? So, it’s likely that the Russians are simply trolling as European leaders attended their very own Castlefest – “Where fantasy becomes your reality” – to discuss the future of European industry.

The European summit was an informal one, so no decisions were taken. However, President of the European Commission Von der Leyen promised to present a “One Europe, One Market” roadmap at the next formal summit, in March. Despite the inclusion of “one” in the title –twice even–, it increasingly looks like a multi-speed EU is the way forward.

Both Von der Leyen and European Council President Costa expressed their preference to move forward with all 27 EU member states. However, they acknowledged that this often means that the EU moves at the pace of the slowest. To avoid this, they supported the use of “enhanced cooperation,” if all member states cannot agree on common goals.

This legal instrument allows nine or more member states to push ahead with reforms, while others can still join at any time. “Enhanced cooperation” has been in place since the 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam and has been used several times since – most recently to adopt a new financing program for Ukraine (the €90 billion for 2026–2027). So, it is perhaps being considered as an option to speed up decision-making.

In particular, Von der Leyen believes that this may be required for the adoption of the 28th regime, a harmonized set of corporate legislation across the bloc to make it easier to scale up across borders – although the fact that this will coexist next to national law (its not the “One Regime”) may add some complexity as companies have to choose between the two regimes.

That’s not the only dimension along which EU member states may start to diverge. Von der Leyen has said that if no progress is made on the Savings and Investment Union this year, she will push ahead with a smaller group of countries. And several member states have renewed calls for Eurobonds to further increase investments in Europe. However, German Chancellor Merz has been vehemently opposed. Could this become another matter of “enhanced cooperation,” and if so, what would a Eurobond-ex-Germany look like?

Clearly, our reasoning above suggests that Eurobonds are probably a less suitable candidate for enhanced cooperation as they are “very divisive” (as Meloni described them); have much more profound consequences for ‘fiscal sovereignty’; and may affect or even harm the non-cooperators. Or, in the case of countries like Germany holding out, could potentially hinder the success of a Eurobond.

In any case, whether Eurobonds make the list or not, it is clear that in an attempt to strengthen the Union, the EU is now willing to move less in unison. Whether these multispeed developments in the bloc end up strengthening or damaging the EU remains to be seen. But it is arguably a better shot at reforming the European economy – and doing so with sufficient speed – than trying to get consensus amongst all 27.

The formal summit in March will have to prove whether European leaders stop LARPing and truly start to act on some of these ideas.

Meanwhile, concerns over Europe’s competitiveness are more acute, especially due to high energy costs for companies. Even though commodity prices have eased compared to previous years, European producers still face significantly higher energy costs than competitors in the US and China.

At yesterday’s meeting, EU leaders concentrated on ways to bring these costs down and highlighted the need for a thorough ETS review, citing volatility and speculation as factors undermining affordability. Carbon prices reached €90/MT in January, far above the European Commission’s 2020 projection of €32–65/MT. Several leaders pointed to that gap as evidence that reform is needed.

These concerns are amplified by geopolitical developments. President Trump’s repeal of the 2009 EPA “endangerment finding” –the legal basis for US greenhouse‑gas regulation– illustrates a sharp shift in US climate policy. The administration argues the move will lower vehicle prices, with estimates of $2,400 to $3,000 in savings per car, underscoring the growing policy divergence that puts further competitive pressure on Europe.

But while the EU is still discussing how to provide a better business climate for industry and AI startups, AI is not waiting for word from the ivory tower. Artificial intelligence continues to advance.

Investor sentiment on software developers was already souring on concerns that AI can replace many of these products. These advancements are being extrapolated. Microsoft AI CEO Suleyman told the Financial Times that “Most white-collar work will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months.” Investors, too, seem to be looking at which roles, companies, or even sectors could be next. The S&P 500 lost 1.6% yesterday after an AI-scare hit the transport sector, and the AI-driven selloff continued into the Asian session.

Tensions in Asia could also spark further bouts of risk-aversion. The US signed a trade deal with Taiwan, which lowers US import tariffs to 15% in return for large investments in the US semiconductor industry, purchases of US LNG and oil, as well as lower tariffs on US exports. But the deal is sure to anger Beijing.

And the relationship between Japan and China is under renewed pressure too, after Japan seized a Chinese fishing boat and arrested its captain.