Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Russia’s agreement to this format represents a significant policy shift.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the second round of the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks in Abu Dhabi will be held on 1 February.

There haven’t been many leaks from the first round so observers can only speculate about the subject and significance of this new format.

Nevertheless, it’s still possible to intuit some insight into this based on what’s known and has been reported, thus enabling folks to obtain a better understanding of this latest development. What follows are five important points:

1. Territory Is Reportedly The Last Remaining Issue

Putin’s top aide Yuri Ushakov said on the eve of the first round of talks that “bringing about a lasting settlement would be unlikely without addressing the territorial issue based on the formula as agreed in Anchorage.” This was followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that “The one remaining item … is the territorial claim on Donetsk.” Prior reports about Russia demanding Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass might therefore be true.

2. A Post-Conflict NATO Deployment Is Being Discussed

Rubo also told them that discussions over “security guarantees basically involve the deployment of a handful of European troops, primarily French and the UK, and then a US backstop”, which would require Russia’s consent. The US is still debating the wisdom of “be[coming] committed potentially in a conflict, in a future conflict”, however, despite Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner earlier signaling their country’s support for NATO troops in Ukraine. The second round will therefore likely involve this issue too.

3. A Quid Pro Quo Might Be In The Cards

The Financial Times reported that US security guarantees for Ukraine are dependent on its withdrawal from Donbass, while the New York Times reported that this Kiev-controlled part of that region could then become either a demilitarized zone or host neutral peacekeepers. A quid pro quo might therefore be in the cards whereby Ukraine withdraws from Donbass in exchange for US security guarantees and a NATO deployment, which Russia might agree to if neutral peacekeepers stand between them.

4. Trump Has Eschewed Publicly Pressuring Zelensky

For as promising as this potential quid pro quo might appear to be, at least in terms of achieving a ceasefire at minimum (provided that Russia reverses its formal opposition thereto), Zelensky remains defiant about withdrawing from Donbass. Trump has also eschewed publicly pressuring him to do so under pain of tangible consequences like irreversibly suspending arms sales to the EU that are destined for Ukraine, which therefore suggests that there are real limits to what the US will do in pursuit of a deal.

5. The US’ Diplomatic Role Is Now Indispensable

Despite these limits, the US’ diplomatic role is now indispensable as proven by Russia’s agreement to trilateralize its bilateral talks with Ukraine, which represented a significant policy shift. Russia therefore seems to believe that the US is sincere about negotiating a deal between it and Ukraine even though it won’t do everything in its power to that end. Now that the Russian-Ukrainian talks include the US, they’re unlikely to revert to the bilateral format until after Trump 2.0 if the conflict is still raging by then.

The five insights that can be intuited about the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks strongly suggest that Putin is considering far-reaching compromises on his maximum goals in the special operation as stipulated at its onset.

It’s premature to jump to conclusions about why that might be, but if such an outcome is officially enshrined in a legal agreement (whether a ceasefire, armistice, or peace treaty), then it’ll surely be analyzed to better understand why Putin would believe that it benefits Russia.

Venezuela’s US-backed and CIA-installed interim president Delcy Rodriguez has unveiled a sweeping amnesty bill that could pave the way for the release of hundreds of detainees, in a first major political move since former President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were ousted and whisked off to New York earlier this month.

“We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day,” Rodriguez announced Friday. She issued her address before a who’s who of government figures, including judges and federal magistrates, that the National Assembly would take up the bill “with urgency”. There are believed to currently be at least 700 inmates deemed political prisoners nationwide.

“May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fueled by violence and extremism,” Rodriguez said in the televised address.

“May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans,” she added.

Rodriguez has also declared the closure of El Helicoide, the notorious Caracas detention center run by the intelligence services, long accused by former inmates and independent rights groups of torture and systemic abuse.

The plan is to change it into a sports, social, and cultural complex serving nearby neighborhoods – though surely the country will still maintain its necessary and regular prison system.

Hopefully, Caracas and the US are also being somewhat selective on who they let walk free, given there could be hardened violent criminals and assassins in the mix.

A little over a week after the US incursion into Venezuela and change of government, the head of the country’s National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, had first announced the release of a “significant number” of political prisoners.

Under Washington pressure, one prominent name among those freed was the following:

Rocío San Miguel, a vocal critic of Maduro and a defense expert, was the first prisoner confirmed to be freed. Her family told the New York Times that she was taken to the Spanish embassy in Caracas.

Arrested in 2024, she was accused of being involved in a plot to kill the then-president and faced charges of treason, conspiracy and terrorism. Her arrest shocked human rights activists and, because her whereabouts were unknown, was labelled as potential “enforced disappearance” by the UN Human Rights Office.

Rights groups have so far tallied that just over 300 prisoners have been released under Delcy Rodriguez – a small number which again suggests they are likely being selective about it. This new bill means hundreds are set to follow.

Authored by Alastair Crooke via LewRockwell.com,

As so often these days, a decisive attack on Iran – comes down in the final analysis to Trump’s psychology, and his need to dominate the attention of everyone around him.

He understands that for however much his maximalist pronouncements look — and are — crazy, they nonetheless do usually default to a ‘strong man image’.

Trump’s career has been founded on the predicate that his base loves the ‘strong guy’ and any sign of weakness detracts from the illusion of strength. It is the thing that has generally worked for him.

European élites however, find this difficult to digest – perhaps understandably – and slide into paroxysms of outrage.

The key, as Trump-watcher Michael Wolff has suggested, is that after days with Trump saying that ‘this or that’ is going to be done, either “the easy way; or the hard way”, the tipping point usually comes when he has to manoeuvre to exit his maximalist positions, whilst always claiming it was all an ‘Art of the Deal’ success – the outcome being just what he had from the beginning intended.

On Iran, Trump’s messaging is again ultra-maximalist: Accept my conditions, or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle entirely your [Iran’s] political system. Trump’s envoys reinforce his stance that ‘every option remains on the table’ at every opportunity (though this rhetoric has become nothing more than an overworked cliché).

Trump’s threats towards Iran however, have triggered paroxysms of anxiety in the region, with leaders — even Netanyahu — fearing a long war with unpredictable and bloody consequences.

Trump’s conception of war is built around a fantasy that he can manipulate some lightening ‘in-boom-out’ stunt – one in which the U.S. loses no soldiers and its military infrastructure remains untouched. Reports from those regular ‘phone buddies’ of Trump say that he still says he wants a ‘guaranteed’ decisive outcome in Iran – a short, violently sharp, decisive war. He does not want casualties – especially American casualties. Neither does he want mass casualties or a long drawn-out conflict.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson explains that decisive is a military term of art. It means you’ve hit the enemy so hard they’re unable to respond. Or, in other words, it hints that Trump would like a ‘stunt’ like that of seizing Maduro.

Nothing is guaranteed in war, of course. And the insurrection in Iran fomented by externally-trained rioters drawing on the earlier Management of Savagery playbook failed.

The US had not deployed massively for this January episode because, in their (flawed) analysis, they had thought they might be able to simply ‘assist’ the rioters trying to overthrow the government – assistance that would not require much military muscle.

Well, that all fell apart. They had bought into the propaganda that Iran was a ‘house of cards’, destined to implode under the impact of the extreme violence of the rioters intended to sear into place the image of a crumbling, burning edifice with its leaders and occupants scrambling to escape.

It seems that in the wake of the ‘coup’ failure – yet still wanting to be pleasing to an exigent President – the Pentagon has come around to justifying and explaining the failed coup saying — in General Keane’s words –“We [have] had to bring in all this firepower”, (because they initially had thought they could manage with less).

So, now we have the narrative that “the U.S. has now deployed more forces to the Middle East than it did in the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined” – which US military expert Will Schryver derides as “absolute ridiculous nonsense”.

Schryver notes: “I have yet to see a military buildup in the region that would permit anything remotely approximating a ‘decisive’ strike against the Iranian military and its government”.

“A squadron of F-15s, a few tankers, and a couple dozen C-17 shipments of ordnance and/or AD systems has been sent to Jordan. That’s a modest defensive shield against drones and cruise missiles, at best. It’s certainly not a potent strike package … even with the carrier USS Gerald Ford in the mix … In total, the Navy could probably launch ~350 Tomahawks. But against a huge country like Iran, even if all 350 hit “something”, it’s not going to come close to disarming the Iranians”.

Schryver concludes:

“The US Navy is absolutely NOT going to venture into the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman. And it would be extremely high risk to fly refuelling tankers in Iranian airspace. So that is going to limit carrier strike aircraft to their fully loaded combat radius of ~600 miles — not nearly far enough to hit targets deep in Iran. And even if they flew a half-dozen B-2s, and a dozen B-52s / B-1Bs … t just doesn’t add up to much in the context of a one-off strike package. It’s just a few dozen more stand-off cruise missiles thrown into the mix”.

A short, violent decisive ‘win’ (as reported by the WSJ) that Trumps wants — and which ‘plays well’ at home — simply is not an option. Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi, more realistically, has warned:

“An all-out confrontation will certainly be messy, ferocious, and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House”.

Inside Iran, notes Ibrahim Al-Amine, “the leadership is operating on the assumption that the confrontation may reach its most extreme form. Preparations are unfolding along two tracks: strengthening defensive capabilities against a large-scale assault and tightening internal security to prevent domestic destabilization. This posture is now visible across the country”.

So, could it be that Trump will back out once again (i.e. TACO – ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’)? Schryver argues that Iran is not Venezuela. It is not a ‘tariffs and trade’ financial war. It is not some coup de théâtre in which Trump ‘chickening out’ can be explained away as another win, as part of his clever ‘Art of the Deal’ approach.

Actual full-on military conflict (not a Maduro stunt) by contrast, is ‘out there for all to see’, notes Will Shryver, and would be much harder to explain away should it go awry. Adding more fire-power will not eliminate the risks. Trump’s best option is to find himself an alternative ‘distraction’.

Israel, too, seems to be having second thoughts. Ronan Bergman, in Yedioth Ahoronot, reports Israeli Intelligence reports saying that “a week and a half ago the protests reached their peak throughout Iran … [since when] the scale of the protests and demonstrations has decreased dramatically … the security establishment and the intelligence community do not believe that the regime is currently in danger, certainly not in immediate danger … The central question is whether Trump missed the momentum – and if there was any momentum at all …”.

“[Nevertheless] suppose all the armed forces that the US is now transferring to the Persian Gulf were fully deployed … and suppose Israel were to join in with its firepower … Then what? Would they overthrow the government …? What is the optimistic scenario for such an event … without soldiers on the ground, but only air strikes? … In practice”, Bergman concludes, “such a regime has never fallen through external intervention”.

Recall that Trump’s disapproval rating, according to NY Times poll this week, now stands at 47%.

Quite apart from the strategic military calculus of Iran’s response to any attack, Trump certainly doesn’t need a messy war. He likes his ‘initiatives’ to be short and clean ’standout’ wins.

Last weekend, as the Greenland bruhaha tumbled into threats and counter threats of tariffs, the US bond market moved to the verge of collapse (as it so did on Liberation Day, with the tariff announcements). The ‘way out’ from developing bond market crisis was Trump going ‘TACO’ on the Greenland-linked tariffs on European states who did not support his Greenland takeover.

Is Trump getting the message that an Iran ‘win’ is not ‘Slam Dunk’? – in which case he might decide on a TACO, accompanied by bone-crushing economic threats to Iran – (possibly).

Despite trillions of dollars slated for global data center buildouts, power grid upgrades, and other artificial intelligence infrastructure expansion through the end of the decade, there remains very limited investor discussion about the next-generation physical security architecture required to defend these increasingly critical and high-value infrastructure nodes, including data centers, power plants, and grid transmission chokepoints.

Protection of data centers from suicide drone swarm attacks is currently assessed as a lower risk at the moment, while the Trump administration, particularly following last year’s “Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty” executive order, is primarily focused on counter-UAS measures to secure stadiums and related venues against drone attacks ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

In recent weeks, U.S. military, federal agencies, and local authorities gathered for a two-day summit near U.S. Northern Command headquarters, bringing together federal agencies, 11 U.S. host committees, and FIFA’s security heads to prepare for matches across the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

“We’re never going to not worry about a dirty bomb,” Miami-Dade County Sheriff Rosanna Cordero-Stutz, who participated in the planning session, told Politico. “But we also recognize that there’s a lot of other things that we need to worry about as well.”

“You can’t just give counter-UAS mitigation equipment to law enforcement that hasn’t learned how to use it yet,” said White House FIFA World Cup Task Force Andrew Giuliani, who coordinated the federal government’s role in tournament preparations and addressed the drone threat at the summit.

Trump’s counter-UAS EO last June, combined with heightened drone-threat concerns ahead of FIFA World Cup events, underscores the urgent need for low-cost, rapidly deployable kinetic interceptor counter-UAS systems that could be repurposed to defend high-value infrastructure and critical assets beyond the soccer tournament.

Beyond the FIFA World Cup and back to the data center buildout story, Morgan Stanley’s Vishwanath Tirupattur forecasts that nearly $3 trillion of global data center spend will occur through 2028, comprising $1.6 trillion on hardware (chips/servers) and $1.3 trillion on building data center infrastructure, including real estate, build costs, and maintenance.

Wall Street analysts largely end their analysis at the financing and construction of next-generation data centers, with limited discussion regarding the modern security architecture required once these facilities are built and become instant high-value targets for non-state actors or foreign adversaries; traditional perimeter measures such as metal chainlink fencing and standard surveillance systems are rendered useless in the world of emerging AI threats, including coordinated autonomous drone or swarm-based attacks enabled by advances in AI and low-cost unmanned systems.

The deployment of low-cost kinetic counter-UAS intercept systems from the US could soon become a reality in Ukraine and be field-tested on the front lines, where tons of operational data would be gathered to help developers refine these systems ahead of future deployment to protect stadiums, data centers, and other high-value assets from drone threats across North America.

Cameron Rowe founded counter-UAS intercept startup Sentradel, which builds autonomous turrets to detect, track, and destroy FPV (first-person view) drones that can be easily modified with explosives. The low-cost interceptor uses a rifle that fires low-cost 5.56 bullets at incoming FPVs, versus current systems that use missiles and may cost tens of thousands per interception, where the economics of war aren’t there.

Meet Sentradel’s low-cost kinetic interceptor counter-UAS system:

Watch 

Company Update #robotics #drones @sts_3d @camrrowe pic.twitter.com/0JoVSeYkpI

— Sentradel (@sentradel) December 2, 2025

There’s growing interest from the Trump administration that these counter-UAS intercept systems will be guarding high-value assets, perhaps not stadiums immediately, but likely data centers in the future, especially as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently warned that attacks on data centers are only a matter of time. Readers can see the full story here.

Via American Greatness,

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has introduced the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act that would strip citizenship from individuals who commit serious crimes within 10 years of their naturalization.

According to Schmitt, the legislation would expand the grounds for beginning the denaturalization process to include welfare fraud, aggravated felonies and joining a terrorist organization, including gangs and cartels.

Fox New reports that the SCAM Act would create a 10-year window, post-naturalization, which would lower the threshold for federal authorities to strike an individual’s citizenship and to begin deportation proceedings.

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) just filed legislation REVOKING the citizenship of legal migrants who commit fraud and serious felonies, including the Somalis in Minnesota

GET IT PASSED! 🔥

The SCAM Act applies to serious crimes after being naturalized: “It’s evidence… pic.twitter.com/IvTiCuhfml

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 19, 2026

Schmitt alluded to the welfare fraud that has been uncovered in Minnesota as a “wake-up call” and stated, “American citizenship is a privilege, and anyone hoping to be a part of our great nation must demonstrate a sincere attachment to our Constitution, upstanding moral character, and a commitment to the happiness and good order of the United States.”

Prosecutors investigating the growing Minnesota fraud scandal have charged dozens of native-Somali residents in connection with the fraud and estimate that there are upwards of $9 billion in stolen funds.

Schmitt went on to say, “ People who commit felony fraud, serious felonies, or join terrorist organizations like drug cartels shortly after taking their citizenship oaths fail to uphold the basic standards of citizenship.”

The SCAM Act also anticipates court challenges to the legislation with a built-in mechanism to switch out the 10-year window to a 5-year window, if found to be unconstitutional.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and President Trump’s Homeland Security advisor says the White House is backing Schmitt’s legislation, saying, “The Somali fraud scandal is one of the greatest financial scandals in American history. All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported.”

Miller added, “We applaud Senator Schmitt for his leadership.”

The SCAM Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate but has not yet received a hearing.

Authored by Jenna McCarthy via Jenna’s Side Rocks,

Dear ICE Protestors,

It’s been a rough few months out there. You’ve shown up. You’ve resisted. You’ve rallied. You’ve organized. You’ve made signs. So. Many. Signs. You’ve launched illegal fireworks, damaged property, blocked traffic, broken the law, bashed in windows, assaulted agents, and berated scores of strangers simply for doing their jobs. You must be exhausted. I see you. I feel you. I am in awe of your stamina.

So let’s pretend, for argument’s sake and to give you a desperately-needed break, you win.

Let’s pretend all the chanting, the honking, the whistling, the street-blocking, the papier-mâché puppets, the Sharpie signs, the interpretive screaming, and the celebrity Instagram threats finally break the will of the federal government and ICE collapses under the sheer weight of your moral outrage.

Congratulations. Please enjoy a festive evening of vegan hors d’oeuvres, pronoun-affirming drum circles, and self-congratulatory chanting. You’ve earned it.

Go on, party it up!

After you shake the ethically-sourced, biodegradable confetti out of your hair, I just have one question: Now what?

No, seriously. What’s your plan?

Because tragically, our towns are teeming with dangerous, law-breaking repeat offenders—many of them wanted for horrific, unspeakable crimes here and in other countries. Blaming ICE for trying to remove them would be like blaming the home inspector for finding asbestos in the dream house you just fell in love with.

These bad actors are here. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it. (I know! Objective reality isn’t really your thing. But try.) So what do we do about them? Do we ask a bunch of fugitives to kindly turn themselves in to the nearest Department of Feelings & Hugs? Do we hand big red “PLEASE STOP, YOU’RE BEING NAUGHTY” paddles to community volunteers? Do we just leave the child rapists, domestic abusers, drug smugglers, home invaders, human traffickers, carjackers, murderers, and violent felons exactly where they are and hope they find God without a map or a moral compass?

Hahahaha, I mean, okay.

Because here’s the part you seem to have left out of the ICE-free utopia you imagine: federal immigration officers aren’t hunting down gardeners, grandpas, or the kid who overstayed her student visa because she adopted a Labradoodle. In one 24-hour period alone this week, ICE arrested five illegal immigrants charged with heinous crimes including rape by force, aggravated assault, and sodomy of a minor. You know, the sort of atrocities Netflix makes eight-part documentaries about.

And you’re… protesting that?

Let’s run your victory scenario one more time: You kick ICE to the curb. Strip the agency of every drop of federal funding. Fire every last evil, horrible, power-hungry agent. Finally! Nobody is arresting or removing violent offenders anywhere in the country. Phew! Except… now those violent offenders stay in your city. In your neighborhoods. Near your kids. Near your friends. Near you. What happens when one of them abducts a toddler from the preschool playground? Or robs you at knifepoint in the Trader Joe’s parking lot. Or breaks into your neighbor’s home and murders a mother of three. Who do you call? Katy Perry? The police? Oh, wait. You want to defund them, too.

You’re probably not a regular reader of my column, so you may not know that immigration enforcement isn’t even a Trump invention. Nope. It’s happened under every administration since presidents wore wigs. In fact, your boy Barack deported more illegals than any American leader in history.

(Go ahead. Go lie down for a spell. It’s not your fault CNN never told you that.)

Look, I get it. ICE has terrible branding. The name sounds like a villain straight out of a Marvel movie. Truly, someone at DHS should have workshopped it harder. If they had called it the Department of Removing Child Predators and Machete-Wielding Lunatics From Your Neighborhood, you’d all be crocheting them honorary sashes. But because the acronym sounds cold, or mean, or insufficiently infused with social-justice aromatherapy, thousands of you are sprinting around Minneapolis hurling rocks at officers who just removed a convicted child rapist from an elementary school’s zip code.

I realize that there have been two extremely high-profile deaths involving ICE recently. In fact, since Trump deployed the agency last year, there have been five lost lives—each of them tragic (and arguably avoidable). Shockingly—not—most states don’t record immigration status in arrest or conviction data. And mainstream media is historically allergic to reporting on violent migrant crime. Social media, however, is not.

There are so, so many more, but I suspect you get the gist.

“We are Renee Good,” you chant. Yes, yes you are. You swarm the streets, interfere with lawful operations, ignore police orders, and charge at armed federal agents, and then everyone around you is shocked—I’m talking downright flabbergasted—when you get hurt. Exactly what, respectfully, did you think was going to happen? There’s a reason the saying isn’t, “If you play with fire, you’ll come out refreshed and rejuvenated.”

“But illegal immigrants statistically commit fewer crimes than white Americans,” you insist. And rattlesnakes kill exponentially fewer people than cobras do… but I’m still calling animal control if I find one curled up on my pillow. (Also, and I know you hate hearing it, but we’re talking about people who are in violation of U.S. law before the story even begins here. Sorry, but that part matters.)

I can concede that our current immigration enforcement system is far from perfect; can you concede that something needs to be done? Can you muster an ounce of sympathy for the souls whose lives have been destroyed or taken at the hands of monsters who are here unlawfully? Or do they not matter to you because there’s no colorful I STAND WITH VICTIMS OF FOREIGN PREDATORS ring you can put around your Facebook photo?

If you really want that warm, fuzzy, ethically-superior glow, here’s a wild idea: channel your rage into something that’s remotely productive. By all means, push for greater accountability. Demand body-cams, clearer use-of-force rules, unbiased investigations, and better training. Drop off kombucha for the oversight committee. Knit them a throw. Truly, knock yourselves out. But “ABOLISH ICE” isn’t a reform; it’s a tantrum. If you want your activism to actually protect people instead of endangering them, try aiming at their flaws instead of their existence. It’ll give you the same dopamine hit with far fewer funerals.

I know. Smashing things and yelling obscenities is so much more satisfying. But until your side comes up with an alternative that magically removes ruthless foreign criminals from American cities without ICE having to do it, your entire movement amounts to: “We hate this necessary thing because Trump.”

And that’s not public policy. That’s group therapy with a banner budget.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply,
Jenna 💋

Iran’s military starting Thursday issued a warning to ships at sea that it planned to run a drill starting this weekend which is to include live firing in the Strait of Hormuz, potentially disrupting traffic through a waterway which sees 20% of all the world’s oil pass through it.

This prompted a US warning in response, given US forces are also in the region – but quite a bit further away. On Iran’s two-day live-fire naval exercise, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it will not tolerate any unsafe behavior which threats US forces, and somewhat awkwardly called on IRGC forces to operate professionally.

“We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) actions including overflight of U.S. military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed overflight of U.S. military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat approaches on a collision course with U.S. military vessels, or weapons trained at U.S. forces,” CENTCOM said in its statement Friday.

“US forces acknowledge Iran’s right to operate professionally in international airspace and waters,” it added, and noted that “any unsafe and unprofessional behavior near U.S. forces, regional partners or commercial vessels increases risks of collision, escalation, and destabilization.”

Meanwhile the US forces build-up continues in the region:

A U.S. Navy destroyer made a port visit to the southern Israeli city of Eilat on Friday. The USS Delbert D. Black is one of six U.S. destroyers now in the Middle East, along with an aircraft carrier and three other combat ships.

China and Russia have just sent a big, resounding message to Washington in dispatching their own naval assets which have been sailing near Iranian vessels over the last several days – though this appeared for a prior, pre-planned joint drill.

China has dispatched several advanced destroyers toward Iranian waters, as Iran, Russia, and China prepare to hold joint naval drills near the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday.

Follow: https://t.co/7Dg3b41hTx pic.twitter.com/VtAp4fF8V8

— PressTV Extra (@PresstvExtra) January 30, 2026

According to the details of this prior joint exercise:

Ahead of the exercises, Iran issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), warning of live-fire military activity in the airspace surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the notice, military firing activity was conducted between January 27 and 29 within a five-nautical-mile radius. The airspace—from ground level up to 25,000 feet—was designated as restricted and hazardous throughout the duration of the maneuvers.

In parallel, the three countries just deepened trilateral ties:

In a dramatic geopolitical development… Iran, China and Russia formally signed a comprehensive strategic pact, marking one of the most consequential shifts in 21st-century international relations. While the full text of the agreement is being released in stages by the three governments, state media in Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have acknowledged the ceremony and described it as a cornerstone for a new multipolar order.

The pact comes against the backdrop of decades of growing cooperation between these three states. Iran and Russia earlier concluded a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty designed to deepen economic, political, and defense ties, and to blunt the impact of Western sanctions — a treaty that was signed in January 2025 and entered into force last year.  Meanwhile, Iran and China have been bound by a 25-year cooperation agreement first signed in 2021, aimed at expanding trade, infrastructure, and energy integration.

Still, none of this has deterred the ongoing Pentagon build-up in the Middle East with an eye on Iran. One thing the White House should be able to perceive, however, is that any military action against Tehran is going to clearly be much more complex, and harder, than some one-off mission in Venezuela.

The potential for massive blow-back and for things to go seriously awry is much greater in the case of the Islamic Republic.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epcoh Times,

The new work requirements to gain or continue eligibility for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will start being implemented in several U.S. states beginning Feb. 1.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, instituted new work requirements for SNAP beneficiaries to continue receiving benefits, targeting able-bodied adults without dependents.

People ages 18 to 54 are required to meet these conditions to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months in a three-year period, according to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) must meet any of the following conditions—work at least 80 hours a month, participate in a work program for this duration, take part in a combination of work and work program hours for 80 hours a month at a minimum, or remain in a workfare for the required number of hours assigned each month, FNS said.

Millions of ABAWDs use SNAP benefits despite being able to work, compromising the true goal of the program, which is to provide financial support for vulnerable people who need help.

Some people are exempt from the work requirements, such as individuals who are unable to work due to mental or physical limitations, veterans, homeless people, and pregnant women, the agency said.

Individuals who meet the criteria but fail to fulfill work requirements will lose SNAP benefits after three months.

“To get SNAP again, you must meet the ABAWD work requirement for a 30-day period or become excused. Otherwise, you need to wait until the end of your three-year period, when you’ll get another three months under the time limit,” according to the agency.

The implementation dates of the SNAP work requirements vary from state to state.

In some states, people could lose benefits as soon as Feb. 1, if they can’t show they’re working. But many people have a month or more before their benefits are at risk.

Texas started its requirement in October, so people there could have exhausted their three months of benefits by Jan. 1 and already been removed from the rolls.

Several states started the three-month clock in November, opening the possibility of people losing benefits in the coming days. Among them are Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, and Hawaii.

The requirements take effect Sunday in other states, including Illinois and Ohio. In those places, people could lose benefits in May. Ohio says people will have to show proof of work starting in March.

Some states have exemptions because of relatively high unemployment rates, either statewide or in certain regions, that let them delay implementation, but most of those have ended or will soon. California’s waiver is scheduled to be in place until January 2027. For most of New York, the work requirement is to start in March.

Roughly 42 million Americans make use of the SNAP program and receive $177 per month on average, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Debate Over New Policy

The new work requirements for ABAWDs have faced criticism.

In an Oct. 21 statement, the advocacy group National Skills Coalition argued that the measure undermines workers.

Such requirements punish people for “systemic barriers outside their control,” it said. Losing out on SNAP benefits can make it harder for people to focus on their training or show up to work.

“Moreover, enforcing work requirements places a heavy administrative burden on states and workers. Human services agencies must notify recipients of the new requirements, verify work hours, track compliance, and process exemptions. In each of these activities there is room for error that can have devastating consequences for workers,” the National Skills Coalition said.

The group called on states to expand access to skill-building programs that connect SNAP beneficiaries with training and other supportive services, calling it a “better path forward” than enforcing punitive work rules.

In a May 15 statement published at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services secretary; Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the CMS; Brooke Rollins, secretary of Agriculture; and Scott Turner, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said the need for work requirements is justified.

Over the past decade, millions of able-bodied adults have been added to the SNAP program. Some of them do not work at all or work inconsistently throughout the year, the officials wrote.

The higher share of welfare spending taken by able-bodied individuals of working age disrupts the true goal of programs like SNAP—to help people in need.

“For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout. But too many able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all,” they wrote.

“Establishing universal work requirements for able-bodied adults across the welfare programs we manage will prioritize the vulnerable, empower able-bodied individuals, help rebuild thriving communities and protect the taxpayers.”

A jury on Friday found a psychologist and a surgeon liable for malpractice after they convinced a 16-year-old girl to lop off her breasts. This marks the first medical malpractice case involving a detransitioner to reach a verdict – and it has huge implications. 

Fox Varian, who identified as transgender at the time, was awarded $2 million in damages – which includes $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. Now 22, Varian identifies as a woman. 

The January 30 decision at Westchester County Courthouse in White Plains, New York, found both Dr. Kenneth Einhorn, a psychologist, and Dr. Simon Chin, a surgeon, liable for failing to meet standards of care before performing irreversible surgery on Fox Varian, as they had skipped over important steps while evaluating whether she should move forward with the surgery, and failed to adequately communicate with each other in a “departure from the standard of care.” 

BREAKING: 1st Detransitioner to Take a Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit to Trial Wins $2 Million Judgement

Fox Varian sued her Westchester, NY, area psychologist and plastic surgeon for the gender-transition mastectomy she got at 16.

I was the only reporter to attend the entire… pic.twitter.com/4e89PSgGDg

— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) January 31, 2026

In closing arguments, Varian’s attorney Adam Deutsch asked the jury for $8 million in damages, citing Varian’s reaction to seeing her post-surgical chest scars. 

“I immediately had a thought that this was wrong, and it couldn’t be true,” she said, adding that the surgery left her with ‘searing hot’ nerve pain that were ‘ripping sensations across my chest.’

“Shame. I felt shame,” she added. “It’s hard to face that you are disfigured for life.”

The case centered on a referral letter Einhorn sent Chin in October 2019, roughly two months before the procedure. Deutsch argued the letter contained inaccuracies and omissions that left the surgeon without a complete picture of Varian’s psychological state.

Even more tragic is the way that Varian felt pressured into her decision and the doctors never figured it out.

Elon Musk referred to the doctors as “modern day Mengeles.”

There will be thousands of court cases of children who were mutilated by evil doctors, modern day Mengeles.

The schools, psychologists/psychiatrists and state officials who facilitated this will pay dearly too. https://t.co/1FrB6M50Tj

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2026

The Free Press reported last year, “gender doctors acknowledge they perform life-altering procedures on vulnerable youth with no supportive evidence—and they are proud of it.” One clinician even admitted, “We’re all just winging it, you know? And which is okay, you’re winging it too. But maybe we can just, like, wing it together.” 

The defense also claimed that Varian expressed no regret about the surgery until she filed her lawsuit in 2023. But Varian explained her earlier positive statements reflected cognitive dissonance as she tried to maintain a brave face despite inner turmoil.

Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, testified she opposed the surgery but consented because she feared her daughter would commit suicide without it. This is a common occurrence with young people suffering from gender dysphoria. In 2024, the New York Times reported how parents of confused children are often emotionally blackmailed into consenting to these procedures when doctors tell them ‘Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?’

Parents are routinely warned that to pursue any path outside of agreeing with a child’s self-declared gender identity is to put a gender dysphoric youth at risk for suicide, which feels to many people like emotional blackmail. Proponents of the gender-affirming model have cited studies showing an association between that standard of care and a lower risk of suicide. But those studies were found to have methodological flaws or have been deemed not entirely conclusive.

As the Epoch Times continues, Varian wept and hugged her mother and attorney following the verdict, which concluded a three-week civil trial at the state Supreme Court in Westchester County.

“A jury of everyday Americans sent a clear message: justice will be served for vulnerable individuals who were misled into gender-transition procedures without appropriate safeguards,” said Josh Payne of the firm Campbell Miller Payne, who was not involved in the case but was in court observing Friday’s proceedings. His firm was founded three years ago to represent plaintiffs in cases similar to Varian’s.

The decision came after the young woman regretted the 2019 surgery and sued psychologist Dr. Kenneth Einhorn, surgeon Dr. Simon Chin, and their respective employers.

The six-member jury was not asked whether gender-related surgical procedures are appropriate for minors. The question was whether the therapist and doctor took the appropriate steps before the surgery was performed.

Varian’s attorney argued the healthcare professionals did not correctly diagnose and treat her for gender dysphoria—distress and anguish caused by a mismatch between one’s physical sex and their internal perception of their gender.

Chin and Einhorn’s attorneys argued that Varian did not express regret for the surgery until years later, when she filed the suit in 2023. They noted that she told Einhorn, Chin, and her mother that she was “happy” with the results, and continued to live as either male or non-binary for years after the procedure.

Neil Kornfeld, who represented Einhorn, read from an essay Varian wrote 10 months after the surgery to back up their claim.

“It’s such an immense relief to wake up and not feel at odds with my body,” she said at that time. On the witness stand, Varian said such comments came from “cognitive dissonance” as she tried to put on a brave face about her inner turmoil.

In October 2019, Einhorn wrote a referral letter to Chin supporting Varian’s decision to have the chest surgery; she had first brought up the idea to him in March that same year. Varian’s attorneys said that since the letter contained some omissions and inaccuracies, Chin didn’t have a clear picture of his patient’s psychological history.

Trial evidence showed that Einhorn didn’t have the full picture either.

Before the surgery, Varian had told staff at the Albany Pride Center that she felt she “felt pressure to decide” on a male identity or a female identity “by family, friends, and culture.” She also said she continued to question her gender identity, but was afraid she might “lose credibility” if she brought it up with her mother.

Einhorn said he might not have written the letter had he known; Chin also testified that had he known Varian was unsure of her gender identity, he would not have performed the surgery.

Deutsch said Einhorn should have reached out to Albany Pride Center for records of her time there; he also said Chin and Einhorn should have communicated with each other, at least once, by phone call.

He began the trial by suggesting that Einhorn “drove the train” and had been “putting ideas in Fox’s head” during attempts to change her gender.

But defense attorneys argued that Varian, not Einhorn, had spurred decisions like using “he/him” pronouns, cutting her hair short, and changing her name from Isabelle to Gabriel, then Rowan, then Fox. They said the decision to wear a chest binder, and later the breast removal, were also her idea.

Deutsch, in his closing statements, said that was the problem, describing Einhorn’s attitude as “Whatever the kid wants, the kid gets.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Mainstream expectations, those from Wall Street, economists, and corporate strategists, have congealed around a bullish economic outlook for 2026. Most forecasts project stronger economic growth, with contained inflation, and continued investment in technology and capital expenditure. As such, many institutional investors interpret this as a year of opportunity for markets and corporate earnings.That was a point we discussed at this year’s Investment Summit with the following slide.

But it isn’t just earnings that are expected to rise, but due to productivity increases (AI = Less Employment) corporate profit margins are expected swell to historic records.

However, whenever I see Wall Street becoming universally bullish, the contrarian investor in me is always reminded of Bob Farrell’s Rule #9:

“When all experts agree, something else will happen.”

As I noted in that linked article:

“Excesses are built by everyone on the same side of the trade. Ultimately, when the shift in sentiment occurs – the reversion is exacerbated by the stampede going in the opposite direction.”

Yet the broader risk landscape is significant as consensus optimism obscures important vulnerabilities. When investors anchor on expected outcomes and overlook low‑probability but high‑impact risks, those risks become amplified. History shows that markets rarely transition smoothly from one year to the next without shocks to inflation, monetary policy, geopolitics, or credit conditions. For example, on January 1st, no one expected President Trump to slap additional tariffs on Europe over the potential purchase of Greenland.

But it happened.

So with that, let’s review mainstream expectations for 2026, and detail the “low probability, high impact risks,” that could derail the complacent expectations of investors.

US Economic Growth: Resilience or Fragile Expansion?

Mainstream Expectation: Most economists expect the US economy to grow above trend in 2026. Goldman Sachs forecasts U.S. GDP expanding about 2.6% year‑over‑year in 2026 compared to consensus estimates of roughly 2.0%. Their team sees above‑consensus growth and a strong rebound from 2025.

Other analysts and institutions, including PwC and RSM US, forecast similar growth in the 2.1% – 2.5% range, driven by consumer spending, corporate investment, and broader economic resilience.

Risk to That View: Growth forecasts assume stability in consumer demand, labor markets, and capital spending. But several risks could undermine this:

• Labor market fragility: Employment growth has slowed sharply in late 2025, and with a declining working‑age population due to lower immigration, net job creation may stay weak. Early data shows average monthly employment growth collapsing to levels historically consistent with labor market stress.

• Tariff and trade uncertainty: The recent threat of higher tariffs on Europe, and continued trade tensions that emerged in 2025, introduce volatility in production and pricing in supply chains. Increased tariffs across major trading partners historically correlate with lower output.

• Global headwinds: The World Bank warns that while global growth remains resilient, fading dynamism and policy uncertainty could reduce demand for U.S. exports.

Our view is that the most critical risk on 2026 is further weakness in the labor market or trade disruptions worsen which could cause growth to fall short of expectations.

Inflation and Monetary Policy: Tame or Sticky?

Mainstream Expectation: Consensus forecasts generally expect inflation to moderate through 2026, with core measures heading toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Goldman Sachs projects core inflation close to 2.1% by the end of 2026.

Some money managers expect the Fed to cut rates one or two times in 2026, assuming inflation continues its downward trend and consumer spending remains resilient.

Risk to That View: Given that inflation is a function of economic supply and demand, a “run it hot economy” could keep inflation “sticky” or slightly higher.

• Sticky core inflation: Some forecasts warn that core inflation may stay above target due to tariff pass‑through, wage pressures, or service inflation. Vanguard’s model suggests core inflation could remain above 2.5% if tariffs and labor tightness persist.

• Monetary policy divergence: J.P. Morgan’s economist predicts the Fed may actually hold rates steady or even raise them in 2027, due to sticky inflation and labor market strength despite market expectations for cuts.

• Fed independence risks: Intensified concerns over central bank autonomy could cause further disruptions and uncertainty over future monetary policy direction.

If inflation proves more persistent than expected or if policy credibility erodes, interest rates may stay elevated weighing on valuations and economic activity.

AI and Corporate Investment: Growth Catalyst or Market Excess?

Mainstream Expectation: Most forecasts see continued strong investment in artificial intelligence and related infrastructure as a driver of both corporate capex and productivity. Most analysts highlight AI’s role in lifting corporate spending and supporting economic expansion.

U.S. corporate bond issuance is also projected to surge, much of it to fund AI data centers, advanced computing infrastructure, and next‑generation platforms.

Risk to That View: The growth from AI investment is uneven and concentrated:

• Concentration of benefits: A relatively small group of mega‑cap firms capture most of the AI investment gains, which can create sector concentration risk in markets and overstate the breadth of economic benefit.

• Corporate debt buildup: Higher bond issuance tied to capex, especially for large tech projects, increases leverage risk, especially if growth slows or credit markets retrench.

• Market pricing risk: A strong investment narrative can inflate asset prices beyond fundamentals, meaning corrections may be abrupt if earnings disappoint.

AI spending is real, but it is not a universal engine for all sectors. Most critically, the overreliance on it for aggregate growth forecasts underestimates broader economic weak spots.

Consumer Spending: Supported or Overstated?

Mainstream Expectation: Analysts expect consumer resilience to remain a backbone of 2026 growth. Strong household balance sheets, robust savings for certain income groups, and wage gains support consumption forecasts. These assumptions pervade GDP models showing above‑trend expansion.

Risk to That View: Consumer dynamics can shift suddenly:

• Wealth inequality in consumption: Wealth effects are most pronounced among higher‑income households. Median consumers without significant asset holdings may reduce spending if jobs or real income weaken.
• Debt and credit stress: Higher interest rates increase borrowing costs for households which could depress discretionary spending.

Consumer spending may remain resilient on average, but broad‑based weakness could emerge quietly before appearing in headline data.

The Dollar and Foreign Exchange: Weakening or Volatile?

Mainstream Expectation: Many strategists anticipate a modest depreciation of the U.S. dollar in 2026. As such, a weaker dollar would boosts export competitiveness and corporate earnings abroad.

Risk to That View: Currency markets are driven by relative risk and capital flows, not just growth differentials:

• Growth risk: Stronger economic growth will attract foreign inflows into dollar-denominated assets for higher yields and relative safety.

• Safe‑haven demand: In times of geopolitical tension or financial stress, the dollar strengthens due to its liquidity and safety. Such would potentially hurt U.S. export competitiveness.

A dollar that strengthens through risk aversion or economic growth would undercut the export growth assumptions embedded in current forecasts.

Tax Policy and Fiscal Stimulus: The Reflation Narrative

Mainstream Expectation: New tax measures, including expanded investment credits and incentives, are expected to boost consumer incomes and corporate spending in 2026. Forecasts incorporate these fiscal tailwinds into growth and profitability models.

Risk to That View: Tax benefits often provide short‑lived effects:

• Timing and bias: Households may smooth additional tax savings into future consumption rather than immediately spend them. Corporations might repatriate savings or use them for share repurchases rather than investing.

• Dependence Risk: The outlook for increased capex, spending, and earnings are all dependent on economic growth strengthening into 2026. However, as discussed, there are many risks to that view.

Tax incentives are supportive, but they should be viewed as marginal boosts rather than transformational drivers of long‑term growth.

Portfolio Tactics for Investors in 2026

The purpose of this article is not to suggests that Wall Street analysts, and market participants, are wrong. The purpose is to suggest there are risks to investor portfolios when “everyone is bullish on everything all at once.”

Therefore, given the range of possible outcomes, investors should employ adaptive, risk‑aware strategies. Rather than assuming a base‑case forecast will materialize, use portfolio tactics to help navigate uncertainty:

• Diversification Beyond Tech and Growth: Hold a mix of sectors including value, energy, and financials to reduce concentration risk. Consider allocations to fixed income to offset volatility risks.

• Inflation and Rate Risk Hedging: Maintain allocations to short‑duration bonds to reduce sensitivity to potential rate volatility.

• Dollar and Currency Exposure Management: Hedge currency risk for international holdings. A stronger dollar could undermine international growth outlooks.

• Energy and Commodity Positions: Commodities are subject to economic growth. If growth slows, commodities become a higher risk asset.

• Quality and Balance Sheet Strength: Tilt toward companies with strong balance sheets and stable free cash flow to weather cyclical shocks. Favor dividends and cash returns in uncertain environments.

• Liquidity Reserves: Maintain higher levels of cash or cash equivalents to capitalize on market dislocations. Liquid reserves provide flexibility should growth disappoint.

• Tactical Hedging Strategies: Use options or inverse instruments selectively to protect portfolios against sharp downturns. Volatility may rise unpredictably; structured hedges can provide protection without full market timing.

• Monitoring Macro Signals Actively: Track inflation metrics, labor market data, and Fed communications closely. Be ready to adjust strategies in response to shifts in inflation, policy, or geopolitical developments.

The mainstream outlook for 2026 is cautiously optimistic, grounded in forecasts of steady growth, stable inflation, and continued technology‑led investment. Those expectations are reasonable as base cases. However, investors should not mistake forecasts for outcomes. Each major economic assumption carries material risks. Persistent inflation, monetary policy uncertainty, geopolitical shocks, and uneven growth dynamics could all lead to outcomes well outside consensus expectations.

Prudent investors will build portfolios that protect capital first, anticipate volatility, and adapt rapidly to changing economic realities. The probability distribution of 2026 outcomes is wide, and mistakes can be costly when “all the experts agree.”