Hungary and Ukraine have summoned each other’s ambassadors amid a sharp escalation in diplomatic tensions, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó accusing Kyiv of attempting to interfere in Hungary’s upcoming parliamentary elections and Ukraine rejecting the claims as cynical and dishonest.
In a series of social media posts on Wednesday, Orbán alleged that Hungary had been subjected to “daily threats from Ukraine,” naming President Volodymyr Zelensky, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, and Ukrainian security services. “This will continue until the elections,” Orbán wrote, claiming that Kyiv wanted “a pro-Ukrainian government in Hungary” and was targeting members of his government, including Szijjártó and himself.
“We did not seek conflict, yet Hungary has been the target for days,” Orbán said, as cited by Magyar Hírlap. He added that Hungary would not be distracted from defending what he described as national interests, stating: “We will not send money to Ukraine, because it is in a better place with Hungarian families than in the bathroom of a Ukrainian oligarch.” He also reiterated his opposition to banning Russian oil and gas imports and to Ukraine joining the European Union, arguing that accession would “also import war.”
“As long as Hungary has a national government, these issues will not be decided in Kyiv or Brussels,” Orbán wrote.
Szijjártó said that Ukraine had summoned Hungary’s ambassador in Kyiv earlier on Wednesday, adding that Budapest was “not surprised, neither by the fact, nor by what they said.” According to the foreign minister, Ukrainian officials again objected to Hungary’s national petition, which allows citizens to express views on what the government describes as Brussels’ and Kyiv’s plans to use Hungarian taxpayer money to fund and arm Ukraine.
The foreign minister said Ukraine offered no explanation for what he called President Zelensky’s “vulgar insults” of Orbán or for Sybiha’s claim that the Hungarian prime minister is acting like “one of Hitler’s henchmen.”
Szijjártó warned that Kyiv appeared set to escalate what he described as interference in Hungary’s April election in support of opposition leader Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party. “We understand that Ukraine wants the Tisza Party to win, but only the Hungarian people can decide Hungary’s future, and whether we choose peace or war,” he said.
❗️@FM_Szijjarto: Today the Ukrainians summoned our ambassador in Kyiv. We weren’t surprised, neither by the fact, nor by what they said.” FM Szijjártó said Ukraine once again objected to Hungary’s national petition, which lets citizens express their views on Brussels and Kyiv’s… pic.twitter.com/G03dHCLOO6
Hungary has also summoned Ukraine’s ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Budapest. “We will not tolerate any interference in Hungary’s elections, including Ukraine’s attempts to influence the outcome and to intervene in the electoral process in favor of the Tisza Party,” he said.
He accused President Zelensky and the Ukrainian government of conducting an “open, shameless and aggressive interference campaign” in recent weeks, adding: “That decision is made in Hungary, not in Brussels and certainly not in Kyiv. We will defend our sovereignty by every possible means.”
The Ukrainian leadership crossed a line.
We did not seek conflict, yet for days now Hungary has been in the crosshairs. Still, neither threats from the president, nor from the foreign minister, nor from extremist military groups will deter us from standing up for the interests… pic.twitter.com/dSRFERc93N
Szijjártó’s remarks echoed earlier comments by Orbán on Jan. 24, when the prime minister said Ukraine had “gone on the offensive” and was “issuing threats and openly interfering in the Hungarian elections.”
Ukraine has not responded directly to Szijjártó’s latest claims, but Sybiha addressed earlier accusations over the weekend, telling Hungarian officials “not to be afraid of Ukraine,” but of the Hungarian people. In a lengthy post on X, Sybiha accused Orbán of cynicism and historical manipulation, writing: “When Viktor Orbán says that he will not allow Ukraine to join the EU for the next 100 years, he is not really talking to the Ukrainian state. First and foremost, he is telling this to ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia.”
When Viktor Orbán says that he will not allow Ukraine to join the EU for the next 100 years, he is not really talking to the Ukrainian state. First and foremost, he is telling this to ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia.
Sybiha went on to accuse Orbán of using ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine as “hostages to his geopolitical adventures,” and claimed that blocking Ukraine’s EU accession amounted to “yet another crime against the Hungarian people and Hungary itself.”
Hungary has long been opposed to further rearmament for Ukraine in the ongoing conflict with Russia, accusing Brussels of carelessly spending European taxpayers’ cash in a desperate and unrealistic attempt to help Ukraine defeat Russia, allowing for the continuation of a war that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
Hungary heads to the polls on April 12 in a hotly contested election in what many in Budapest say will be the toughest test yet for Orbán and his governing Fidesz party.
This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, highlights the factors most likely to negatively impact the global market environment over the next 12 months, based on responses from billionaires across regions.
Tariffs rank as the top concern overall, cited by 66% of respondents. Close behind, 63% of billionaires point to major geopolitical conflict as a key risk, underscoring fears around wars, regional instability, and great-power rivalry.
Policy uncertainty is the third-largest concern, flagged by 59% of respondents. Meanwhile, 44% of billionaires remain worried about higher inflation, indicating that price stability is still not taken for granted after years of elevated inflation across major economies.
Regional Differences Reveal Uneven Risk Exposure
While global results show common themes, regional differences stand out.
In Asia-Pacific, 75% of billionaires cite tariffs as their biggest concern, reflecting the region’s deep integration into global supply chains and export-driven growth models.
Meanwhile in the Americas, 70% of respondents are most worried about higher inflation or major geopolitical conflict.
Lower-Ranked but Persistent Threats
Concerns such as debt crises (34%), higher taxes (28%), and global recessions (27%) still rank meaningfully, though below headline geopolitical risks.
Interestingly, technological disruptions (15%) and climate change (14%) appear lower on the list, suggesting that billionaires may view these as longer-term or more manageable challenges compared to immediate political and economic shocks.
Berlin’s Real Estate Market: Socialism On The Rise
Submitted by Thomas Kolbe
Germany’s debt crisis continues to tighten the political leeway of the Federal Republic. The latest push by Berlin’s SPD for stricter real estate regulation clearly signals the direction ahead: Parties at the brink are choosing state-controlled economics over a market-driven turnaround.
The German capital, Berlin, functions as a political testing ground and as ground zero for the united left of the Federal Republic. Like a magnifying glass, Berlin’s state politics reveal the broader response patterns of German politics to current social and economic challenges. The city’s real estate market now demonstrates trends likely to define the political character of the years to come.
Faced with dramatic housing shortages, steadily rising rents, and exploding property prices, policymakers respond with even stronger regulation and rent controls. This is a policy of artificial scarcity, as investors systematically retreat from the market due to declining expected returns. The SPD’s recent move confirmed that the course remains steady: increasing regulation and direct control over investors (Apollo News reported).
Overview of Regulatory Measures
The SPD’s legislative initiative includes: severely restricting short-term tourist rentals to relieve the regular housing market; limiting potential rent surcharges for furnished apartments, preventing landlords from adjusting rents to reflect past investment in quality or amenities; capping index rents; and restricting modernization charges for property upkeep within narrow legal boundaries.
Investment incentives and expected returns are thus significantly curtailed. The government is executing a consistent departure from economic fundamentals, addressing a self-created scarcity with measures that further exacerbate it. Without prospects of refinancing, investors are increasingly withdrawing from the market, putting further strain on housing availability.
An additional measure is the introduction of a digital rental register—a sort of digital public ledger designed to enforce transparency and regulatory compliance. Larger landlords will be required to allocate a portion of their apartments to households with housing vouchers or the homeless. The state thus dictates down to the contractual level who may enter rental agreements.
The SPD initiative marks the next stage of a fundamentally socialist market design. One can easily imagine how such rules impact potential developers, private investors, and larger investment groups. At its core, this policy is likely to further damage an already pressured real estate market, at least in Berlin’s current conditions.
One development leads to another. In recent years, the construction sector has increasingly become a pawn of climate policy. Regulations are transposed into rental and building law without regard for economic consequences, inflating costs and freezing the status quo of building stock.
Ultimately, tenants bear the brunt, as investors face mounting pressure and withdraw. Lengthy permitting processes, economically unrealistic energy standards, retrofit obligations, and increasingly visible government interventions in rental and contract law make many projects unattractive. The result is a slowdown in new construction and systematically rising housing costs. Climate policy thus directly multiplies the existing housing shortage.
Reasons Behind the Property Price Explosion
Property prices in Germany have surged for multiple reasons: First, over a decade of massive migration acted as a demand turbo. In urban centers like Berlin, Hamburg, or Frankfurt, the so-called “flow rate”—the part of the housing market ensuring mobility for tenants changing jobs or starting families—is completely blocked by the policy of perpetually open borders. Second, real estate has increasingly served as protection against systematic monetary depreciation, which follows rising public debt. The ECB expands the money supply through bond purchases while keeping interest rates low, steadily pushing property prices and rents higher to maintain profitability.
But that’s not all: the next political assault on real estate came through climate regulation, high investment requirements tied to the green transition, insulation mandates, enforced heating technologies, and construction rules. These act as massive barriers to market entry for new capital. In effect, the state artificially restricts housing supply on three levels: regulation, control, and building mandates.
Germany’s political refusal, for ideological and intellectual reasons, to rationally address migration and economic necessities has dramatic consequences. Last year, Berlin’s central planners set a nationwide housing target of 400,000 units. Yet massive regulatory interventions led to only around 205,000 completions—a decline of over 20% from the previous year. Similar numbers apply in Berlin, where massive migration requires roughly 20,000 new units annually. With only around 14,000 completed, the capital falls short despite state support and public housing. The market tightens, and the government responds with the same medicine—ultimately, those paying the price are tenants earning their own rent and not yet dependent on the growing social safety net.
The question remains how Berlin’s politics will react grosso modo to this massive encroachment on market freedom. The city’s leftist bloc will likely push to further tighten regulations, while Berlin’s CDU, as seen in the inheritance tax debate, quickly falls in line with the SPD. When it comes to increasing the tax burden on the middle class and holding them accountable for the reckless transformation into a green-socialist society, the Merz-CDU stands ready.
Strategic decisions in Germany today will economically burden future generations. The bloated debt state engages in a perverse game of wealth redistribution from the private sector to the bureaucracy. Rising taxes and contributions systematically disperse reform pressure on migration, welfare, or economic regulation. Credit is available; the middle class pays. Germany faces social redistribution battles artificially fueled by the SPD’s rental law.
* * *
About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.
The end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders in Davos 26.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 in Davos, which has served as the vision and doctrine center of global capitalism for half a century, was held between January 19–23 under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.”
At what was arguably the most significant meeting in its history, the end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders of states inheriting Europe’s colonial-imperial legacy, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Another point openly recognized was the end of globalization and neoliberalism.
Representatives of finance capital emphasized that political and economic elites had lost public trust and conceded that the neoliberal order had reached the stage of collapse due to the unsustainability of income inequality.
Politicians, for their part, admitted that law has increasingly been replaced by force and that the so‑called rules‑based international order is partly a fiction, as great powers suspend rules whenever it suits their interests. Among these statements, perhaps the most unsettling for Donald Trump came from Canada.
The Canadian Prime Minister, whom Trump had explicitly included within the Western Hemisphere in his revised national security doctrine and openly threatened, acknowledged that the narrative of a rules‑based order is fictional. He stated that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains no longer function as mechanisms of mutual benefit but as tools of pressure and weaponization, and that the Western world is not undergoing a transition but an open rupture. This was, in fact, an inevitable outcome of geopolitical realities and the interests of finance capital.
The Forced Acceptance of U.S. Withdrawal is Now Evident
The United States no longer possesses the geopolitical capacity to shape the entire globe. Its parity with China in military, technological, and industrial indicators, and in some areas its lagging position, demonstrates a structural break that makes the continuation of unipolar hegemony impossible. Trump has already been compelled to retract some of his threats. In the Greenland case, for example, he initially suggested the use of military force but later abandoned this option after nearly 800 billion dollars were wiped off U.S. stock markets on the eve of Davos.
In reality, the United States is attempting to reposition itself within a new world order. Its effort to bind the Western Hemisphere unconditionally to itself through a revival of the Monroe Doctrine is itself an admission of declining global capacity. Even within this framework, Washington cannot prevent Canada or Brazil from expanding relations with China, nor can it stop Argentina from maintaining comprehensive economic ties with Beijing. These cases, alongside BRICS and other Global South countries, demonstrate how a policy based on pressure and threats is counterproductive.
States increasingly seek balance with China, whose trade, infrastructure financing, and mutual‑benefit model creates attraction precisely because it does not rely on coercion. At Davos, China was discussed through the lens of controlled uncertainty rather than open rupture. While the United States draws a sharp line of systemic competition, European countries attempt to balance economic realities with geopolitical pressures. On one hand, they seek to maintain trade, investment, and market access with China; on the other, they pursue distancing in technology, security, and critical infrastructure. This reflects a European policy characterized by tactical flexibility rather than strategic clarity.
By contrast, the United States’ coercive approach generates rupture rather than loyalty. For Washington, multipolarity is no longer a strategic choice but the symptomatic outcome of weakening power and the forced acceptance of reality. The open acknowledgment by allies such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Saudi Arabia that the U.S.‑centered order has ended is a direct result of this erosion. If this trajectory continues, the United States will eventually face the necessity of returning to a policy of peaceful coexistence with China, reminiscent of Cold War‑era coexistence with the Soviet Union. The alternative, of course, is war.
The End of the Rules-Based Order
The most evident common denominator of Davos 2026 was the recognition that the global order is undergoing a rupture rather than an evolution. For decades, the discourse of a rules‑based international system functioned as a narrative that concealed arbitrary exemptions and asymmetric practices by great powers. In Davos, this curtain was openly lifted. Selective application of law, the bending of trade rules in favor of the powerful, and the transformation of security into a bargaining instrument were no longer denied. The most striking political statement on this issue came from Canada’s Prime Minister, former financier Mark Carney. He stressed that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains have become instruments of pressure and coercion. By declaring that he no longer shared belief in the rules‑based order, Carney effectively dissolved the ideological legitimacy of the U.S.‑led liberal system. His declaration can be regarded as epoch‑making, signaling the collapse of the ideological foundation of the Western order sustained since the Cold War.
Yet this moment of truth also exposes hypocrisy: states that have supported imperial interventions from Libya to Iraq, and from Syria to Gaza, confront reality only when threats are directed at themselves, such as in the case of Greenland and Denmark.
Confrontation Against the Replacement of Law by Power
Participants at Davos 2026 broadly agreed that the world is rapidly drifting toward an order in which law recedes and power prevails. Although German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer approached this development from different angles, the resulting picture was the same. These leaders, who had remained largely silent in the face of legal violations in Gaza, Israel’s attacks on Iran, the abduction of Venezuela’s president by the United States, or the harassment of civilian merchant vessels under the pretext of a “shadow fleet,” suddenly discovered the dangers of a world governed by raw power. Those now warning that even great powers become insecure when rules collapse were themselves active participants in power politics against weaker states only a year earlier. The outcome of their speeches revealed a clear confrontation between two camps: those who view power as the sole source of legitimacy, and those who seek to restrain power through law.
Trade is Now a Weapon
Nearly every economic discussion at Davos underscored that trade is no longer a neutral vehicle of prosperity. Tariffs have become negotiating tools, sanctions geopolitical punishment mechanisms, and supply chains zones of vulnerability. The efficiencies of global integration have evolved into advantages used by great powers to suppress competitors. Consequently, the concept of commercial security has moved to the forefront, particularly in middle and advanced economies, where free trade is increasingly replaced by selective, controlled, and politicized exchange. Davos also highlighted that the structural distance between the United States and Europe is no longer a temporary tension. Trade deficits, automotive and industrial exports, regulatory conflicts, and defense spending have become focal points of divergence. Washington views Europe as a bloc that benefits economically while failing to share security burdens, whereas Europe perceives the United States as unpredictable, unilateral, and cost‑imposing. The transatlantic relationship has shifted from a shared‑values partnership to a hard bargaining arena.
Breaking the Security-Economy Connection
Although NATO was not discussed explicitly at Davos, it loomed large in the background. The U.S. share of alliance defense spending is increasingly wielded as an economic and political lever. The United States accounts for roughly two‑thirds of NATO defense expenditures and about 16 percent of its annual budget. Trump’s longstanding criticism of Europe’s strategic complacency has evolved into a broader attempt to monetize the U.S. security umbrella through trade, energy, and strategic concessions. European states, however, increasingly interpret this as an assault on sovereignty and autonomy, thereby eroding the traditional balance between security and economics within NATO. Trump’s insistence that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, rather than NATO’s collective defense, further undermined alliance cohesion and symbolized a deeper crisis of trust.
The New Geopolitical Conjuncture and the Rise of the Middle Powers
The Davos 2026 process also strengthened the self‑confidence of medium powers such as Türkiye. Intensifying great‑power competition creates both risks and opportunities for states that avoid rigid alignment or outright rupture. Countries capable of building resilience in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and diplomacy can redefine cooperation in a fragmenting global system. Europe’s gradual rapprochement with China, mirroring Russia’s earlier turn eastward, suggests a future in which the United States consolidates the Western Hemisphere while Europe increasingly recognizes itself as Eurasia’s western peninsula. Internal fragmentation within the United States, driven by competing interests among MAGA factions, neoconservatives, lobbies, the arms industry, finance capital, and think tanks, further undermines Washington’s strategic coherence.
Türkiye Lessons
For Türkiye, Davos 2026 offers stark lessons. No global order narrative is permanent. Concepts such as a rules‑based order, strategic partnership, or alliance solidarity can be suspended whenever they conflict with great‑power interests. Türkiye must therefore ground its security, economy, and foreign policy in concrete capabilities, deterrence, and multidimensional relations rather than abstract norms. Trade, energy, and finance have become security issues, making self‑sufficiency, diversification, and resilience imperative. Agriculture, water management, and critical resources demand urgent strategic reassessment. Security architecture can no longer rely on a single‑axis alliance logic; it must rest on national capacity, a robust defense industry, and layered deterrence.
Multipolarity, while risky, also expands room for maneuver. Türkiye’s path lies in flexible, principled, interest‑based balance rather than alignment or isolation. The harshest lesson of Davos is that in a world where power overrides law, those who truly need law are those capable of defending it. International law must be treated not as abstract morality but as a framework safeguarding sovereignty and national interest. Ultimately, the sources of security, prosperity, and prestige are internal capacity and strategic intelligence, not external references. In this new era, survival belongs to states that combine strong governance, productive economies, independent defense, and multifaceted diplomacy.
This is Türkiye’s lesson from Davos.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
It reports the median age for each state and the District of Columbia.
The Oldest States Are Concentrated in the Northeast
The national median age stands at 39.2 as of 2024.
Rank
State
Median age overall
1
Maine
44.9
2
Vermont
43.9
3
New Hampshire
43.6
4
West Virginia
42.9
5
Florida
42.7
6
Delaware
42.1
7
Hawaii
41.5
8
Montana
41.3
9
Connecticut
41.2
10
Pennsylvania
41.2
11
Rhode Island
41.0
12
Oregon
40.8
13
South Carolina
40.7
14
Wisconsin
40.7
15
Michigan
40.4
16
Wyoming
40.2
17
Massachusetts
40.1
18
New Jersey
40.1
19
New York
40.1
20
New Mexico
39.9
21
Maryland
39.8
22
Ohio
39.8
23
Alabama
39.6
24
Nevada
39.5
25
Arizona
39.4
26
Illinois
39.4
27
Missouri
39.4
28
North Carolina
39.4
29
Virginia
39.4
30
Kentucky
39.3
31
Mississippi
39.3
32
Minnesota
39.2
33
Arkansas
39.1
34
Tennessee
39.1
35
Iowa
39.0
36
Louisiana
38.7
37
South Dakota
38.7
38
Washington
38.7
39
California
38.4
40
Indiana
38.3
41
Colorado
38.0
42
Georgia
38.0
43
Kansas
38.0
44
Idaho
37.8
45
Nebraska
37.4
46
Oklahoma
37.4
47
North Dakota
36.7
48
Alaska
36.3
49
Texas
35.9
50
District of Columbia
34.9
51
Utah
32.5
—
U.S. Median Age
39.2
New England and nearby states dominate the top of the ranking. Maine leads the country with a median age of 45, followed by Vermont and New Hampshire at 44. Several other northeastern states—including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—also exceed 41.
These older age profiles reflect long-term trends such as slower population growth, lower birth rates, and limited in-migration of younger workers.
The Sun Belt Shows a Mixed Demographic Picture
Many Sun Belt states cluster near the national average, but with some exceptions.
Florida stands out with a median age of 43, driven by its large retiree population. In contrast, Texas has a median age of 36, reflecting faster population growth and a younger workforce.
Meanwhile, states like Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina sit close to 39.
Younger Populations Dominate the West and Plains
The youngest states are largely found in the West and Great Plains.
Utah is the clear outlier at 33, supported by higher fertility rates and larger households. The District of Columbia also skews young at 35, due in part to a concentration of working-age adults.
Chinese Contract At Panama Canal Ruled Unconstitutional In Win For Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’
Another massive defeat for China’s interests in the Western Hemisphere, and another ‘win’ for Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine”…
The Supreme Court of Panama has just issued a final decision to void the contract renewal for Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison’s subsidiary to operate two Panama Canal ports, in a much anticipated landmark case driven by claims of unconstitutionality and financial irregularities. The top court has found irregularities in the 25-year extension of the concession granted in 2021.
Huge: China just lost Panama
*PANAMA TOP COURT RULES CK HUTCHISON CONTRACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The contested position that CK Hutchisonoccupied conferred de facto leverage over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints linking the two oceans, provoking the scrutiny and ire of Washington.
This was legally challenged last year, with the question of whether CK Hutchison violated the terms of its concessions – including the renewal granted in 2021 – allegedly harming taxpayers and breaching the country’s constitution.
Crucially the lawsuit came directly at the behest of the Trump administration amid immense pressure put on Panama City, and was subsequently filed by Panama’s government following an official audit claiming CK Hutchison’s management shortchanged Panama by roughly $1.3 billion. And in the meantime:
CK Hutchison Holdings announced a deal last year to sell its majority stake in the Panamanian ports and others around the world to an international consortium that included BlackRock Inc. But the [$22.8 billion] deal appeared to stall over objections by the Chinese government.
Trump had publicly praised that later stalled transaction in March. This after the White House’s eyeing of Panama began nearly a year ago with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s January 31, 2025 visit – his first foreign trip as new Secretary of State. This served to put control of the country’s ports squarely at top of the US agenda for Latin America policy.
President Trump has long made clear his intention to reassert American influence and control over the Panama Canal, given the strategic artery was built by the United States in the early 20th century and formally transferred to Panama in 1999. He has made statements expressing wanting it back, essentially.
As for another country which could increasingly be in Trump crosshairs for either a pressure campaign (or worse) under the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is Panama, already subject of the mid-December 1989 US military invasion which deposed on-again-off-again Washington ally (and long-running CIA asset) and military dictator Manuel Noriega. The historic Operation Just Cause mission saw over 27,000 US troops invade, ostensibly to go after Noriega for drug trafficking and to protect the Panama Canal.
A mission to ‘protect’ the Panama Canal could once again be used as rationale for American intervention in 2026.
And now: “It’s not just a huge win for Panama’s taxpayers, it’s a big win for America and certainly for President Trump,” a senior Trump administration official told Axios Thursday in anticipation of the court ruling going Washington’s way.
Below is a rush machine translation from the official Supreme Court statement:
Republic of Panama Judicial Branch
STATEMENT
The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Panama hereby informs the general public that during its ordinary session held today, January 29, 2026, after extensive deliberation and discussion of Filing No. 119313-2025 and Filing No. 17547-2025 — both consisting of constitutional challenges against Law No. 5 of January 16, 1997, its addenda, and the extension agreement — and in fulfillment of its duty as guardian of the Political Constitution, it decided to declare them UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The challenged laws and acts are related to the Concession Contract between the State and Panama Ports Company, S.A., for the development, construction, operation, administration, and management of port terminals for containers, Ro-Ro cargo, passengers, bulk cargo, and general cargo at the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal.
Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.
While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.
Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.
Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.
A Devout Christian
Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.
However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity.
Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.
Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.
Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.
A Divine Order
Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.
“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. … He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present … by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”
So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.
After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.
In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.
The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.
One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.
The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.
Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.
By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.
In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.
“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”
In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”
Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.
In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.
Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan
“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry.
Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.
While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.
There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.
Here’s Morningstar’s Safe-Withdrawal Rate For 2026 Retirees
Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest “safe” starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By “safe,” Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate.
Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year’s rate is up 20 basis points from last year’s 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar’s 3.9% rate isn’t for anyone at any point in their retirement: It’s an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year’s inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let’s say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year’s withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950.
Morningstar’s 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. “Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it,” Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: “sequence of return” risk. It’s the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.
On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement — how long you expect to live — is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it’s just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement.
Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the “base case,” the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial “safe” withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement:
Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio’s average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
Constant Percentage Method: If you’re wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year’s withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn’t withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal.
Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar’s calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm’s expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar’s 3.9% base case:
US Large Growth: 8.58%
US Large Value: 8.74%
US Small Growth: 10.23%
US Small Value: 12.69%
Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
Foreign Bond: 4.68%
Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
Inflation: 2.46%
We’d also note that your spending patterns aren’t likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one “Go-Go,” as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes “Slow-Go,” where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach “No-Go,” where they’re much more prone to staying close to home — if not confined there — and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.)
You can dive deeper into Morningstar’s methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies.
‘My Colon Literally Blew Up’: Thousands Sue Over GLP-1 Weight Loss Drug Side Effects
A growing wave of lawsuits is challenging the safety warnings accompanying blockbuster weight-loss drugs that have rapidly reshaped American medicine and culture, raising questions about whether patients were adequately informed of the risks tied to medications now used by tens of millions of people.
The plaintiffs’ stories vary widely, but share a common claim: that drugs known as GLP-1 receptor agonists – including Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro – caused severe, life-altering injuries that were not sufficiently disclosed at the time they were prescribed.
A Maryland truck driver says he suffered what doctors described as an “eye stroke,” losing vision first in one eye and then the other. A Louisiana woman developed a serious neurological condition after weeks of vomiting and malnutrition. An Oklahoma real-estate agent alleges her colon ruptured without warning while she was driving her granddaughter home from a softball game.
“My colon blew up. Literally blew up,” said JoHelen McClain, the Oklahoma plaintiff. “I was trying to slim down and feel healthy.”
All three are among more than 4,400 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits since 2023 against the drugs’ manufacturers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, according to court filings. The cases are now consolidated into federal and state litigation expected to take years to resolve.
The suits come amid explosive growth in the use of GLP-1 drugs. An estimated 12% of American adults – more than 31 million people – are currently using a GLP-1 medication, according to the nonpartisan health policy group KFF. Prescriptions rose from roughly one million in 2018 to about nine million in 2022, and usage doubled again between 2024 and 2025, Gallup data show.
Originally developed to treat diabetes, the drugs mimic a hormone that slows digestion, stimulates insulin release and increases feelings of fullness. Their success has helped reduce U.S. obesity rates for the first time in more than a decade and spurred research into additional benefits, including reduced risks of kidney disease, addiction and dementia.
Yet plaintiffs allege that the same mechanism slowing digestion can, in some patients, lead to serious gastrointestinal and neurological injuries.
In court on Jan. 13, Novo Nordisk attorney Katie Insogna said (via USA Today):
75% of the federal lawsuits include an allegation of gastroparesis, also known as “stomach paralysis,” a chronic condition where the stomach slows or stops emptying food into the small intestine;
18% of the cases allege the drugs caused ileus, a condition in which bowel muscles fail to push food and waste out of the body;
18% of the plaintiffs allege intestinal obstructions;
8% say they suffered from gallbladder injuries, with some of these patients requiring surgical removal of gangrenous tissue;
8% of the plaintiffs allege other serious gastrointestinal complications, such as extreme vomiting, chronic acid reflux or abdominal pain that required multiple hospitalizations in some cases. Others say their digestion issues have continued even after they stopped taking the drugs.
USA TODAY’s review of the lawsuits also found at least 110 plaintiffs alleging sudden blindness or severe vision changes, and at least one alleging Wernicke’s encephalopathy, a neurological condition linked to vitamin B1 deficiency.
The drugmakers deny the allegations. In a joint filing last year, the companies said “the safety profile of GLP-1 RAs has been well-established in hundreds of clinical trials, large-scale observational studies, and nearly two decades of real-world use.”
“Novo Nordisk remains confident in the benefit-risk profile of our GLP-1 medicines, when used consistent with their indications and product labeling,” said company spokesperson Flavia Brakling, adding that labels are updated “in cooperation with the FDA and consistent with federal regulations.”
An Eli Lilly spokesperson said, “Patient safety is Lilly’s top priority,” noting that the labels for Mounjaro, Zepbound and Trulicity have “always warned of potential ‘gastrointestinal adverse reactions, sometimes severe.’”
Legal experts say the cases may hinge on whether plaintiffs can prove causation and whether warnings were legally sufficient at the time.
“Proving the drugs caused certain outcomes will be an issue,” said Ana Santos Rutschman, a health-law professor at Villanova University, along with determining “the extent and timing of warnings.”
For Todd Engel, the Maryland truck driver, the outcome has already been devastating. After four months on Ozempic to manage diabetes, he woke in December 2023 with vision loss in one eye. Diagnosed with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, he continued taking the drug after doctors failed to identify a cause. In October 2024, he lost vision in his remaining eye.
“You’re not going to believe this,” his wife, Shelley, recalled him saying. “I can’t see at all.“
Now legally blind, Engel has lost his job and commercial driver’s license. “This whole thing has been catastrophic to me and my wife,” he said.
A 2024 JAMA Ophthalmologystudy of nearly 17,000 patients found an increased risk of NAION among those prescribed semaglutide compared with other treatments, though it did not establish causation. European regulators later described the condition as “very rare,” prompting label updates abroad. U.S. labels warn of vision changes but do not mention NAION by name.
“What happened to me should have never happened,” Engel said.
McClain’s case unfolded differently. After losing 40 pounds on Wegovy, she suffered a sudden colon rupture in March 2024, followed by emergency surgery, sepsis and months of recovery. She now lives with a permanent stoma.
“I read everything I could find on it before I went on it,” she said. “They did not warn about any of the stuff that happened to me at that time.”
In Louisiana, Mark Smith says his wife Robin developed permanent brain damage after months of vomiting while taking Mounjaro. Doctors later diagnosed her with Wernicke’s encephalopathy.
“I still have my wife, physically, not mentally anymore,” he said.
Eli Lilly has said Mounjaro’s label has always warned of severe gastrointestinal reactions. Plaintiffs argue those warnings failed to convey how extreme or irreversible some outcomes could be.
“These drugs are not new,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, director of research at the St. Louis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. “What’s new about them is that the companies then realized, ‘Oh my God, they actually work on weight loss.’”
Al-Aly said he sympathizes with the plaintiffs but believes the drugs’ benefits outweigh the risks for most patients. “There is nothing that’s really all benefit and no risk,” he said.
The first bellwether trials in the consolidated litigation are not expected until 2027. Legal experts say such cases often take four to five years.
Topline: The Grinch did not successfully steal Christmas this season, but he did use up $30,493 in taxpayer money.
A viral Grinch-themed house in Dallas drew crowds so large that the city needed extra police personnel hours, vehicles and barricades to control the nightly crowd of visitors, WFAA-TV reported.
Key facts: The 9,000-square-foot mansion in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in North Dallas became famous on TikTok in 2024, thanks in part to a Santa statue with President Donald Trump’s face. The house received coverage from the Today Show and an Instagram post from rapper Snoop Dogg, and the ensuing crowds cost the city of Dallas $25,375 in 2024 – rising to over $30,000 in 2025, according to WFAA.
Neighbors were unhappy, and the home received a citation for violating city codes on noise and light glare. The home was also featured in a city council presentation that warned of safety risks from large events, including residents trapped in their homes and limited access for first responders, according to WFAA.
Homeowner Ryan De Vitis called his neighbors “the real-life Grinch” over the controversy, which may explain his choice of theme for 2025.
But this year, his neighbors were prepared. The Preston Hollow Citizens for a Safer Community bought a special events permit and used their own money to hire off-duty police officers to limit vehicle and foot traffic in the area.
That offset “significant” expenses for taxpayers, the city told WFAA, but the Dallas police still had to devote additional resources towards securing the street.
Critical quote: “While I appreciate homeowners lighting their homes to bring joy to others during the holidays, compromising public safety resources to this extent doesn’t reflect the spirit of the season,” City Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis told KERA News last year.
Summary: The Grinch’s heart grows three sizes once he discovers the true meaning of Christmas, but the only thing growing in Dallas is the size of its projected budget deficits.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
