Spain’s struggling socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has agreed with the far left to push through a mass amnesty for around 500,000 illegal immigrants by royal decree, bypassing parliament and avoiding any binding vote in Congress.
The extraordinary regularization, negotiated between Sánchez’s Socialist Party (PSOE) and the far-left Podemos, is due to be approved by the Council of Ministers on Tuesday. By using a royal decree, the government can impose the measure directly, despite the fact that an almost identical proposal has been stalled in parliament for more than a year due to a lack of majority support.
Under the agreement, illegal migrants who can prove they were in Spain before Dec. 31, 2025, and have remained in the country for at least five months will be eligible for provisional residence and work permits, provided they have no serious criminal record. The moment an application is filed, any deportation or return proceedings will be suspended. If approved, applicants will receive a one-year residence permit, eligible for renewal. Podemos estimates that more than half a million people will benefit.
Podemos figures have openly celebrated the move. As cited by El País, Irene Montero, former equality minister and now an MEP, described the amnesty as an “urgent measure of social justice” and said her party would ensure the process is “swift.”
She claimed the regularization was necessary to protect migrants from what she described as “racist violence” and framed the policy as the granting of rights to people allegedly denied them through “institutional racism.”
The government argues that the decree merely provides legal certainty for an “existing social reality.” Critics, however, have labeled the move undemocratic and catastrophic for the message it sends to illegal immigrants who are still arriving in large numbers.
The amnesty mirrors a Popular Legislative Initiative backed by more than 700,000 signatures, but that proposal has been blocked in Congress for over a year because it lacks sufficient support. Rather than negotiate or abandon it, the executive has opted to force it through without parliamentary oversight.
The decision comes as illegal immigration in Spain has exploded. According to estimates from the Funcas think tank, cited by La Gaceta, the number of undocumented immigrants has risen from about 107,000 in 2017 to nearly 840,000 in 2025, an increase of almost 685 percent. Funcas estimates that illegal migrants now account for 17.2 percent of the non-EU foreign population in Spain. The think tank warns that mass regularizations do not reduce illegal immigration if current entry and legalization practices continue.
¡500.000 ilegales!
El tirano Sánchez odia al pueblo español. Quiere sustituirlo. Por eso pretende promover el efecto llamada por decreto, para acelerar la invasión.
Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s right-wing Vox party, wrote on X, “500,000 illegals! The tyrant Sánchez hates the Spanish people. He wants to replace them. That’s why he intends to create a pull factor by decree, to accelerate the invasion. It must be stopped. Repatriations, deportations, and immigration.”
Vox MEP Hermann Tertsch, who is also vice-president of the Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament, accused the government of attempting to import voters, saying, “These criminals want to bring all of Africa to see if they can at least buy the votes of those who don’t know Spanish.”
🔴 Esta maniobra de Sánchez es un atentado directo contra nuestra seguridad y detona un nuevo efecto llamada masivo. Regularizar a medio millón de inmigrantes ilegales es premiar la ilegalidad, un indulto a quienes violan nuestras normas de extranjería y un insulto a los que las… https://t.co/c8Ge7d92W6pic.twitter.com/VZ1EyVzcK7
Migration analyst Rubén Pulido also condemned the move, calling it “a direct attack on our security” that would trigger a new pull factor. “Regularizing half a million illegal immigrants is rewarding illegality, a pardon for those who violate our immigration laws, and an insult to those who respect them,” he said.
Facilitating illegal immigration into the European Union via Spain has become big business, with record numbers arriving on the Canary Islands in recent years, and critics of Sánchez’s move argue this will only entice more to embark on the journey.
Several fraud networks have been uncovered in recent months, linked to fake residence permits and sham marriages to help regularize illegal migrants, including one in October last year, where 12 people were arrested for manufacturing fake family links to legitimize the stay of illegals.
Spain’s immigration crisis is also one of security and public safety, with foreigners disproportionately suspected of criminal offenses. In November last year, the Ertzaintza, the autonomous police force of Spain’s Basque Country, revealed that 64 percent of those arrested for crimes in the region were foreigners, including 68 percent of sexual assault and robbery suspects. This is despite migrants making up 14 percent of the Basque population.
In December, a CEU-CEFAS Demographic Observatory report, titled “Demography of Crime in Spain,” found that foreigners, who make up 31 percent of Spain’s prison population, commit per capita 500 percent more rapes and 414 percent more murders than Spanish citizens. The highest rates are seen among Arabs and Latinos, with many of them hailing from countries in South America known for their extremely high crime rates.
Chinese Hackers Reportedly Breached Phones At “Heart of Downing Street”
Chinese state-linked hackers reportedly accessed mobile phones “at the heart of Downing Street” as part of a long-running cyber-espionage campaign targeting telecom networks worldwide, according to Fox News.
U.S. intelligence agencies believe the breaches began as early as 2021, though they were publicly revealed in 2024 after American officials warned allies about widespread intrusions into global telecommunications systems.
The campaign targeted several countries, including the U.S. and members of the Five Eyes alliance. Investigators say the attackers may have gained access to the data of millions, with the ability to monitor calls, read messages, and track locations.
Former U.S. national security adviser Anne Neuberger said the “Chinese gained access to networks and essentially had broad and full access,” allowing them to “geolocate millions of individuals” and “record phone calls at will.”
Fox News reports that a source told The Telegraph that the breach reached “right into the heart of Downing Street,” raising concerns that senior U.K. officials may have been affected.
In response, U.S. agencies urged telecom companies in 2024 to strengthen security. A joint advisory in August 2025 warned that Chinese state-sponsored groups, including one known as “Salt Typhoon,” were continuing to target networks globally.
The Telegraph also reported “many” hacking incidents affecting British government phones, particularly during former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s term from 2022 to 2024.
Former Israeli intelligence chief Yuval Wollman said Salt Typhoon is “one of the most prominent names” in cyber-espionage, with operations extending across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
China has previously denied the allegations, calling them “baseless” and “lacking evidence.” U.K. officials have not yet commented on the latest reports.
The UK government has pledged to introduce a digital ID system for all UK citizens and legal residents by the end of the current Parliament (so no later than 2029). The integration of digital ID into government services, though already under way, has hitherto been largely voluntary. However, is is becoming steadily less optional, as the government has said it will now be required as a precondition for work in the U.K, and a version of it (GOV.UK One Login) is already being imposed unilaterally upon company directors throughout the U.K.
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones has suggested in a recent interview (19/11) that digital ID is completely optional and will simply make government services more accessible and convenient. But this is a rather disingenuous sales pitch. On the one hand, Starmer himself insists that digital ID will be required as a precondition to work legally in the U.K; on the other hand, like any new technology, there will be a transition period, but voluntariness is unlikely to last forever.
Evidently, the government will not immediately require everyone to use a digital ID in their interactions with government agencies. But as digital ID becomes more normalised, it will likely become as compulsory as holding a passport for international travel. Can you really imagine a modern government allowing “hold-outs” to stay in the physical world while digital ID systems become the norm?
Providing citizens with an easy way to seamlessly verify their identity when they access government services may seem like the “efficient” thing to do. However, this apparent efficiency comes at a high price, exposing citizens to significant risks of government over-reach, surveillance, and system failures.
The old “clunky” system, in which there was bureaucratic redundancy and replication and in which physical ID cards had to be shown to access discrete government services made it more difficult for the government to comprehensively monitor and control a citizen’s choices in real time, and meant a single point of failure in the system did not necessarily compromise all of a citizen’s important data, or disable citizens’ ability to access public services.
The problem with universal digital ID overseen by the State is not that a dystopian State will be born overnight, or that all our data will be stolen the day after the scheme is initiated, but that the architecture of authoritarian control will be set in motion, and the potential repercussions of serious data breaches and system failures will be significantly enlarged.
According to a House of Commons Research Briefing, government statements suggest that “there will be no centralised digital ID database.” But as the same briefing points out, civil rights group Big Brother Watch stresses that “even decentralised systems can behave like centralised ones if identifiers link data across platforms.”
The creation of a digital ID system for accessing a wide range of public services clearly poses grave risks of abuse, given the evident conflict of interest of governments who both oversee the architecture of a digital ID system, and have incentives to extend their control over citizens’ lives.
Unlike a traditional physical ID system, in which there is a local gatekeeper who opens the gate to a service based on limited information – typically, a service-specific database – a digital ID system could, in some future iteration, permit a remote gatekeeper to use an AI algorithm to analyze a citizen’s data and history (unlocked by their ID) and ration their access to a service to induce compliance with the government’s preferred policies. This scenario becomes even more plausible given the momentum behind centralised digital currencies, which could offer governments direct leverage over citizens’ income and spending choices.
Do such scenarios seem far-fetched? If the digital ID system is controlled, overseen and effectively programmed by centralised governments and their agencies, and is already intended as an obligatory verification procedure for employment rights, there is certainly no technological impediment to governments extending the logic of digital surveillance and control, through “mission creep,” to other sectors of social life.
For example, just as a government uses digital ID to track someone’s employment history and residency status as a way of corroborating their right to work, surely it could also use digital ID to track someone’s health history or vaccination status as a criterion for the right to, say, attend public venues, use public transport or enter the country?
And if the same digital ID is associated with a “digital wallet” tied to CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), then what is preventing a government from capping a citizen’s spending on international travel once they reach their “carbon allowance”? What if a government-regulated digital ID is required for citizens to post content on social media? This scenario, which is far from fanciful, would give governments leverage to restrict “non-compliant” citizens’ social media activities.
So much for the technological feasibility of leveraging a digital ID system to exert ever greater control over citizens’ lives. Now, do we think government officials are so profoundly committed to civil liberties that they would balk at the thoughts of leveraging digital ID programmes to engage in far-reaching forms of surveillance and control over citizens’ lives? We hardly have grounds for optimism, given Western governments’ abysmal track record during the Covid era, when they were prepared to lock down citizens in their homes based on scientifically flimsy theories of disease control, and “make life hell” (to use a loose translation of President Macron’s notorious expression) for citizens who opted out of an experimental vaccine.
Besides the substantial risks of government surveillance and over-reach, there is a very real risk that citizens’ data may be more exposed to cyber-attacks in a more ambitious, integrated and data-rich digital ID system, and that the very ability to access public services may be as fragile as the weakest point in the system.
On the one hand, government-overseen databases, no less than privately managed databases, have notoriously been compromised, time and again, by serious data breaches and leaks over the years. An increasingly complex and wide-ranging system, linking an ever wider pool of citizens’ data, will be sure to attract the interest of international hackers. On the other hand, if and when these systems experience major glitches, such as the recent outage of internet security company Cloudfare that took ChatGPT and X offline, public services may experience major disruptions, if not paralysis. We want resilience, not just efficiency.
There are more and less safe and efficient ways to harness the technology of digital ID. But the development of digital ID systems should be managed by a complex web of service providers who can develop competitive solutions to the technical problems they pose, under a broad legal framework, and reliance on such systems should be maximally voluntary.
We are living through a major crisis of trust in public institutions. Governments have shown themselves to be unworthy stewards of the ship of State, and citizens are right to distrust their intentions and competence. There could hardly be a worse time – and I’m not saying there ever was a good time – to entrust politicians with an ambitious digital ID programme plagued with risks of government surveillance, technocratic over-reach, system failures, and data breaches.
EU ‘Celebrates’ Replacing One Massive Energy Dependency With Another One
EU member states on Monday finally signed off on a legally binding ban on Russian gas imports, locking in a hard deadline to sever the bloc’s remaining dependence on Russian energy flows by late 2027.
The move turns Brussels’ long-running pledge to cut Moscow energy loose into enforceable law, nearly four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or what Putin calls the Special Military Operation, which has still not been legally declared by Russia to be an official state of war.
Under the deal, the EU will shut the door on all Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports by the end of 2026, followed by a complete ban on pipeline gas by September 30, 2027.
A limited escape hatch was built in for those countries struggling to replace Russian supply and fill storage ahead of winter. These can push the pipeline cutoff to November 1, 2027.
Before 2022, Russia accounted for more than 40% of the EU’s gas supply – a figure which has fallen to roughly 13% by 2025. But there’s still a sizeable gap between Brussels’ political messaging and the bloc’s actual energy behavior. As Reutersreports:
Last month, the five biggest EU importers spent 1.4 billion euros ($1.66 billion) on Russian energy, mostly on gas and LNG, data from the non-profit Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air showed. Hungary was the biggest buyer, before France and Belgium.
Here’s how the president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, announced the ban Tuesday: “We have just signed the ban on Russian gas into law. Europe is securing control of our energy supply and strengthening our autonomy.”
There’s only one obvious problem in all this from a supposed European ‘energy independence’ perspective, summarized well in the following:
They’ve just locked themselves into total dependency on the US, the country they claim to want to become “independent” from. Utter clowns. https://t.co/yO5UdBMTAY
Another commenter, a European libertarian, reacted as follows:
What an idiot stooge, willing to do anything for power. This is the tragedy of Europe: with such a “leadership” we assure our continued submissiveness to the US.
And journalist Mark Ames roundly mocks these new ‘boasts’ EU energy freedom in the following remarks, and invoking the Greenland crisis, on the below clip:
Danish PM bragging how they swapped out their dependence on cheap Russian gas, which posed a theoretical threat, for dependence on expensive US gas, a direct existential threat to Denmark. Must be that high European IQ that race science weirdos rave about.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen:
I think, or I hope, that all Europeans can now see that it was a huge mistake to be dependent on Russian fossil fuels. We should never have been.
And now we have to make sure that we will have no dependencies on other countries outside… pic.twitter.com/J9o6c0HXYe
“We’ve replaced one massive dependency with another one,” Henning Gloystein, a managing director for energy at Eurasia Group, told The NY Times. “That looked fine three years ago, but now it doesn’t.”
That same Tuesday NYT report points out that soon after the Feb.2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, “The United States came to the rescue. Tankers loaded at U.S. terminals shipped large volumes of liquefied natural gas to European ports in the Netherlands, France and Belgium, among other destinations, helping to replace the Russian fuel and calming markets.”
And the report follows with this epic and ironic line, highlighting the elephant in the room: “Not long ago, those gas flows looked heroic. Now, they are raising eyebrows. Since beginning his second term, President Trump has sought to use trade as leverage in disputes with other countries, including his recent push to take over Greenland.”
In an extraordinary case that could decide the future of press rights in Europe, Berlin-based German-Turkish journalist Hüseyin Doğru is currently under European Union sanctions for his reporting, which left him completely unable to access his bank account for months.
Under orders from the EU, his assets were frozen, and these sanctions were dispensed with no trial or appeal. Currently, Doğru says he is not even allowed to leave Germany.
As Berliner Zeitung reports, Doğru completely exhausted all financial means, telling the paper that his bank has completely blocked access to his previously approved minimum subsistence allowance of €506. He stated that he can no longer support his family or even buy food for his two newborn children.
“Not only I, but also my wife and my three children are effectively being sanctioned,” Doğru, a left-wing journalist, said in the interview.
“The sanctions themselves stipulate that I am entitled to access to essential funds. The fact that my bank is nevertheless blocking these funds violates applicable law in my view,” he told the Berlin newspaper.
Since then, he has won some reprieve and regained access to his account on Jan. 22 through the actions of his lawyer, but a legal battle over the sanctions is continuing.
UPDATE: Comdirect finally (and unwillingly) restored my account access—only after public and media pressure. Thank you ALL for supporting me. Next goal: lift the sanctions, not just against me, but against all punished for expressing their opinions. https://t.co/P6rdkNhCC8
There are now fears that the extraordinary case may be a sign of where the future is headed, where an authoritarian EU can censor and financially ruin dissidents and journalists with no oversight or judicial review. Notably, similar sanctions could also be deployed against others, such as Roger Köppel, the Swiss editor-in-chief of the weeklyDie Weltwoche.
Doğru has been on an EU sanctions list since May 2025, with Brussels arguing that his pro-Palestinian journalistic work incites “ethnic, political, and religious discord” and therefore, he allegedly supports “destabilizing activities by Russia.” Notably, he filmed a number of the occupations of Berlin universities by pro-Palestinian activists.
The basis for the sanctions was his alleged connections to Russia, but the Berliner Zeitung indicates that so far, no proof has been presented to confirm this accusation, and more importantly, there was no trial or evidence provided to support this accusation.
“Brussels justifies the measures by saying that he is using his pro-Palestinian journalistic work to stir up ‘ethnic, political and religious discord’ and thus allegedly ‘destabilizing activities that support Russia.’ The EU has not yet publicly provided any concrete evidence of a connection to Moscow,” wrote the paper.
Germany couldn’t do it, but the EU could
In a recent interview on Youtube, which included the Greek progressive Yanis Varoufakis, Doğru provided further details about his case, including why these sanctions came from the EU and not Germany.
“And this now all applied to me the first time in the form of a sanction, but the German government did not do it directly with me. They, as Yanis said, pass it over to the European Union because in Germany, they could not do that in a legal way, because the backlash is still there in this bourgeois democracy. The little backlash, if it comes to their own citizens, which I am, even though they don’t maybe accept me as such. But if a journalist is in court here, he has a lot of rights.
But if you go through the European Union, the European Commission, there is no judge, there is no hearing, there is no evidence. It’s an extrajudicial act of… and the EU says sanctions are not punishment, they are punitive to change your behavior for the benefit of the European Union, which is not a punishment. So, it’s an extrajudicial execution of a journalist.
But now coming back to the beginning, why is that happening? They’re all laid that out and they’re testing it with me for the first time. And what makes the whole situation unique is that the first time, if they can get away with it, this is going to soon happen to you guys as well, or even those who attacked us.”
The sanctions had a devastating effect on Doğru and illustrate how they could be used to silence nearly any journalist, whether on the left or the right.
“I’m not allowed to pay my lawyer. I’m not allowed to buy water. I’m not allowed to provide my child with food. I’m not allowed to work. I’m not allowed to buy medicine. Every single monetary transaction with me is forbidden. Technically, you’re not even allowed to give me a basket of food because I could turn that technically into money. And this is forbidden.
And if I violate or you do, I don’t know about you, but if I were to violate one of these things, I could face like five years of prison time by avoiding sanctions technically, but they went further. I’m sanctioned, I’m on that list, but they also technically sanctioned my wife and our unborn twins because they froze older accounts. She is not allowed to receive her salary right now.
So in this moment, we technically have no money that we can access to go and buy something. There is also the problem because a lot of activists, journalists, colleagues, politicians and family members even said, ‘Should we send you money?’ We said, ‘Don’t do that. Don’t do that because you would be maybe categorized as avoiding sanctions.’ And this is the problem here. Sanction, as the European Union describes on their website, is a tool that is aligned with humanitarian law, which is not deemed to punish, but rather to change your behavior.”
Notably, this is tool is being used on a journalist in Europe during a time when EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is claiming that Europe is a place where freedom of speech is valued, a point that Doğru is more than willing to point out.
The German-Turkish journalist stated during the interview that he does not understand what “behavior” is supposed to be changed by the sanctions, saying:
“To change behavior, what kind of behavior do they want to change? My behavior to use my rights as a citizen of Europe or of the world to express my opinion on certain events. Also, the right to survive because all my existential grounds are taken away from me. To be a bit more specific, maybe that sounds a bit crude, but just to make the point that I don’t want anyone to misunderstand me, someone in a prison currently technically has more rights than I have, because they can, in custody, buy something which I can’t even.”
The Russian accusations
For those on the right who dismiss this case because of Doğru’s pro-Palestinian coverage or maybe even dislike him because he’s a Muslim, it is clear that this is only a test case. Many of his views or the views of Varoufakis, such as their claims about European colonialism, can be contested, but that is besides the point. Conservatives, libertarians, and the right will all be targeted in the future, not only with this type of method, but other similar methods that are already being deployed.
Doğru indicates that the argument, as far as he can see, is not that he has any direct connection to Russia, but that the EU can interpret his reporting as beneficial to Russia, and therefore, it can legally use these extrajudicial sanctions. Notably, Doğru said he was openly criticizing Russia and its war in Ukraine long before these sanctions hit him.
“And I think this is unique as Yanis said at the beginning with my case, because for the first time ever, Europe sanctioned a journalist in the context of the Russian sanction packages and laws and regulations, who was criticizing Russian policies publicly, which I did, who was criticizing the war in Ukraine,” he said.
He added that he was targeted for “covering protests across Europe, which meant for the European Union that covering that, covering protests, covering violent protests, means for the European Union that only Russia can benefit from that because I’m creating social discord. I’m focusing on that, apparently, and Russia can benefit from that. Therefore, that makes me a Russian news outlet or pro-Russian journalist, which is, I can’t see you’re rolling your eyes. It’s exactly what happened to me as well.”
It is important to note that a report from German newspaper Tagesspiegel indicated that Doğru previously worked for Russian-linked news source Redfish Media. After the war in Ukraine broke out, Redfish closed down, and Doğru began a new outlet called Red, which included a number of former Redfish employees. Doğru indicated that the Red outlet, founded in Istanbul, was independent and received support from private individuals and organizations, without providing further details.
Even if this outlet, however, is connected to Russia in some manner, and so far no evidence has been presented in that direction, the EU’s ability to implement such powerful sanctions against an individual without due process should raise concerns for journalists everywhere.
Concerns expressed from many corners
It is not just the far left complaining about these sanctions against Doğru, but a broad political spectrum is taking issue with how they have been implemented. Here is what Berliner Zeitung wrote:
The Doğru case has been causing a stir for months. Critics see the sanctioning of a German journalist as a dangerous precedent for press freedom in the European Union. The criticism is particularly harsh in a legal opinion prepared by former European Court of Justice judge Ninon Colneric and international law professor Alina Miron. The opinion was presented to the European Parliament in the fall and addresses the new EU sanctions regime against so-called disinformation.
The authors conclude that the sanctions constitute a profound infringement of fundamental rights. The measures act like a “civil death” (“mort civile”): assets are frozen, access to banking services is effectively blocked, and the economic capacity of those affected is almost completely eliminated. This not only affects the sanctioned individuals themselves but also has a direct impact on their professional and private lives.
The report states that it is particularly problematic that sanctions are imposed without prior judicial review. Denying the right to a hearing before being placed on a sanctions list is disproportionate and violates European fundamental rights. The damage to freedom of expression and of the press is completely out of proportion to the stated goal of combating disinformation.
In short, the EU took a sledgehammer to this case, and with the other issues such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and efforts to fight so-called “disinformation,” it is clear that these tools and terms can be weaponied within the EU establishment against any reporting they do not agree with or find to be a threat.
The history of these sanctions
While the main points of this text has been addressed, some readers may be interested in how these sanctions were implemented and their background.
Doğru addresses the history of these sanctions in his interview with Varoufakis.
“How did we come to this point? It’s going to be a little bit technical, like using technical words, but I think for the audience it is very, very important because that did not just happen from nowhere. It technically started with the annexation of Crimea by Russia. So that’s when the European Union created the European External Action Service (EEAS), which was tasked to combat disinformation and Russian influence in Europe.
After around 2018, that body was extended with more rights, which created a kind of like an action plan against this information. And then we first heard like these words, and I think everyone knows that now. It’s like undermining European democracy, the European values, the European project and about strategic threats, and at some point about disinformation.”
He goes on to address terms like “disinformation” and “hybrid threat,” saying these terms were first coined around 2020. He said that disinformation, in particular, does not have to be a lie, but simply information that is categorized as a threat by the EU.
“That means technically information is now categorized by the EU as a threat, as long as it does not serve their benefit. In that case, as long as a journalist does not report on behalf of or for the benefit of the European Union. This might be a protest, that might be, if I criticize in the context of the Ukraine war, Russia and Europe, for example. So it’s kind of militarizing and criminalizing information, and by fighting disinformation and shutting down information, the EU started to use this (term),” he said.
He then delves further into the history of these sanctions and how the Digital Service Act (DSA) raised the stakes because it allows the EU to punish and sanction individuals, including journalists.
So what happened after that is also like the EAS created or introduced the FIMA, I think it is called, the foreign information manipulation and interference. This was very, very unique and very, very important because that gives the EEAS the right to punish, sanction everyone who is also, how should I work that now, involved in, this is very important: non-illegal suspicious behavior. So they say you have maybe a suspicious behavior and it is no illegal but we judge that as a threat to us, and we can’t punish you. That’s what the FIMA says. So this is very important. The only evidence is look at EEAS, look at FIMA. That’s the template for that…And that brings us to the last point, the Digital Service Act.
The Digital Service act says that in a state of emergency, whatever that is, they don’t announce that or explain that, that they technically can sanction, punish or whatever punishment they have in their mind, journalists and information.
Varoufakis closes by addressing how dangerous this threat now is for European citizens and journalists.
“And we need to emphasize this. I’m glad we have Hüseyin (Doğru) here because this innovation by the German government on the one hand and of course the European Commission on the other is a vile and dangerous precedent, as Hüseyin said. Today, they choose to use anti-Russian or Russian related decrees in order to stop a journalist, a German citizen, from writing about Palestine.
Tomorrow, they can do exactly the same thing regarding any issue, any topic that they do not want people to talk about. It could be anything from the investigation of an accident, a railway accident, an airplane crash. Once we have allowed them to use extrajudicial cancellation methods of European citizens, then that is the thin edge of the wedge. And we go back to really before Magna Carta, before Magna Carta. We’re not talking about democracy now in big domains. We’re going, no, we are digging ourselves into a hole, a wormhole that brings us out like a time machine before the time of Magna Carta.”
For years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has promoted discussions around global economic coordination and governance, an approach often associated with initiatives such as the “Great Reset,” a concept introduced by WEF founder Klaus Schwab.
At this year’s meeting in Davos, Switzerland, however, the tone of the forum appeared more cautious, with a greater focus on debate and scrutiny of existing assumptions than on presenting a unified vision.
The forum, which has traditionally provided a platform for political and business leaders to discuss ideas such as “stakeholder capitalism,” also featured more challenges to these concepts.
Critics of the model say that it places increased emphasis on environmental, social, and governance priorities, including diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, while supporters maintain they reflect evolving expectations of corporate responsibility.
Here are six takeaways from the 2026 Davos meetings.
1. Net Zero Meets Industrial Reality
Despite many sessions continuing to adhere to the forum’s long-standing emphasis on so-called climate change risks and warnings of environmental catastrophe, some talks were shaped by concerns over sovereignty and strategic dependence, including energy security and supply chains.
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said at a WEF stage event that Europe’s decarbonization goals risk increasing dependency on adversarial nations such as China for key components of its energy transition.
“You should not be dependent for that which is fundamental to your sovereignty on any other nation,” Lutnick said. “And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies.”
Europe has imposed some of the world’s strictest climate regulations while offshoring much of the industrial base required for the energy transition. The bloc is heavily dependent on China for batteries, rare earths, and critical minerals.
“Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don’t make a battery?” Lutnick said. “So if they go ‘2030’ they are deciding to be subservient to China, who makes the batteries. Why would you do that?”
Vimal Kapur, CEO of Honeywell, a major U.S. industrial and technology conglomerate that supplies critical systems for aerospace, energy, manufacturing, and heavy industry worldwide, said that renewable energy alone cannot currently sustain the high energy demands to produce cement or steel.
“They are very energy-intensive … It’s physics,” Kapur said.
“Renewables remain in the mix, but it cannot bring the amount of joules we need to produce this infrastructure which is required in the world.”
2. Rules-Based Order Declared ‘Finished’
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney used his Davos speech to pronounce the “rules-based international order” over.
“The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just,” he said.
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a speech during the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Jan. 20, 2026. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images
“The middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”
Carney visited China last week and praised the regime’s leadership as his government seeks to deepen cooperation with Beijing.
French President Emmanuel Macron also spoke of trade tensions with the United States.
He said that competition from the United States through trade agreements “undermines our export interests, demands maximum concessions, and openly aims to weaken and subordinate Europe, combined with an endless accumulation of new tariffs that are fundamentally unacceptable, even more so when they are used as leverage against territorial sovereignty.”
3. Quiet on The Great Reset
Some of the clearest signals came from absences rather than speeches.
Schwab didn’t attend Davos this year, marking the first time the WEF founder wasn’t present at the event in its 55-year history. He stepped down from his leadership role last year.
Schwab wrote the book “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” which controversially urged elites to “press the reset button on capitalism.”
The Great Reset became shorthand during the pandemic-era lockdowns for calls to use the crisis to reshape economies and social systems under slogans such as “build back better,” a notion whose advocates saw as positive reform and welcome advancement of “social justice” but whose critics viewed as elite-driven social engineering and heavy-handed government overreach.
“Stakeholder capitalism,” coined by Schwab in 1971, is capitalism in which companies “do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”
“Stakeholders,” according to the WEF, includes “everyone who [has] a ’stake’ in the success of a firm,” massively broadening the pool of voices that can influence the decisions of a company.
This led to corporations prioritizing “environmental, social, and governance” goals alongside shareholder profit.
Critics have labeled it a form of “disaster corporatism,” saying it blurs the line between business and state.
4. Anti-Globalist Challenge
Davos has hosted critics before, but this year stood out.
Last year, at a WEF special address Argentinian President Javier Milei, a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, told the audience: “Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state.”
This year, he went even further, in an intense speech blasting socialism and what he described as the West’s abandonment of liberty, framing 2026 as a year of global “awakening” toward free-market principles.
“The world has begun to awaken,” Milei said, adding that “we have a better future ahead, but that better future exists only if we return to the roots of the West, which means returning to the ideas of liberty.”
Argentina’s President Javier Milei speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos on Jan. 21, 2026. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images
5. World ‘Not a Cozy Place’
Davos, long known for its convivial fireside chats, alpine scenery, and reflective discussions on global cooperation, sustainability, and economic reform, gave way to a more sober mood as geopolitical tensions dominated proceedings.
“This new world of great powers is being built on power, on strength, and when it comes to it, on force,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. “It’s not a cozy place.”
He also highlighted his country and the EU’s long-standing structural economic weaknesses.
“Both Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential for growth in recent years by dragging feet on reforms in unnecessarily and excessively curtailing entrepreneurial freedoms and personal responsibility,” he said.
“The single market was once created to form the most competitive economic area in the world, but instead, we have become the world champion of overregulation,” Merz added. “That has to end.”
6. Trump Dominates
U.S. President Donald Trump’s presence and agenda eclipsed many of the forum’s traditional economic discussions.
This included Trump’s speech and high-profile interventions, from demanding “immediate negotiations” regarding the U.S. bid for Greenland to establishing members on his new Gaza Board of Peace initiative.
“The USA is the economic engine on the planet. And when America booms, the entire world booms,” Trump said.
He said he wants European civilization “do great.”
“That’s why issues like energy, trade, immigration, and economic growth must be central concerns to anyone who wants to see a strong and united West. Because Europe and those countries have to do their thing. They have to get out of the culture that they’ve created over the last 10 years. It’s horrible what they’re doing to themselves. They’re destroying themselves.”
“We want strong allies, not seriously weakened ones,” he added. “We want Europe to be strong.”
Back in the days, we saw a fat lady sing,
Her song rich and lovely, our hearts would soon ring.
And with her size so big, we silently mocked her,
But we never thought once she should just see a doctor.
But that has all changed. It’s obesity not fat,
A medical label wearing a medical hat.
Dieting and exercise, everyone agrees,
Ain’t the modern way to tackle “chronic” disease.
She’s caught a new tune, she’s no easy cynic,
And she gets the right needle from the right clinic.
The fat melts away, that drug is quite clever.
As long as she takes it forever and ever.
Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Sick Hustle Dispatch. I’m Alan Cassels, drug policy researcher, author of four books, student, and scholar of the world of medical hype. I have spent 30 years as an independent drug policy researcher, critiquing aggressive pharma marketing and disease-mongering. I believe we are all subject to the sharp end of the pharmaceutical industry’s profitable con of transforming everyday aches, normal aging, social ills, and common fears into lifelong pill-swallowing customers. And in much of my writing this is what I hope to expose.
Back in 2005, with Australian journalist Ray Moynihan our book Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients laid bare the playbook: drug companies, with their legions of PR flacks, paid experts, funded patient groups, and compliant media, systematically widen the boundaries of illness to expand their markets. High cholesterol? Shyness? Mild bone thinning? Restlessness? All rebranded as chronic, widespread conditions, burnished with a patina of respectable medical terminology and paving the way for a lifelong diet of pills. That’s the way the model works.
You see, cures are passée. Cures kill markets. Getting the population properly hooked on a pharmaceutical treatment for a ‘chronic’ condition is where the serious money is.
Our core insight was simple and grim: it’s far easier—and infinitely more profitable—to convince healthy people that they’re sick than to develop genuine cures for the truly ill.
Twenty years later, the hustle is bigger, slicker, and more dangerous than ever.
Watching that hustle unfold with weight loss drugs feels weirdly ominous, like watching a slow-moving train wreck you can’t peel your eyes off of. You know there’ll be carnage and bodies, vast fortunes won and lost, and humanity left just a little bit poorer. We have often documented the pharmaceutical industry’s proven ability to create enormously lucrative markets overnight, by inventing and selling diseases.
Now watch as all that ingenuity and energy gets pointed at one of the biggest problems bewitching humanity: human fatness.
Redefining the Disease
The most central issue stems from the very definition of disease.
By way of poignant parable, in the mid-1990s the drug industry and their surrogates had managed to bamboozle the medical world that pain was the “Fifth vital sign,” a card trick that opened the door to the widespread use of opioids (like Oxycontin). This redefinition of pain treatment—through industry-funded textbooks, and lectures—meant our doctors were soon writing routine prescriptions for some of the most addictive substances on earth for everything from simple arthritis or back pain to tooth extractions.
This was similar to how the companies inserted themselves into medical societies and treatment panels, redefining levels at which doctors should treat high blood pressure, blood sugars, or high cholesterol, (lowering them and widely expanding the numbers of citizens treated). Now, makers of one of the most lucrative drug classes in history are using their weapons-grade propaganda to go after the big kahuna, obesity.
Just switch the goal posts, redefine the label, and then supply the treatment. It’s easy when you have more money than God. This sleight-of-hand, which firmly places blame on your “genes” instead of your lifestyle or your socio-economic status will someday be considered as scandalous a catastrophe as a man-made virus escaping from a Chinese lab. Scandalous, and human-caused, because there is no mystical “obesity gene” taking over our lives, but redefining it this way (similar to how Big Pharma redefined “pain”) will allow makers of weight loss treatments to colonize millions of new customers.
As evidence of the shifting goalposts, one only needs to examine a definition-changing study from 2025, vastly increasing our estimates of obese Americans by adding “anthropometric” measures such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and waist-to-height ratios, leading to estimates that up to 75.2% of US adults have obesity.
Gaining too much weight so that it impairs your health is overwhelmingly linked to diet, exercise, environment, poverty, and ultra-processed food, yet these behavioural, social, and environmental factors get eclipsed by the theory of the “chronic relapsing brain disease” requiring ‘medical, science-based’ cures.
Oprah, in her new book Enough asks that we “step back and look at obesity for what it really is.” Speaking with the certitude of a top-tier celebrity that obesity is not about willpower and burning more calories than you consume, it’s “a chronic medical condition rooted in the body’s own regulatory systems, which are responding to our current environment.”
There’s no irony when she calls this the “crucial shift—from blame and shame to science and treatment.”
As the sellers of sickness are so good at doing, they’ve taken a social/environmental and behavioural condition and turned it into a medical one, feeding an insatiable appetite for an expensive, ineffective, and ultimately deadly drug which stops working the moment you stop taking it.
This is disease-mongering at its peak, redirecting important energy that could make us all healthier, and pouring it into chemical treatments and creating a lifelong, expensive dependency.
The Ongoing Story of GLP-1 Inhibitors
The GLP-1 juggernaut—drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Mounjaro, Zepbound, Trulicity, Victoza, and Saxenda– have undoubtedly become a massive phenomenon.
Admittedly some portion of people consuming these drugs might find that the quality and length of their life has improved. Well-meaning clinicians—who are genuinely trying to help morbidly obese patients and diabetics who feel stuck—might use these drugs as a way to kickstart important lifestyle and behaviour changes. However, we know the drugs are part of an experiment whose ultimate outcome is unknown. Even Oprah can’t tell us how long or how healthy a person will become if they take GLP-1 Inhibitors for the “rest of their lives.” Only time will tell how well humans adapt to a widespread chemical alteration of their appetites.
History has not been kind to weight loss drugs: even a brief peek back into the last 30 years of drug treatment for weight-loss reveals an unmitigated story of disaster and failure.
As with any massive uptake of a new drug, already lawsuits are beginning to pile up, mostly centred on gastrointestinal effects such as gastroparesis. Drug labels warn of “fatal malnutrition” as well as vision loss and assorted psychiatric impacts. Fresh studies confirm rapid weight regain—and returning health risks—after stopping the drugs. Most people can’t tolerate the side effects of these drugs and stop them.
As of early 2026, the GLP-1 frenzy shows no signs of slowing—despite price negotiations, new oral formulations, and even WHO guidelines endorsing long-term use for obesity as a “disease.” Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly continue to dominate a market projected to hit $157 billion by 2035, with 2025 sales already topping tens of billions for Ozempic/Wegovy and Mounjaro/Zepbound.
Seven Deadly Sins
The world’s current fixation on GLP-1s is possibly the most egregious disease-mongering exercise humankind has yet seen, representing moral sin on a massive scale.
That made me think that the Seven Deadly Sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, are a useful lens to examine the phenomenon. They are “deadly” because they are believed to be the root causes of other sins and moral corruption. They include:
Pride (Vanity/Hubris): Probably the mother of all sins, pride is an excessive belief in one’s own abilities, qualities, or self-importance, without regard for others. Pharma and the experts in their employ are arrogantly rewriting medical reality—pushing obesity as an inevitable “chronic relapsing disease” driven by faulty hormones and genetics. The self-deception in downplaying the centrality of behavioural solutions to weight loss and positioning the GLP-1s as revolutionary miracles, is hubris at its height. Pride goes before the fall and in this case this “superior” biomedical fix eclipses and denounces humbler societal solutions.
Greed (Avarice/Covetousness): The amount of money in this class of drugs is truly mind-boggling because the size of the patient population is so large. One media commentator in Canada said that 50% of the population should be on a GLP-1. Given the grossly inflated prices of these products, the enormous revenue stream pouring in is being used to buy whatever is needed: the doctors, the media, the scientists, the pundits, the consumer advocates, and the governments and insurers who are being pushed relentlessly to pay for all this madness. The greed feeds an ecosystem for supporting and expanding markets beyond reason and common sense, silencing critics and monopolizing the narrative.
Wrath (Anger): Having followed drug safety controversies for decades and speaking to lawyers involved in GLP-1 lawsuits, I can feel the growing rumble of rage, and desire for revenge by those harmed. The class action lawsuits over the more obvious adverse effects such as stomach paralysis, vision loss, and psychiatric effects are gaining steam, but that is the tip of the iceberg. As more of the unknown unknowns come to light, manufacturers will trot out the usual plausible deniability arguments. Billions are being set aside to fight the inevitable lawsuits coming as mainstream and medical media are suppressing any criticism of the medicalization of obesity with that tired trope of “Science Denier” plastered on anyone questioning the wisdom of these drugs. Indeed: plenty of anger to go around.
Envy: The human proclivity to covet or desire what others have (traits, success, possessions) makes envy a key marketing tool, stoked by the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Elon Musk, and other so-called influencers. Those celebrities who flaunt their dramatic drug-induced transformations make the rest of the world envy their “Ozempic body,” and build resentment towards those who are blocking access to the drugs. All of this, of course, drives off-label use, black markets, and inequity where it seems that only the rich can access the “perfect” thinness. With the drugs soon to be available generically, and prices dropping dramatically, soon price alone will not be a barrier to anyone who’s envious enough.
Lust: An intense or unbridled desire for pleasure can extend to sex, power, or indulgence. Here, the lust is for instant gratification, the dominant quick-fix allure of most drug marketing, where effortless thinness can be found, apparently, without “deprivation.” What most people need is a body size that, for them, is healthy and sustainable. The Ozempic body is the opposite of that, rewarding lust for instant gratification over sustainable health. Still tempted? Google “Ozempic face” and read about a future of gaunt, aged facial appearance—featuring sunken cheeks, hollow eyes, sagging skin, and wrinkles. But don’t worry, the drug industry is good at producing drugs to treat the harms produced by the ones they’re also selling.
Gluttony: If you think gluttony has gotten us into this mess, and reversing it is the only way out, I don’t think that’s fully true. If we have a nation full of overweight people, then why do we persist with accepting a society engineered for inactivity? Most of us drive, sit, or lounge through our waking hours, consume cheap, nutrition-less, calorie-heavy food, and are otherwise unable to eat or exercise our way to a more appealing body shape. There isn’t a drug that’ll fix the underlying disease of living poorly.
Sloth (Acedia): This might be the ultimate lazy shortcut: why address root causes (food systems, activity, poverty, or cities not built for exercise) when a weekly shot bypasses that effort? The marketing preys on what we all seem to want and feeds off our aversion to hard work. Promoting drugs as the easy path while discouraging lifestyle changes as “insufficient,” is a type of societal sloth. We could do a lot better.
These sins aren’t accidental—they’re baked into a system that profits from myth-making and the hustle endures. Time to reject the seduction and demand real solutions. Retake your agency.
Let me leave you with a quote from psychologist Roger McFillin whose Radically Genuine podcast is packed with wisdom and whose understanding of the selling of disease is top notch. He writes mostly about mental health but these words below could apply to any disease.
Tell a man his fate is genetic, and you have accomplished something powerful. You have located the problem somewhere he cannot reach. You have removed his agency. You have made him dependent on a system that will manage his inevitable decline rather than addressing the factors actually killing him. You have created a customer.
Canadian Woman Euthanized ‘Against Her Will’ After Husband Reported ‘Caregiver Burnout’
A Canadian woman in her 80s was euthanized ‘against her will’ through Canada’s medical assistance in dying program (MAiD), after her elderly husband told doctors she had changed her mind despite telling an assessor she wanted to live, according to a report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner.
MAiD allows patients to request a painless death if an assessor agrees that they have a terminal condition which meets certain requirements. While most patients wait weeks for a decision, euthanasia can be performed as soon as the same-day if deemed medically urgent by a MAiD provider.
According to the report by the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee, concerns have been raised over questionable deaths.
In this case, the woman – referred to as “Mrs. B,” had complications after a coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a rapid decline, she opted for palliative care – and was sent home from the hospital for her husband to take care of her. As her condition worsened, the husband struggled to care for her despite visits by nurses.
After she allegedly expressed her desire for MAiD to her family, her husband called a referral service, the report reads. Yet, Mrs. B told the assessor she ‘wanted to withdraw her requests, citing personal and religious values and beliefs,” and instead wanted inpatient hospice care.
When her husband took her to the hospital the next morning, doctors deemed Mrs. B to be stable, but that her husband was “experiencing caregiver burnout.” A request by a doctor for in-patient hospice care due to her husband’s burnout was denied, after which her husband asked for a second assessor to weigh in, the Daily Mail reports.
After the second assessor judged her to be eligible for MAiD, the original assessor objected – expressing concerns over the alleged “urgency” of the request, and expressing the need for further evaluation. A request to meet with Mrs. B the next day was declined by the MAiD provider, as “the clinical circumstances necessitated an urgent provision.”
Then, a third MAiD assessor agreed with the second one, and Mrs. B was euthanized that evening.
According to the Coroner’s report, several members of a Review Committee “believed the short timeline did not allow all aspects of Mrs B’s social and end-of-life circumstances and care needs to be explored,” which included “the impact of being denied hospice care, additional care options, caregiver burden, consistency of the MAiD request, and divergent MAiD practitioner perspectives.”
“Many members brought forward concerns of possible external coercion arising from the caregiver’s experience of burnout and lack of access to palliative care in an in-patient or hospice setting,” the report notes.
Others raised concerns over the fact that Mrs. B’s spouse was the primary person advocating and advocating access to MAiD, and there was scant documentation that she actually asked for it herself.
Dr. Ramona Coelho, a family physician who’s on the committee, wrote a scathing review that was deeply critical of Mrs. B’s case, arguing that the focus should have been “on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs B and her spouse.”
“Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation.
“Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor’s and Mrs B’s concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse’s burnout,” her letter continues.
According to some, Canada has an assisted dying crisis. Asthe Epoch Times notes;
Canada’s current approach to assisted suicide, especially in cases involving mental illness, represents such a threshold. Recent federal data indicate that more than 16,000 assisted suicide cases are approved annually in Canada, with an increasing proportion involving individuals with mental health challenges. This trend highlights the urgent need for policy reassessment and underscores the critical importance of addressing this issue.
A New York-based Chinese dissident and political commentator has filed a lawsuit against X Corp., alleging the social media platform wrongfully suspended his account without explanation and may have acted under foreign political pressure.
Wilson Lei Chen, a U.S. citizen who is also known as Chen Pokong on his podcast, filed the suit in the New York State Supreme Court in December. On Jan. 5, the case was moved to federal court and is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Chen’s Jan. 12 press statement, which The Epoch Times viewed on Jan. 26.
According to Chen’s complaint, X permanently suspended the political commentator’s account on Feb. 15, 2023, without prior notice or a detailed explanation. Chen alleges that despite filing multiple appeals, he received only automated responses citing unspecified violations of platform rules.
Before the suspension, Chen’s account, active since 2010, had approximately 150,000 followers.
He used the platform to comment on Chinese politics, promote democratic values, and direct followers to his YouTube channel, which has more than 450,000 subscribers, the complaint states.
Chen claimed that X did not adhere to its own terms of service, which, according to him, mandate notice, an explanation, and a fair review process prior to any permanent enforcement action. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, deceptive business practices under New York law, and tortious interference with business relations.
The complaint also raises broader concerns about possible foreign political influence. Chen, a longtime critic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said that his suspension may have resulted from coordinated reporting campaigns or political pressure aimed at silencing overseas dissidents.
Chen said the suspension from X caused significant professional and financial harm, including lost audience engagement, reduced income, and damage to his reputation, according to his press statement. He is seeking reinstatement of his account, transparency of X’s moderation decision, and compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $2 million.
X Corp. has not publicly responded to the lawsuit.
The company did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.
Chen said the case raises broader public-interest concerns about potential external or foreign pressures that may affect how online platforms handle content moderation involving political speech, criticism of foreign governments, and transnational repression. Accordingly, he intends to pursue the matter through the courts.
Even The Biden Admin Investigated Ilhan Omar’s Shady Personal Finances
According to financial disclosures filed last year, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s net worth has surged in recent years. Omar reported that her husband held stakes valued between $6 million and $30 million in a venture capital firm and a winery. That sudden and dramatic increase in wealth has now drawn scrutiny. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) plans to open an investigation into how such a meteoric rise occurred so quickly, and she is also under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.
The existence of the federal probe became public after President Donald Trump mentioned it in a Truth Social post on Monday. Trump wrote, “the DOJ and Congress are looking at ‘Congresswoman’ Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars. Time will tell all.”
Omar dismissed Trump’s announcement in a post on X.
“Sorry, Trump, your support is collapsing and you’re panicking,” she wrote. “Right on cue, you’re deflecting from your failures with lies and conspiracy theories about me. Years of ‘investigations’ have found nothing. Get your goons out of Minnesota.”
Others are accusing Trump of weaponizing the Justice Department against his political enemies.
“The Justice Department’s ‘investigation’ of Representative Omar, a longtime critic of President Trump, looks suspiciously like a continuation of Trump’s revenge campaign against Minnesota’s elected officials and anyone else who disagrees with him,” claimed Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America.
However, Omar’s shady personal finances even caught the attention of the Biden Justice Department back in 2024.
According to a New York Times report, federal prosecutors launched an investigation into Omar that scrutinized her personal finances, campaign spending, and contacts with a foreign national.
The investigation began in June 2024, with federal prosecutors working alongside the Justice Department’s public integrity unit. Investigators examined Omar’s financial disclosures, campaign records, and other relevant documents. The inquiry reportedly slowed after agents said they found no evidence that required further action. There are fresh doubts about that explanation, as Omar’s disclosures show a sudden rise in high-value assets connected to her husband’s business ventures, raising new questions about their legitimacy. Most of the reported wealth comes from two sources: a winery in Santa Rosa, California, and a venture capital firm in Washington, D.C.
The winery, listed as eStCru LLC, jumped in reported value from $15,000–$50,000 in 2023 to $1 million-$5 million the following year. Rose Lake Capital showed an even more dramatic spike. The firm went from having just $42.44 in its account in late 2022 to a reported value of up to $25 million by 2024, according to Omar’s financial disclosure.
Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, co-founded Rose Lake Capital in 2022 with Will Hailer as part of a network of companies he controls. The sharp increase in money and lack of a public track record raised suspicions among associates, who alerted federal investigators.
This is not the first time Omar’s shady finances have come under scrutiny.
Omar has previously faced multiple allegations related to her finances and campaign funds. A2019 investigation by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board examined complaints that she used nearly $6,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses, including payments to her divorce attorney and travel, and was ordered to reimburse her campaign. That same year, Minnesota campaign finance officials found that Omar filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Hirsi while she was still legally married to another man.
House Oversight Chair James Comer told the New York Post he plans to launch an investigation into what caused the dramatic spike in Omar’s net worth.
“We’re going to get answers, whether it’s through the Ethics Committee or the Oversight Committee, one of the two,” Comer said.
“There are a lot of questions as to how her husband accumulated so much wealth over the past two years,” Comer added. “It’s not possible. It’s not. I’m a money guy. It’s not possible.”
A law enforcement source alsoconfirmed the criminal investigation.
“We are investigating all politicians potentially connected to any of this [fraud] in Minnesota. You can read between the lines,” the source said.
