It seems we were right when we interpreted incoming Treasury Secretary Bessent’s comments last week…

This morning, with a few short hours until Trump’s swearing in, The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump is planning to issue a broad memorandum Monday that directs federal agencies to study trade policies and evaluate U.S. trade relationships with China and America’s continental neighbors – but stops short of imposing new tariffs on his first day in office, as many trading partners feared.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed a summary of the memo and spoke to Trump’s advisers about it.

A senior Trump policy adviser described the memo as an effort to lay out a vision for Trump’s trade agenda “in a measured way,” suggesting that the incoming president is, at least for now, taking a more deliberative approach to the issue that animated his political campaign.

The memo provides a blueprint for further executive action that Trump may take on trade, the adviser said.

The immediate reaction was a collapse in the dollar…

And a spike higher in S&P futs…

Additionally, the memo directs economic agencies to focus on a few specific trade themes, such as reducing persistent trade deficits – countries that consistently export more to the U.S. than they import from it. And it directs a focus on currency manipulation, which Trump singled out China and Vietnam for during his first term, as well as combating counterfeit products.

Finally, the memo asks agencies to evaluate the feasibility of an “External Revenue Service” – a new federal agency Trump has floated to collect tariff revenue. Exactly how that agency would differ from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which has held that responsibility for decades, hasn’t been spelled out.

President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to unleash a flurry of executive orders later this afternoon, reportedly numbering around 200, to reignite his ‘America First’ agenda. On the energy front, Trump is expected to declare a national energy emergency to ramp up domestic crude oil and natural gas production to reduce power bill costs for all Americans. 

Later this afternoon, hours after Trump is sworn in, his administration will immediately get to work by declaring a “national energy emergency.” According to Bloomberg, citing numerous sources, Trump plans to unleash new oil and gas development on federal lands while reversing the Biden-Harris administration’s de-growth climate regulations. 

“While many of the executive actions will simply kick off a lengthy regulatory process, they’re set to touch the full spectrum of the US energy industry, from oil fields to car dealerships,” Bloomberg noted, adding, “They also underscore Trump’s determination to reorient federal government policy behind oil and gas production, a sharp pivot from Biden’s efforts to curb fossil fuels.” 

Sources familiar with the orders did not specify how many emergency energy orders the incoming administration would issue later this afternoon. The move underscores Trump’s commitment to campaign promises, including reducing household energy costs. 

In a separate report, an incoming White House energy adviser told Axios that energy executive actions will create “conditions that facilitate investment, that facilitate job creation, that facilitate the production of America’s natural resources, and the result will be lower prices for the American people.” 

“National security is a key issue here,” the adviser said, adding, “Energy is fundamental to our foreign policy, and reducing American energy production curtails our ability to exercise our foreign policies.”

At the Capital One Arena on Sunday, Trump told thousands in the audience, “We’re going to be using our emergency powers to allow countries and entrepreneurs and people with a lot of money build big plants, AI plants.” 

He continued, “We need double the energy that we already have, and it’s going to end up being more than that.”

One of the emergency orders focuses on boosting electricity generation across the nation’s fragile grid amid soaring load growth forecasts through the end of the decade because of the surge in new AI data centers coming online. 

In “The Next AI Trade,” we shared with readers all the drivers of electricity demand growth (including how to profit from this trend) and explained that it’s much more than just AI. 

The incoming energy advisor continued: “We’re in an AI race with the People’s Republic of China and other nations.” 

“It’s fundamental that we’re able to produce the necessary electricity here in the United States so that we can win that race and protect our nation,” the advisor added. 

Axios highlighted that Trump is focused on expediting the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure, including pipelines. The incoming admin is also expected to roll back a slew of Biden-era ‘green’ policies: 

• A major slowdown of oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and new bans in other coastal waters.

• EPA greenhouse gas regulations on power plants, vehicles, and oil and gas infrastructure.

• A “pause” on new LNG export licenses to major markets.

• Restrictions on oil, gas and mineral projects in Alaska.

The big picture is that Trump’s imminent energy executive orders will reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s radical de-growth climate policies. These policies have been criticized for stifling US economic growth and stoking inflation while China ascends unabated.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accusing Walgreens Boots Alliance, Walgreen Co., and subsidiaries of illegally dispensing millions of opioid and other controlled substance prescriptions.

The suit, announced on Jan. 17, alleges the pharmacy chain violated the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by knowingly filling prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose and also violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by seeking reimbursement from federal health care programs for those prescriptions.

“This lawsuit seeks to hold Walgreens accountable for the many years that it failed to meet its obligations when dispensing dangerous opioids and other drugs,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton said in a press release. “Our complaint alleges that Walgreens pharmacists filled millions of controlled substance prescriptions with clear red flags that indicated the prescriptions were highly likely to be unlawful, and that Walgreens systematically pressured its pharmacists to fill prescriptions, including controlled substance prescriptions, without taking the time needed to confirm their validity. These practices allowed millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances to flow illegally out of Walgreens stores.”

According to the complaint, the violations began around August 2012 and continued through the present, with millions of prescriptions allegedly written for opioids and other controlled substances that lacked a valid medical purpose.

The complaint further alleges that Walgreens pharmacists often faced corporate pressure to fill prescriptions quickly, limiting the time needed to verify their legitimacy. The filing contends that these practices contributed to the opioid crisis and, in particularly tragic instances, resulted in patient overdoses and fatalities.

If Walgreens is found liable, it could face civil penalties of up to $80,850 per unlawful prescription under the CSA, along with treble damages for each prescription billed to federal programs in violation of the FCA.

Treble damages are a legal remedy whereby a plaintiff is awarded three times the amount of actual damages and are often used when the defendant’s alleged actions were particularly egregious, according to Cornell Law School.

Multiple U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country are involved in this case, citing concern over the ongoing opioid epidemic. The complaint also highlights four whistleblowers who brought allegations against Walgreens under FCA provisions, which allow private parties to sue on the government’s behalf.

In a statement emailed to The Epoch Times, a Walgreens spokesperson said: “We are asking the court to clarify the responsibilities of pharmacies and pharmacists and to protect against the government’s attempt to enforce arbitrary ‘rules’ that do not appear in any law or regulation and never went through any official rulemaking process. We will not stand by and allow the government to put our pharmacists in a no-win situation, trying to comply with ‘rules’ that simply do not exist.”

The spokesperson said that the company stands behind its pharmacists and dedicated health care professionals who live in the same communities it serves.

“Walgreens has long been a leader in providing education and resources, as well as implementing best-in-class policies and procedures, to help combat opioid misuse and abuse,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to the opportunity to defend the professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists.”

The government’s complaint follows other enforcement actions against major pharmacy chains alleging similar misconduct. An ongoing suit against Walmart was filed in 2020 while another suit against CVS was filed last month.

The DOJ maintains that the enforcement of both the CSA and FCA is essential to safeguard public health and protect taxpayer-funded programs from abuse.

US equity futures are steady as traders await President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration and his first-day policy actions.
Futures contracts on the Nasdaq 100 and Nasdaq flirted with unchanged, but spiked shortly after 8:30 following a WSJ report that Trump will “Lay Out Trade Vision but Won’t Impose New Tariffs Yet”, which as a reminder we said is the most likely outcome in light of Scott Bessent’s last letter to investors.  The cash market is closed on Monday, which means cash bond are also closed.

The dollar meanwhile dropped sharply after the WSJ report that no new tariffs would be immediately announced.

On Sunday, Trump reiterated his plans for a slew of executive actions on his first day in office. He has pledged to delay enforcement of a ban on TikTok, while seeking to boost domestic energy output by invoking emergency powers, Bloomberg News reported.

But investors are also concerned that potential tariffs and trade tensions could derail US growth while pushing up price levels. There are also worries about how any actions on immigration may affect a jobs market that has so far continued to show resilience. Trade negotiations “will keep uncertainty elevated throughout 2025,” said Evercore ISI strategist Julian Emanuel. “Higher volatility is our base case in economic, geopolitical relationships and asset markets.”

Trump’s election victory in November sparked an immediate rally in US stocks as investors bet that potential deregulation and tax cuts could buoy corporate profits. But that advance has since stalled, as traders tempered expectations of the Federal Reserve’s rate reductions. Bond yields have risen, pressuring equity valuations while reflecting persistent worries over inflation.

Concerns over US-China tensions dwindled after Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a call on Friday, discussing issues including trade, TikTok and fentanyl. Asian equities advanced on Monday, following a Friday rally in the Nasdaq Golden Dragon China Index. The S&P 500 rose 2.9% last week, its best week since the election.

In Europe, the Stoxx 600 is little changed as gains in bank shares are offset by losses in utilities and real estate. Here are some of the biggest movers on Monday:

• Fagron shares rise as much as 8.4%, the most since October 2023, after the supplier of pharmaceutical materials and equipment was upgraded to buy from hold at both ING and Kepler Cheuvreux
• Belimo shares gain as much as 3.7%, the most in over a month, after the Swiss manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment reported full year sales that beat estimates
• Judges Scientific shares rise as much as 2.6%, after ending last week at their lowest level since October 2022, with Jefferies analysts saying its latest update should provide some comfort following the recent weakness in the share price
• Pepco shares gain 3.8% after Sky News reported it hired advisers to address a sales slump at Poundland, its British discount retailer
• National Grid shares advance as much as 1.9% after Citi upgrades the utilities company to buy from neutral, noting that political and regulatory support is still robust heading into the RIIO-3 price control period
• Telefonica shares slip as much as 4.3% after the company appointed a new chairman over the weekend following the ejection of Jose Maria Alvarez-Pallete by the Spanish government
• PostNL shares drop as much as 7.1%, hitting their lowest level since March 2020, after the parcel and mail delivery company warned earnings will be lower than previously expected.
• Strabag shares drop as much as 2.5%, most in a month, after the Austrian contstruction company announced late Friday the death of its CEO Klemens Haselsteiner

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index tumbled amid thin liquidity conditions after this WSJ headline hit:

• *TRUMP WON’T IMPOSE NEW TARIFFS YET, WSJ CITES MEMO AS SAYING

The euro is the best performing G-10 currency, rising 0.5% against the greenback. The pound rises 0.2%.

Cash treasuries are closed, but Bunds are steady, with German 10-year yields flat at 2.54%. Gilts underperform, pushing UK 10-year borrowing costs higher by 3 bps to 4.69%.

Bitcoin is up ~5% ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration having spiked earlier in the session to a fresh record high above $109,000. The incoming US president’s debut of his own digital token had rattled crypto markets over the weekend.

In commodities, oil prices decline amid a report that Trump is poised to invoke emergency powers as part of his plan to unleash domestic energy production. Brent crude futures fall 0.5% to $80.40 a barrel. Spot gold rises $6 to $2,709/oz.

Just as many suspected would happen…

And there it is

*PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN TO PARDON ANTHONY FAUCI https://t.co/5bsfRZC9ze

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 20, 2025

…in these flailing hours of Biden’s presidency, he has issued a large-scale pre-emptive pardon for his various NeverTrump henchmen (and henchwomen) that have done his (or his puppet master’s) bidding for the past four years.

As AP reports, it’s customary for a president to grant clemency at the end of his term, but those acts of mercy are usually offered to everyday Americans who have been convicted of crimes.

But Biden has used the power in the broadest and most untested way possible: to pardon those who have not even been investigated yet.

And with the acceptance comes a tacit admission of guilt or wrongdoing, even though those who have been pardoned have not been formally accused of any crimes.

Here is the full statement (emphasis ours)…

Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day. They are the lifeblood of our democracy.

Yet alarmingly, public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties.

In certain cases, some have even been threatened with criminal prosecutions, including General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, and the members and staff of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions.

General Milley served our nation for more than 40 years, serving in multiple command and leadership posts and deploying to some of the most dangerous parts of the world to protect and defend democracy. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he guided our Armed Forces through complex global security threats and strengthened our existing alliances while forging new ones.

For more than half a century. Dr. Fauci served our country. He saved countless lives by managing the government’s response to pressing health crises, including HIV/AIDS, as well as the Ebola and Zika viruses. During his tenure as my Chief Medical Advisor, he helped the country tackle a once-in-a-century pandemic. The United States is safer and healthier because of him.

On January 6, 2021, American democracy was tested when a mob of insurrectionists attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a fair and free election by force and violence. In light of the significance of that day. Congress established the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes of the insurrection. The Select Committee fulfilled this mission with integrity and a commitment to discovering the truth. Rather than accept accountability, those who perpetrated the January 6th attack have taken every opportunity to undermine and intimidate those who participated in the Select Committee in an attempt to rewrite history, erase the stain of January 6th for partisan gain, and seek revenge, including by threatening criminal prosecutions.

I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee.

The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.

Finally, it is ironic that all these anti-Trump establishment types would be pre-emptively pardoned on the day of Trump’s greatest victory.

Milley was relieved:

“After forty-three years of faithful service in uniform to our nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights,” Milley said.

“I do not want to put my family, my friends, and those with whom I served through the resulting distraction, expense, and anxiety.”

Biden pardoned Milley.

Never forget that Milley communicated with China behind the sitting president’s back and told them he would give them a heads-up if the U.S. ever launched an attack. pic.twitter.com/gnhGYo3QC6

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) January 20, 2025

While most will be breathing a sigh of relief, it will be interesting to see what Kinzinger does.

“As soon as you take a pardon, it looks like you are guilty of something,” former Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois who served on the Jan. 6 committee along with Ms. Cheney, said on CNN this month.

“I am guilty of nothing besides bringing the truth to the American people and, in the process, embarrassing Donald Trump. Because for 187 minutes, he sat there and did absolutely nothing and showed how weak and scared he truly was,” he added, referring to the former president’s inaction during the attack on Jan. 6.

“So no, I don’t want it,” he said of the pardon.

🚨Now-pardoned Adam Kinzinger said he didn’t want one two weeks ago:

“The second you take a pardon, it looks like you’re guilty of something.”pic.twitter.com/LVqqD7vAnZ

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 20, 2025

And then there’s Adam Schiff:

“It would be the wrong precedent to set,” Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who led the prosecution during Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, said on CNN this month.

“I don’t want to see each president hereafter on their way out the door giving a broad category of pardons to members of their administration.”

We’ll see!

Condemnation of the move began to pour in almost immediately. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., blasted Biden’s legacy minutes after the order dropped.

“The guy who claimed he would ‘protect norms’ continues to bulldoze them and the Constitution until the bitter end. Biden truly is one of the worst Presidents in American history and will only be remembered as the guy between Trump’s two terms,” Schmitt wrote on X.

“No one is above the law”…Joe Biden

— jim iuorio (@jimiuorio) January 20, 2025

Polymarket traders had called this one…

How do we feel about this?

The Nazis were “just following orders” and so were Biden’s criminal henchmen, all of whom just got pardoned.

Biden: “alarmingly our public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties… and I cannot in good conscience… https://t.co/nCpKl56D1d

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 20, 2025

Biden has set the presidential record for most individual pardons and commutations issued; he announced on Friday he would commuting the sentences of almost 2,500 people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. He previously announced he was commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row.

Authored by Conor Gallagher via NakedCapitalism.com,

Outgoing President Joe Biden used his farewell speech to offer warnings about an American oligarchy taking over the country. He spent about half a century in public office serving the oligarchs and helping them tighten control over the country, but he’s not wrong (aside from his choice of verb tense).

Despite a lot of hope about Trump reorienting American foreign policy to better reflect the country’s strategic interests, there are two questions that are rarely addressed in these pieces:

1. Is Trump going to take on this entrenched American oligarchy? All evidence points to a resounding ‘no.’

2. If not, the only interests that matter are those of the oligarchy, and what does it want? Everything.

Until proven otherwise, it’s probably best to view America’s “democratic” transitions of power not as a potential change in underlying strategy but as a useful spectacle that allows for a rebrand.

What does this mean for Europe? There’s a strong argument that it would be in the US national interest to back out of Europe. And the best thing that could happen to Europe would be a Trump-led US withdrawal from the continent, which would force the EU to rethink some of its economic and security policies.

What we are likely witnessing instead is the elevation of putative nationalists like Italian Prime Minister Girogia Meloni and the Alternative for Germany (Afd) party who are able to rebrand Europe’s vassalage and neoliberalism as some sort of victory against the grating virtue signalling of the Davos cabal while continuing to assist the US oligarchs in the plundering of Europe. In a worst case scenario we are likely to see even more authoritarianism in order to continue to transfer wealth from Europeans to US oligarchs.

Europe is now awash with ideas of how to “woo” Trump which is really about appeasing American oligarchy: buy more weapons, buy more LNG and oil, get tougher with China, and Meloni has set an example of selling off Italian assets to US capital.

Why Would Trump Walk Away from a Successful Bust Out Operation? 

The problem with believing that Project Ukraine and the accompanying subjugation of Europe is simply the product of some liberal-woke-Green-DEI cabal that had power across the West is that it ignores the deep-seated economic interests of American plutocrats seeking to extract wealth from any part of the world they control. That’s what the permanent state, driven by the US’ numerous buzzing plutocrat-funded think tank hives crafting bills and direct foreign policy — essentially acting as a shadow government. In some cases, the oligarchs are increasingly comfortable cutting out the middle man, as Musk shows.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but while Trump may pursue some modicum of peace in the empire’s numerous conflicts, a redistribution of wealth from the top down is not on tap, and at best there will be a shift in tactics on how to extract wealth from the rest of the world. Gains are to be increased for American plutocrats at the expense of allies and “enemies” alike seems closer to the real meaning of “America First.”

When viewed through the more traditional state strategy lens, that permanent state is often accused of suffering from a competency crisis due to its oversight of an endless parade of failures, but if you view the US as more of a gangster state focused on the short-term return for the bosses/oligarchs, well, they might be more competent than they seem. It also means the overarching strategy is unlikely to change while the oligarchs are running the show.

With that in mind, despite Ukraine’s impending defeat on the battlefield, are the US gangsters going to want to lose the gains of splitting Europe from Russia? What about the bonuses of having a terrorist state in Europe funneling arms elsewhere and willing to do dirty work like trying to blow up the TurkStream Pipeline — which if successful would benefit American energy companies. And in any detente with Russia, will American oligarchs have any interest in abandoning small progress in the Caucasus and Caspian where they are trying to control the flow of resources toward Europe from that direction as well?

In Europe there is no evidence that the old guard or the new faux nationalist political parties arriving on the scene are prepared to take on the US empire. Indeed, even the Alternative for Germany party, which has long been brutally honest about Berlin being a “slave” to the US, just last week adopted a motion to build closer relations between the two countries. That followed the party receiving some love from Elon Musk and incoming Vice President JD Vance. So is the party now willing to accept its servitude because the new slave master is more friendly or does it expect Trump to set Germany free? It’s likely to be disappointed in either case.

Even if the US extricates itself from Ukraine while ensuring that a new iron curtain is drawn between Europe and Russia, that might mean good business for US oligarchs, but also that Europe’s problems will only multiply. Here’s the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) highlighting some of what Europe could be expected to do to remain in Trump’s/the American oligarchs’ good graces:

Europe can propose creative policies – in Trumpian terms, ‘smart deals’ – to cement these shared interests and secure both itself and Ukraine. One is to coordinate the seizure of US$300 billion of Russian central-bank assets frozen in G7 financial systems, and use part of this to buy American weapons for Ukraine. This would boost both Europe’s security and America’s economy…

Yes, we can’t forget: will the Trump administration pass on the NATO racket of getting member states to pony up Trump’s target of 5 percent of GDP to buy (mostly) American-made weapons?

It’s much more than most European nations can afford financially or politically and will likely require more authoritarian measures to funnel that money out of the country. Are the European members of Trump International going to say no to military expenditures that will cripple what remains of social programs in their countries? Or is it more likely they will privatize in the name of cost-cutting and organize fire sales for American takeovers? NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is already asking European citizens to continue making “sacrifices” in order to buy more weapons. European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and others are supportive. And Lithuania just became the first EU and NATO country to pledge to meet the 5 percent target starting in 2026.

No matter that all the Western wonder weapons failed in Ukraine, the purchases must go on in the name of defense against the Russian horde.

Where else can Europeans sacrifice more? They must take a tougher line against China, as IISS again points out:

If Russia is America’s problem as well as Europe’s, it follows that China is Europe’s problem as well as America’s. The July 2024 NATO Summit labelled China the ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Europe must therefore integrate economics and security into its China policy more effectively. This is overdue for Europe’s own security, but will also assuage US concerns about Europe’s commercial interests in Beijing.

Incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio is a big time believer in such demands:

We need to find out if @EmmanuelMacron speaks for Europe

After his 6 hour meeting in China he told reporters that Europe should create distance with the U.S. & should not get involved in supporting America over China when it comes to Taiwanhttps://t.co/xoFmUGkumH pic.twitter.com/Ps718bXSyn

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 9, 2023

And there’s the issue of enriching American energy companies. Again from IISS:

America, for its part, could also replace Europe’s imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), now at a record high, with American LNG supplies. With Trump expected to lift the Biden administration’s ban on new LNG export terminals, this would create synergies of security and prosperity. Going further, Europe could also encourage the US to sell it more oil.

Trump has been clear about this:

European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who at least is self aware enough to know who she really serves, was quick to come out with suggestions to do just that following Trump’s election. And all her “tools” will continue to be useful if used in service of a more Trump-aligned EU. She has the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to make business with certain countries more unattractive while simultaneously making US — especially energy — exports more appealing. Ursula also has the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, International Procurement Instrument, an Anti-Coercion Instrument, and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act at her disposal to use in service of the US empire against whomever it requires. As the IISS and Rubio highlight above, following the successful severance of Europe from Russia the next target is Beijing, and Ursula has increasingly used her tools to, as she calls it, “derisk” from China.

Civizational Europe

The EU’s genocide-supporting, anti-free-speech, war-with-russia “center” has been embracing the right kind of “right” for some time. As we highlighted last week, Elon Musk and AfD co-chair Alice Weidel’s X history lesson equating communism with Nazism was right in line with the “rules-based international order’s” longtime efforts to rehabilitate fascists, blame the Russians for WWII, and rewrite history in Ukraine, other former Soviet states, and increasingly in the West itself.

Weidel and Musk also propagated the false claim that Hitler was in fact a communist in a bid to portray privatizations — and presumably sell-offs of European assets to Musk’s billionaire friends — as anti-Hitlerian. Weidel, of all people should know, should know Hitler wasn’t a communist. If he was, one would think that the seed money the AfD received from a reclusive billionaire descendant of prominent Nazis wouldn’t have been availabel as it would have long ago been redistributed by Adolf instead.

This all of course fits in perfectly with a neoliberal EU that has effectively accommodated the right by eliminating effective working-class opposition. That process could now be openly expedited in order to appease the increasing demands of American and European oligarchs who have seen their dream of plundering Russia and Ukraine’s natural resources thwarted.

Perhaps Europe will now lose the pretense of sovereignty and along with it the green veneer and superior-values schtick and embrace what it champions in the former USSR states and has ushered to the altar in the bloc. Researcher Jonas Elvander,, the editor of foreign affairs at the Swedish socialist magazine Flamman and a PhD researcher in history at the European University Institute in Florence, makes the case this is indeed what is happening:

So far, the far right have mostly been sceptical of the EU, but there are no guarantees it will remain so….Since many far-right parties have emerged out of the neoliberal movement, while others are increasingly ready to adopt neoliberal policies in a bargain for power with the centre right, there is little that stops the EU from becoming a vehicle for far-right policies. In many ways we are already seeing the beginnings of such a development today…

The road had already been paved by the Commission’s adoption of a hardline approach to migration and the new Commission portfolio tasked with guarding the “European way of life.”

So it’s more of the same, but with new branding:

“Santa Giorgia” street art in Milan. Source: https://twitter.com/PalomboArtist

One obvious benefit of a marketing rethink from Davos liberalism to a faux nationalism is that it’s challenging to sell and inspire many people to fight for neoliberalism. In the US, the bourgeoisie might fly a Ukrainian flag above their “in this house we believe” yard signs, but they’re not prepared to fight. Nationalism,  religion, and defense of a common European heritage are more useful tools in what’s being pitched as a civilizational battle to come.

And that’s a scary place for Europe — or more accurately working class Europeans — to be.

A recent Washington Post op-ed asked whether Europe will soon be dominated by US corporations in the same way that “the United Fruit Co. once subjugated Honduras.”

That assumes it’s not already at the complete mercy of American billionaires — a presumption that Musk’s recent toying with the continent’s politics likely disproves.  And while today Musk is purportedly after a fair shake for the AfD, justice in the UK, and helping friends in Italy, who’s to say what his underlying economic interests are or what’s being cooked up by his friends in the bowels of the Blob? Maybe tomorrow Musk and Trump decide they’d like to support Europe against Russia the same way the US has been supporting Ukraine. Or maybe they wait a few years until after they’ve bled the cash cow dry.

There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. And despite the UN granting membership by recognizing sovereignty, not all nations recognize each other individually.

This chart by Visual Capitalist’s creator Julie Peasley, breaks down the complex geopolitics at play. To read it: follow the arrow from one country to the other UN member that they do not recognize.

The creator chose to limit this visualization to UN member states only and not include:

• Observer states (i.e. Palestine)
• Partially recognized states (i.e. Kosovo, Cook Islands, Niue)
• Countries not recognized by the UN (i.e. Taiwan, Western Sahara)

The Murky Waters of International Relations

A brief glance at the chart shows two countries drawing the most diplomatic ire: China and Israel.

Briefly speaking, many Pacific and Atlantic islands do not recognize China, and most of the Muslim world doesn’t recognise Israel.

Source: Wikipedia.

The China bloc is explained by Beijing’s stance: no state can recognize both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) at the same time.

As a result, all the countries here who don’t recognize China, currently see Taiwan as a sovereign country.

Finally, animosity around Israel’s recognition stems from the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Most Arab nations opposed the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine and invaded Israel, leading to the 1948 war.

At various times, different Arab countries have spoken in favor of normalizing relations, on the condition that Israel withdraw from Palestinian territories.

Julie Peasley is a prolific creator, and placed as runner-up in Voronoi’s Visual of the Year 2024. If you like big visualizations that can be dived into, check out: Political Leaning in the U.S. by Occupation.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The UK and Ukraine clinched a 100-year partnership pact on Thursday in a development that’s supposed to highlight their enduring commitment to one another, but it’s really just a public relations stunt since the document only rehashes what was previously agreed upon a year ago. The UK extended so-called “security guarantees” to Ukraine on 12 January 2024, which covered everything contained in their latest pact, with the notable exception being that the latter talks about “exploring options” for “military bases”.

While RT importantly drew attention to this, the UK never made a secret about its plans to move in that direction, but the century-long timeframe means that it might not happen in anyone’s lifetime, if at all. This declaration of intent was seemingly timed to coincide with Trump’s return to office since it correspondingly serves morale-boosting purposes among Western and Ukrainian anti-Russian hawks amidst his team’s signals that the US will at least partially disengage from that country moving forward.

Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared during his Senate confirmation hearing the day prior on Wednesday that “This war must end. Everyone should be realistic: Russia, Ukraine, and the US will have to make concessions.” The writing was already on the wall long before that, however, so no one should be surprised. This reinforces the claim that the UK’s 100-year partnership pact with Ukraine, the intent of which was hitherto unknown till this week, is just a superficial response to Trump.

To be sure, some part of their “security guarantees” will probably enter into force, such as more joint arms production. The establishment of a British base in Ukraine is unlikely anytime soon though since it’s unthinkable that Trump would agree to have the US defend the UK per Article 5 if its troops there come under attack by Russia. After all, he wants to partially disengage from Ukraine so as to “Pivot (back) to Asia”, but the aforesaid scenario is a Damocles’ sword preventing that from ever occurring in full.

The British aren’t expected to build such a base without American reassurance that it’ll have their back in that event, but even if they did, it’s almost certain that the US would coerce the UK to back down should London decide to provoke a Cuban-like nuclear brinksmanship scenario if its forces are attacked. That associated clause in their 100-year partnership pact about “exploring” this “option” is therefore the embodiment of this public relations spectacle that might even be forgotten by as early as next week.

In terms of the bigger picture, the UK definitely wants to play a long-term and highly strategic role in Ukraine, but the extent to which it can execute its lofty plans as contained in last January’s “security guarantee” pact and their latest rehash last week largely depends on the US as explained. So long as it successfully disengages from Ukraine at least in part and doesn’t allow for Article 5 to be activated for foreign troops in Ukraine who come under attack from Russia, then these ambitions will be contained.

This observation goes to show just how much the US determines the military-strategic dynamics in post-conflict Ukraine. By behaving responsibly in compromising with Russia, especially if some of the dozen ideas that were proposed at the end of this article here are implemented or at least this proposal here for a demilitarized Trans-Dnieper region, the US can greatly reduce the risk of another war breaking out. The UK wants to further divide-and-rule Europe, but it’ll struggle to succeed if the US isn’t on board.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who is stepping down from his role at the helm of the agency, has penned a public farewell message in which he delivers a stark assessment of the dangers facing America, while identifying hostile actions by the Chinese regime as “the defining threat of our generation.”

Reflecting on his more than seven years leading the FBI, he wrote in a Jan. 18 op-ed published by Fox News that the threats facing the country are more severe than at any time in his career—and warned they’re about to get worse.

“From where I sit, these threats are more dangerous and complex than at any time I can recall since I began my career in law enforcement almost 30 years ago,” he wrote.

“Looking ahead, the challenges to our security will grow even more daunting, and our margin for error will continue to shrink.”

Adversaries—including cartels, gangs, hackers, hostile nations, and terrorists—are now more resourceful and technologically advanced than ever, Wray warned. Cyberattacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, encrypted apps enable secret terrorist plotting, and cartels exploit global supply chains to produce highly potent drugs that are trafficked across the border and threaten the lives of millions of Americans, he noted.

Terrorism threats are escalating, with foreign and domestic actors inspired by events such as the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2024, Wray said, adding bad actors are mobilizing quickly and making detection increasingly difficult.

Foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran are targeting Americans by stealing personal data, conducting cyberattacks on key infrastructure, exploiting businesses, and even exporting repression to U.S. shores.

“The Chinese government, in particular, has engineered an unprecedented effort to gut American innovation, steal our most precious personal data, and meddle in our free and open society. History will mark this as the defining threat of our generation,” Wray wrote.

Wray urged the the United States to prioritize unity and vigilance, warning that the margin for error in combating these threats is shrinking rapidly.

“From my seat, I see serious grown-up threats that demand serious grown-up attention,” he warned.

The outgoing director also praised the actions the FBI has taken in recent years to make the country safer and more secure. He said the agency and its partners have made significant strides in recent years, arresting nearly 50 violent criminals daily, rescuing hundreds of children, and imprisoning numerous predators. They have dismantled gangs, seized enough fentanyl to kill tens of millions of Americans, and prevented cybercriminals from extorting nearly $800 million from potential victims, he said.

The agency has also thwarted numerous terrorist attacks, including plots against places of worship, public events, and communities nationwide, Wray said. He expressed immense pride in the efforts and sacrifices of the FBI’s rank-and-file but warned them against being complacent or distracted by politics.

“Our focus must be on the threats and our work, rather than on what divides us,” he wrote. “We must continue to tackle the dangers facing our country with objectivity, rigor, and professionalism. It’s what the American people expect and deserve.”

Wray’s farewell op-ed was published just days before he steps down as FBI director. He announced his resignation in December.

Wray explained recently that he resigned because President-elect Donald Trump wants a change of leadership at the FBI.

“The president-elect had made clear that he intended to make a change and the law is that that is something he’s able to do for any reason or no reason at all,” Wray said in a CBS interview.

Trump has nominated Kash Patel to head the agency. Calling him a “brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American people,” Trump expressed confidence that the FBI under Patel’s leadership.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 agreed to hear a request from a group of Maryland parents to opt their young children out of having storybooks that promote LGBT lifestyles read to them.

The court granted the petition in Mahmoud v. Taylor in an unsigned order. No justices dissented, and the court did not explain its decision.

The petition was filed on Sept. 12, 2024, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit turned away the parents’ request for an injunction to halt the Montgomery County Board of Education’s policy of promoting the books.

The case goes back to November 2022, when the board mandated new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for elementary school students that promote gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex romance between young children.

The board instructed employees responsible for selecting the books to use an “LGBTQ+ Lens” and to question whether “cisnormativity,” “stereotypes,” and “power hierarchies” are “reinforced or disrupted,” the petition said.

Parents were initially told they could opt out on behalf of their children when the storybooks were read, according to the petition. The board changed its policy in March 2023. Beginning with the 2023–2024 academic year, the opt-out policy would no longer be in effect.

“If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to homeschool,” the petition said.

Hundreds of parents, largely Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims, showed up at board meetings and testified that their respective religions required that young children not be exposed to instruction on gender and sexuality that was inconsistent with their religion.

After “parents emphasized how impressionable young children are and how they lack independent judgment to process such complex and sensitive issues,” the board members accused parents of promoting “hate” and likened them to “white supremacists” and “xenophobes,” according to the petition.

The parents sued after the board declined to accommodate them, arguing that they had a constitutional right to opt out of such instruction.

On Aug. 24, 2023, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman denied the parents’ application for an injunction to block the cancellation of the opt-out policy.

A divided Fourth Circuit panel upheld the ruling on May 15, 2024, holding that the parents had failed to demonstrate that an injunction was justified. The panel added that it took no view as to whether the parents would be able to produce enough evidence later in the proceeding to succeed in their case.

The panel also found that there was no evidence that the policy change burdened the parents’ right to free exercise of religion.

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the parents, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case.

“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on 3-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency.

“The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” he said in a statement.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will hear the case.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the attorney for the Montgomery County Board of Education, Alan Schoenfeld of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr in New York City. No reply was received by publication time.