Venezuela’s long-awaited oil revival has been slower than many in Washington anticipated., according to the Wall Street Journal.

Seven months after Nicolás Maduro’s removal, negotiations between the interim government and major U.S. energy companies remain bogged down, with no landmark investment deals despite the country’s vast crude reserves.

Rather than rushing back into the country, firms such as ExxonMobil and Chevron are taking a cautious approach. Executives remain wary of Venezuela’s history of nationalizing foreign assets, unresolved compensation disputes dating back to the Chávez era, and lingering political uncertainty. As Francisco Monaldi of Rice University’s Baker Institute put it, “They have been burned twice,” making boards reluctant to approve multibillion-dollar projects unless the opportunity is exceptionally attractive.

WSJ writes that competition has also complicated negotiations. Several companies are pursuing the same high-quality assets in the Orinoco Belt and Monagas state while pressing for more favorable tax, regulatory, and ownership terms. According to José Ignacio Hernández of Aurora Macro Strategies, enthusiasm has yet to translate into commitments: “You have a very successful open house with 100 people attending, but then nobody calls.”

Chevron has continued expanding production through operational improvements, lifting output to nearly 300,000 barrels per day, but it has stopped short of committing fresh billions to new developments. Exxon has reportedly scaled back some of its interest after failing to secure enough of the assets it wanted and facing enormous costs to rehabilitate previously nationalized infrastructure.

Venezuela’s oil production has climbed to roughly 1.07 million barrels per day, up from about 937,000 last year, but it remains a fraction of the country’s late-1990s peak. With the majors proceeding cautiously, the Trump administration has increasingly looked to smaller independent producers that can move faster and provide immediate capital. Several privately held firms have already signed preliminary agreements, though analysts caution that fully developing Venezuela’s heavy-oil resources will ultimately require the deep pockets, long investment horizons, and technical expertise that only the largest international oil companies can provide.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The FBI announced on July 31 that it dismantled four of the “largest scam compounds on Earth” under Operation Blackout, seizing $15.2 billion in assets and freeing thousands of forced laborers.

Scam compounds provide the infrastructure to carry out large-scale online fraud operations and typically employ hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are captives.

Operation Blackout freed thousands of trafficked workers, the FBI said in a post on X. In addition, roughly 10,000 Americans were reportedly saved from losing their life savings.

The agency did not specify a timeline for the event.

The FBI also built new international partnerships to fight off fraud and trafficking activities, the agency said.

Workers gather with their luggage after leaving a suspected scam center compound in Sihanoukville, Cambodia. Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP via Getty Images

In a July 21 post on X, FBI director Kash Patel said that the seizure of $15.2 billion under Operation Blackout was made over a 16-month period. Dozens of scam centers were dismantled and hundreds of criminals arrested, with multiple human trafficking compounds eliminated. Patel listed four operations carried out as part of dismantling scam operations.

Operation Zephyr Exodus involved the takedown of Cambodia’s Prince Group, a transnational criminal organization.

This led to the seizure of a record 127,000 Bitcoin, worth roughly $15 billion at the time.

Operation Sand Dollar, conducted in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, dismantled nine scam compounds, arrested more than 300 individuals, seized around $300 million, confiscated thousands of electronic devices, and freed thousands of trafficked workers. It was conducted through a joint operation with China’s Ministry of Public Security and the Dubai Police, Patel said.

In Operation Compound Fracture, authorities seized domains and malicious apps linked to scam activities.

And under the Shunda Compound Takedown, the FBI and Thai law enforcement carried out a joint operation that disrupted a network responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in losses to victims.

Last month, the Treasury Department sanctioned 35 individuals and entities linked to the Prince Group, including a Cambodia-based conglomerate that allegedly provided laundering services for scam proceeds.

U.S. authorities estimate Americans to have lost at least $10 billion to scam operations running from Southeast Asia in 2024, a 66 percent jump from the previous year, the department said.

According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Report 2025, the agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received more than a million complaints last year. Total losses from these complaints amounted to over $20.87 billion, a 26 percent increase from the previous year.

Scam Compound Trafficking

In a July 28 statement, the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM) highlighted the issue of trafficking victims being forced to work in scam centers.

Victims are initially lured through fake job advertisements that promise legitimate work abroad. Once they arrive, they are stripped of documents, locked inside compounds, and forced to carry out online scam operations under threat of violence and other measures. Many survivors report being subjected to sexual abuse, solitary confinement, starvation, and torture, IOM said.

“People trapped in scam compounds are victims of trafficking, forced to commit crimes through violence, threats and coercion. They deserve protection, not punishment,” IOM Director General Amy Pope said in the statement.

“We must work together to support survivors, stop traffickers and close the gaps these criminal networks exploit. No country can tackle this alone,” Pope said.

During 2022–2025, the IOM assisted over 3,500 trafficked victims of forced criminality in Southeast Asia. These people were from 39 nations, mostly from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

On Sept. 30 last year, a group of lawmakers introduced the Scam Compound Accountability and Mobilization (SCAM) Act that aims to counter foreign scam operations, according to an Oct. 1, 2025, statement from the office of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

The bill also seeks to hold transnational criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking, forced criminality, and cyber scams targeting Americans accountable for their actions.

The legislation was passed by the Senate in December and sent to the House of Representatives the same month. However, no significant action has been taken on the bill since then.

The Rhine, one of Europe’s most vital arteries for transporting industrial goods, has fallen to one of its owest level since the drought-stricken summer of 2018. The resulting loss of shipping capacity is driving up freight costs and raising the risk of supply disruptions for iron ore, coal, chemicals, petroleum products and other commodities moving through Europe’s industrial heartland.

The Rhine water level gauge at Kaub, a key chokepoint on the Rhine for shipments heading to southern Germany and Switzerland, has fallen to just 25 centimeters, the lowest reading since the drought-stricken summer of 2018.

Zwei eindrucksvolle Bilder bei Rüdesheim bzw. Bingen (Nahemündung) mit dem Rekordniedrigwasser am Rhein und auffällig großen Sandbänken. Danke an Christian. /LD pic.twitter.com/9GC4c3zv6y

— Kachelmannwetter (@Kachelmannwettr) August 2, 2026

At levels of 40 to 50 centimeters, vessels can carry only about 20% of their normal cargo, according to Germany’s Federal Waterways and Shipping Administration. The resulting loss of transport capacity is driving up freight costs and increasing the risk of supply disruptions of critical commodities.

Some Rhine Freight Rates Rose 400% in Two Months as Water Levels Fell

The benchmark freight rate per tonne for oil and liquid-bulk barges from Rotterdam to German cities south of the Kaub chokepoint rose about 400% in two months, reaching a record on the chart. Cargo demand did… pic.twitter.com/Yht6yiSWXQ

— LearnInvest (@LearnInvest2026) August 2, 2026

German federal data compiled by ETH Zurich shows that a drop below 24 centimeters, which is in the forecast for this week, would mark the lowest level since records began in 1880.

JPMorgan analyst Chetan Udeshi told clients that with Rhine water levels dropping to 2018 levels, this may spark a drag across Germany’s chemicals industry:

BASF/K+S/Sector read: Rhine water levels dropped to multi-year lows in August and are now comparable to 2H18 levels, when Germany-exposed chemicals saw material operational/logistics headwinds (see our previous report here). It remains to be seen whether low water levels will persist for as long as they did in 2H18; if they do, this would represent an additional downside risk to 2H26 expectations, albeit likely smaller given post-2018 mitigation. As illustrated in Figure 1Rhine watrlve Kaubmsring potand Figure 2Probailty-weghd 14-ayforecst forRhine watrlve Kaubsof 31July, at the Kaub gauge, Rhine levels have fallen to multi-year lows and are now similar to Oct–Nov 2018, when disruptions to barge logistics and wider supply chains hit German/European chemicals; the two most impacted names then were BASF and K+S. Evonik and to a lesser extent Brenntag had also flagged earnings headwinds in 2H18.

BASF saw the most adverse impact of ~€250m in 3Q-4Q18 (~2.5% of 2018 adj EBITDA) due to its reliance on the Rhine for transportation infrastructure and plant cooling. Since then, BASF has implemented a number of mitigation measures, including diversifying its logistics network to be able to switch to alternative transport modes (e.g. rail), if needed, as well as expanding its fleet to include vessels that can still operate in the Rhine at low water levels. On the last week’s 2Q26 conference call, BASF’s CEO commented that thanks to the mitigation measures, this time the company does not expect to see a negative impact of the magnitude seen in 2H26.

K+S relied on the Rhine for saline water disposal, which became impossible due to reduced water levels; as a result, K+S had to halt production at parts of its largest site in Germany, Werra, for almost two months. This translated into a ~€95m adverse impact (~15% of 2018 EBITDA). Since 2018, K+S has invested in improving the resiliency and sustainability of its wastewater disposal at the Werra site, including as part of the ongoing Werra 2060 project capex, which should help to more than halve the amount of process water for the Werra site. In its 2025 annual report, K+S commented that through the system of wastewater storage basins at the company’s disposal, as well as other measures, it had “significantly increased the flexibility of wastewater management at the Werra plant in recent years, to fully maintain production at the Werra plant even in a hydrologically dry year”. The company also noted, however, that in the case of an extreme drought comparable to that seen in the summer of 2022 and lasting over a long period of time, resulting in low levels in the Werra river, there could still be a risk of a temporary production interruption. Hence, subject to the duration of dry conditions, the impact on production at K+S cannot be ruled out, although we would expect it to be much reduced compared to the 2018 situation reflecting the improved wastewater management infrastructure.

Rhine Level At Kaub

Kaub Level Forecast

Barclays analyst Katie Richards recently told clients to have Rhine water levels “on their radars.”

Here’s more from Richards:

Our view: Investors should have the Rhine on their radar. Rhine-exposed chemical stocks historically underperformed during the 2018 and 2022 low-water episodes. What makes 2026 noteworthy is that the Rhine is entering the summer from an unusually weak position, with water levels already near multi-year lows for this point in the year and further risk from El Niño. However, unlike 2018, producers have invested heavily in mitigation measures, and these appeared to have proven effective during the 2022 drought when disruption was limited despite challenging conditions. As a result, we see the risk today as more skewed towards higher logistics costs and supply-chain inefficiencies than a repeat of the severe operational disruption experienced in 2018.Our concern would increase if Kaub water levels were to spend a prolonged period around 40cm or below, a level broadly consistent with or more severe than the 2022 drought, when financial impacts across the sector were largely negligible (versus ~100cm today).

The fallout of summer heat across the continent has spread beyond freight markets. Heat waves have forced France to curb output from its nuclear fleet because rising river temperatures could fuel wildfires.

In Hungary, the government has urged households and businesses to conserve electricity and water after demand overwhelmed supplies in Szentendre, leaving thousands without drinking water. Meanwhile, Italy’s Po River has fallen below historic lows.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

It probably won’t ever muster up the political will to use them, however, but the possibility always remains.

Trump recently surprised the Saudis by demanding that they recognize Israel as the precondition for the US implementing their newly signed nuclear energy deal, which wasn’t part of the agreement. This follows him humiliating Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed Bin Salman earlier in the spring by claiming that he’d been “kissing my ass” for rejuvenating the US economy. His mistreatment of the Kingdom and its de facto leader is unexpected since the US relies on them in the following five ways:

1. Indirectly Projecting US Influence Across The Ummah

Saudi Arabia wields tremendous influence across the international Muslim community, or Ummah, due to its role as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. It’s also been a rock-solid American ally since the end of World War II. By almost always aligning with the US’ foreign policy goals, Saudi Arabia indirectly projects its influence across the Ummah, in some cases even more effectively than the US itself since it’s a fellow Muslim country that many Muslim governments and societies alike look to for guidance.

2. Investing Hundreds Of Billions Of Dollars Into The US

Saudi Arabia is globally known for its wealth, which it once again reminded everyone of when it pledged to invest a whopping $600 billion into the US during Trump’s trip to the Kingdom in May 2025. Few countries are capable of doing that. Even more importantly, the previously hyperlinked readout from the White House notes that at least $100 billion will go into the American tech industry, thus helping it to compete with China. The strategic significance of such Saudi investments into the US can’t be overstated.

3. Purchasing Billions Of Dollars Of American Arms

Building upon the above, nearly $142 billion of the $600 billion that Saudi Arabia agreed to invest into the US will go to the military-industrial complex, which is an astronomical amount. To put Saudi Arabia’s purchase of American arms into perspective, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s latest report noted that Saudi Arabia was the US’ largest client and the third-largest importer in the world from 2021-2025. This immensely benefits the American military-industrial complex.

4. Serving As The Core Of The “Islamic NATO”

One of this year’s trends that began to materialize late last year is the gradual formation of what’s been called the “Islamic NATO”, which is comprised of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkiye. They’re all either NATO members like Turkiye or “Major Non-NATO Allies” like the rest. Whether the “Islamic NATO” is ever formalized or just remains a consultative platform, it’s still expected to serve as the means of advancing American military-security interests across the Ummah as the US “Leads From Behind”.

5. Preventing The Rise Of The “Petroyuan”

One of the pillars of American hegemony is the petrodollar, which Saudi Arabia helped the US institutionalize, and its continued participation in this system prevents the rise of the hypothetical “petroyuan” that many members of the Alt-Media Community have speculated about for years. So long as Saudi Arabia remains committed to the petrodollar, the “petroyuan” will remain a thought exercise, thus indefinitely preserving what’s arguably one of the most important pillars of American hegemony.

These five ways in which the US relies on Saudi Arabia provide the Kingdom with leverage if it ever musters up the political will to wield these advantages. For example, it could stop indirectly projecting US influence across the Ummah, radically reduce its investments in the US economy and its purchase of US arms, refuse to allow the “Islamic NATO” to become the US’ proxy, and/or replace the petrodollar with the “petroyuan”. It probably won’t do any of this, however, but the possibility always remains.

Authored by Jonathan Miltimore via The Epoch Times,

On Aug. 6, 1945, the Enola Gay dropped “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, instantly killing tens of thousands and marking the first use of a nuclear weapon in warfare.

Three days later, a second bomb, “Fat Man,” was dropped on Nagasaki.

Within days, Japan surrendered, bringing World War II to an end.

For most Americans, the bombings were greeted with celebration. Polls at the time revealed that nearly 70 percent of Americans said the bombing was a “good thing,” while just 17 percent said it was a “bad thing.”

In some respects, this is no surprise.

Thanks to the bomb, the war was over.

Japan, the nation that had blindsided the United States at Pearl Harbor nearly four years earlier, had finally been brought to its knees, forced to surrender unconditionally.

Watching these events unfold from England, a professor of Anglo-Saxon literature saw something very different.

‘Utter Folly’

In 1945, J.R.R. Tolkien was a professor of Old English at Oxford and author of “The Hobbit” (1937), a book that would eventually become one of the most influential works of fantasy literature ever written.

Having served as a British Army officer in the trenches of World War I, Tolkien understood firsthand the horrors of modern warfare. Perhaps because of this, he recoiled upon learning of a new weapon that could destroy entire cities.

“The news today about ‘Atomic bombs’ is so horrifying one is stunned,” he wrote to his son Christopher. “The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world!”

Tolkien was no pacifist, and he recognized that U.S. President Harry Truman’s decision to drop this new superweapon might have a silver lining.

“Japan ought to cave in,” he admitted.

But even as he acknowledged the bomb’s immediate military value, Tolkien feared its long-term consequences. Humanity had crossed a threshold from which there would be no return.

“Such explosives in men’s hands,” he wrote, “while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope ’this will ensure peace.’”

On ‘Babel-Builders’

Today, discussions over the atomic bomb usually involve whether it was morally justified to drop it on Japan. Unlike in 1945, Americans are very much split on the matter. Recent polling shows 35 percent say the bombings were justified, while 31 percent say they were not.

The fact that a full one-third of Americans say they’re not sure if the bombing was the right thing shows how morally complicated the matter is. (If you doubt this, consider that General Dwight Eisenhower and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy opposed dropping the bomb on moral grounds and because they doubted its military necessity.)

What is less often asked is whether the bomb should have been developed at all. The question is easy to dismiss. After all, Nazi Germany launched its own nuclear research program in April 1939. Had the Allies declined to pursue the bomb, they might have handed history’s most destructive weapon to Adolf Hitler.

There is also a philosophical hurdle. Science has long been celebrated as the engine of human progress. To oppose a scientific breakthrough on ethical grounds has a whiff of Luddism—a kind of rejection of progress itself.

Tolkien, once again, saw things differently. Though admitting “we’re all in God’s hands” now, he offered a word of caution about humanity’s growing faith in its own power. “He does not look kindly on Babel-builders,” he told Christopher.

By invoking the famous Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel, in which God confused and scattered the nations for attempting to reach the heavens, Tolkien was warning against a perennial temptation: placing human ingenuity and knowledge above moral wisdom.

The theme of man’s lust for knowledge and power would be developed in his next literary masterpiece.

‘An Allegory of Our Own Time’

In 1942, as the Manhattan Project was beginning in the United States, Tolkien was developing the core narrative of what would become “The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first volume of his “The Lord of the Rings” epic.

Though the book would not be published until 1954, Tolkien spent much of the 1940s writing and revising the manuscript. The story follows a fellowship of nine companions who embark on a perilous quest to destroy the One Ring, a weapon of immense power that threatens to destroy all of Middle-earth.

The Ring is so powerful that no one—not even the heroes of the story—should possess it.

Indeed, Tolkien’s wisest and bravest characters all reject it. The wizard Gandalf refuses the Ring when it is offered to him. The elf queen Galadriel does the same. Aragorn, whose ancestor was killed after being corrupted by the Ring, is wary of its power and never seeks it.

Meanwhile, those who desire the Ring or attempt to wield its power—Boromir, Sauron, and Gollum—are ultimately destroyed by it.

The One Ring has rightly been interpreted as a metaphor for power; after all, Tolkien himself called it the “Ring of Power.” But in a 1947 letter to his publisher, he put a finer point on the idea.

“You can make the Ring an allegory of our own time, if you like,” he wrote, “an allegory of the inevitable fate that awaits all attempts to defeat evil power by power.”

These words help explain why Tolkien viewed the atomic bomb with such horror. It was a weapon created to “defeat evil power” through overwhelming force. In Tolkien’s view, the danger was not simply the weapon itself, but the modern faith in power and the belief that it could be controlled by those who possessed it.

Tolkien’s line about “Babel-builders” and “lunatic physicists” could give the impression that he rejected science. He did not. He was simply recognizing the limits of science. The fantasy writer, a devout Catholic, understood that even though scientists could unlock the power of the atom, they could not fix humanity.

By 1945, it had become apparent that moral wisdom and scientific progress do not necessarily advance at the same pace. If the Great War and the horrors of the Soviet Union in the 1930s had not made this clear, the military destruction of the 1940s and the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945 did.

Humanity had acquired unprecedented power without acquiring the corresponding wisdom to restrain it. For Tolkien, this was the great danger of the modern age. Man was learning to harness the forces of nature even as he slid comfortably toward its oldest sins: pride, envy, and the lust for power.

None of this is to say the Ring of Power is an allegory for nuclear weapons. It is not. Tolkien himself made that quite clear in a BBC interview in the 1960s.

Yet a central lesson of his literary masterpiece is that some forms of power are simply too great for humans to possess.

Perhaps, then, the greatest virtue is not seeking out people who can wield great power wisely, but in possessing the humility to recognize that some power should never be wielded at all.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Over the past decade, China’s Coast Guard (CCG) has evolved from a conventional maritime law enforcement agency into a central instrument of Beijing’s strategy to reinforce its territorial claims, according to Bloomberg.

Now operating a fleet of roughly 680 vessels, it continues to conduct routine missions such as search and rescue, anti-smuggling operations, and fisheries enforcement, but increasingly serves broader strategic objectives.

Bloomberg reports that rather than relying solely on the navy, Beijing deploys the CCG to project control over contested waters in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and around Taiwan. Coast guard vessels regularly patrol disputed areas, escort Chinese fishing fleets, inspect foreign vessels, and employ coercive measures—including water cannons, lasers, blocking maneuvers, and collisions—to challenge rival claimants. They also operate alongside the People’s Liberation Army Navy during military exercises, particularly those focused on Taiwan.

CCG operations have become both more frequent and more assertive. In mid-July, Chinese coast guard ships confronted Philippine vessels on three occasions, using water cannons despite the incidents occurring within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Taiwan has likewise reported a marked increase in CCG patrols, including sustained operations east of the island, fueling concerns that the force would play a prominent role in any future blockade or military campaign.

Analysts view the CCG as a key component of China’s “gray-zone” strategy. Because its ships are presented as civilian law enforcement rather than naval assets, Beijing can press its maritime claims while making it more difficult for other countries to respond without risking military escalation. Maintaining a persistent coast guard presence also strengthens China’s claim that it exercises effective control over disputed waters.

The agency’s strategic importance has grown alongside institutional reforms. Created in 2013 through the merger of several maritime agencies, the CCG was placed under the People’s Armed Police in 2018, bringing it under the authority of the Central Military Commission. A 2021 Coast Guard Law further broadened its powers, authorizing the use of force to defend China’s claimed maritime rights. At the same time, the fleet has expanded to include some of the world’s largest coast guard ships, several of which rival naval warships in size and capability.

China’s increasing reliance on the CCG has prompted neighboring states to strengthen maritime cooperation, expand their own coast guard fleets, and step up patrols in disputed waters, contributing to a more contested and potentially volatile maritime environment.

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. obliterated CNN’s Dana Bash during a fiery interview Sunday morning on State of the Union, and it was brutal.

The segment aired as measles outbreaks tore through several states, with public health officials warning that unvaccinated communities were fueling the spread of the disease to levels not seen in decades. Those outbreaks trace back to Joe Biden’s presidency, when his administration allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour across the southern border and bring diseases like measles back into communities that had all but wiped them out.

Bash spent much of the interview pushing Kennedy to look “into the camera” and tell parents to vaccinate their kids against measles. Kennedy did it.

He said exactly what she wanted him to say.

Then Bash kept going, and the interview went off the rails.

The conversation curdled into a fight over how the media treated skeptics and anyone who dared question the Biden administration’s COVID-era public health guidance during the pandemic.

“You tweeted back in 2024 that [President Trump] let bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci shut down the entire country. Again, the president was in charge,” Bash said to Kennedy.

“Trump, as you recall, wanted to end the lockdowns. I think the thing that did the most damage to our country was the lockdowns,” he said.

“Anthony Fauci was mismanaging the COID pandemic and he was doing it under the Biden Administration. President Trump wanted to end the lockdowns. And in fact, in Anthony Fauci’s diaries, he talks about how President Trump was calling him every day, trying to get him to reopen the country,” he added.

Bash continued with another accusation.

“You are the HHS secretary, and you are talking about things that lead to vaccine hesitancy in this country,” she said.

“And it’s something that causes problems for people when there is not anything.”

Kennedy wasn’t having it.

“Let me ask you something,” he said.

“Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy or do you see your job as telling the truth to the American people?”

Bash insisted her job was telling the truth.

“There is study after study after study,” she said. “It’s one of the most studied things out there in science.” 

Kennedy pounced.

“You’re repeating it like a parrot,” he said, twice for emphasis.

Bash shot back, “So are you.”

Kennedy wasn’t buying it.

“I’ve actually read the science,” he said. “You don’t want to come back here and debate the science.”

From there, Kennedy dismantled the premise CNN built its entire segment on: that trusting government “experts” is the same thing as trusting the truth.

“All you know how to do is repeat things that people told you and say, trust the experts,” he said.

“That’s what you did during COVID. Now we know that Anthony Fauci, who was the ‘expert,’ was lying about everything, about masks, about social distancing, about natural immunity, about the transmission from the vaccine, about the source of COVID. He was lying, and you were punishing people for not trusting the experts. And now you’re rolling out the ‘experts’ again to talk about something that you have no personal knowledge of.”

Bash tried to defend herself. “That is my job, to talk to people,” she said. Kennedy wasn’t finished. “Your job is to tell the truth to the American people,” he replied.

.@SecKennedy NUKES @DanaBashCNN:

“I’m not debating this with you.”

“Of course you won’t. All you know how to do is repeat things that people told you and say, ‘Trust the experts!’ That’s what you did during Covid. Now we know that Anthony Fauci, who was the ‘expert,’ was… pic.twitter.com/IVRLJfDSZ6

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 2, 2026

If Bash thought she could lob a bunch of accusations against Kennedy and he would take it quietly, she was sorely mistaken. Kennedy didn’t dodge a single question. He turned every one of them into an indictment of a press corps that spent years demanding blind obedience and calling it science.

Jay Clayton will take over as director of national intelligence (DNI) on Monday, according to a social media post by acting director Bill Pulte.

“I am eternally grateful to President Trump for the opportunity to serve as Director of National Intelligence, while he completed historic declassifications and we right sized the ODNI. I have no doubt that Jay will do a tremendous job,” Pulte wrote on Aug. 1 in a post on X.

“I have offered Jay my complete and total support as he transitions to take over this incredible agency!”

As Tom Gantert reports for The Epoch Times, the Senate confirmed Clayton as the next director of national intelligence in a 51–47 vote on July 28 after advancing his nomination in a series of largely party-line votes.

Pulte was appointed as acting director after Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the position to support her husband following his cancer diagnosis.

Pulte faced criticism from top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who described him as “unqualified” and lacking intelligence experience.

During his confirmation hearing, Clayton pledged to strengthen trust in the intelligence community and improve coordination among intelligence agencies.

Democrats opposed his nomination, citing concerns over his testimony and ties to Trump, while Republicans described him as well qualified for the position.

Democrats criticized Clayton after his confirmation hearing for saying that Joe Biden was “certified as the president of the United States.”

“It has been clear for months that, under this administration, the main qualification to be DNI is the willingness to use the position to spread conspiracy theories about elections and to help Donald Trump make it harder for Americans to vote,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), said in a July 28 press release.

Trump praised Clayton following the confirmation, calling him “outstanding in every way.”

Clayton is a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he took on cases involving terrorists, cartels, and major national security threats, and is the former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the White House.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created by Congress in 2004 following recommendations from the 9/11 Commission to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The DNI serves as the head of the U.S. Intelligence Community, overseeing and coordinating the work of 18 intelligence agencies and organizations.

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via American Greatness,

Sometimes a story gets buried not because editors conspire against it, but because the news cycle has room for only one crisis at a time.

This year the big news has been the Iran war. But even accounting for competing headlines, the silence around a genuinely consequential development is telling.

And that is the story of India’s explicit rejection of the global net zero movement. India has walked away from its bid to host the COP33 UN climate conference, and the world’s climate press has treated it as a footnote rather than the signal it is.

India had spent years projecting a rising voice in the development of climate policy, and hosting a COP33 is the closest thing the bureaucracy has to a coronation.

Then, quietly, without public explanation, India withdrew its offer. No press conference. No elaboration. Just a government stepping back from a role for which it auditioned for years.

The truth is India has run the numbers on the cost of a net-zero energy transition for a population of 1.4 billion climbing out of poverty, and it does not like what it sees.

The notion that India should shackle its economy by adhering to restrictive climate policies, while its people still grapple with energy deficits, is illogical and morally indefensible.

Data India Doesn’t Need a Summit to See

Furthermore, the narrative of a rapidly degrading Indian environment due to energy consumption is demonstrably false.

India’s own environmental indicators do not support the apocalyptic framing of the climate-obsessed.

For years, hydrologists and climate modelers have relied on estimates of Himalayan snowfall to forecast water availability for hundreds of millions of people across South Asia’s most fertile Ganges plains.

Their projections of a seriously drier India, it turns out, were wrong.

A team of researchers, including scientists from the British Antarctic Survey, the U.K. Met Office, and the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, used frozen high-altitude lakes as natural pressure sensors rather than relying on undersized conventional rain gauges. What they found was startling: In a single winter, the best available snowfall models had underestimated seasonal snow over the Lake Hampta area of Himachal Pradesh by 37 percent. The peer-reviewed study makes clear that conventional instruments have been missing large volumes of snow for decades.

Then there is the vegetation story, which cuts even harder against the doom narrative. Researchers at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology modeled how India’s landscape would respond to a high-emissions future using the same family of computer models climate activists cite when warning of catastrophe.

The result was not desertification. It was the opposite. Gross primary production, a measure of how much carbon dioxide India’s forests, croplands, and other vegetation are absorbing, rose from roughly 729 grams of carbon per square meter annually in 1985 to about 830 by 2014 and is projected to nearly double to around 1,305 by the year 2100.

Layered onto that are the steady expansion of India’s forest cover over the past two decades and the recovering populations of endangered species such as tigers and Asiatic lions, successes resulting from conservation and habitat management rather than from decarbonization mandates.

All this means India has stopped outsourcing its environmental judgment to a U.N. process that treats every barrel of oil and every ton of coal as a moral affront, regardless of its benefit in lighting a clinic for children or powering a steel plant that employs thousands. A country that still has hundreds of millions of citizens without reliable access to electricity does not have the luxury of treating energy poverty as an acceptable trade-off for leadership in the climate industrial complex.

That is why India has expanded coal production and struck oil and gas deals with the United States and Persian Gulf producers. It has resisted binding emissions targets that would cap its own industrial growth, unwilling to commit to far-off targets for emission reductions. India’s relinquishment of COP33 hosting rights is perhaps the most visible expression of a strategic direction that has been building for years.

A country that the entire architecture of climate financing is supposedly built to help just declined to host the party. If climate summits worked as advertised, that would be unthinkable. But it is no longer, and pretending otherwise will not make the next withdrawal any less predictable.

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

This week, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before Congress and, on the advice of his attorney, repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answering many of the senators’ questions.

Everyone is talking about what he did or didn’t know, whether he misled Congress, whether he should have answered the questions, and whether he should be held accountable.

But that wasn’t the moment from this week that I can’t stop thinking about.

My husband called me as he was driving home from picking up grain for the hogs. He had stopped at Restaurant Depot to grab pizza boxes and a few supplies for the ranch. Rarely does he pay attention to American politics. Rarely is he interested in the stories that consume me.

He simply asked, “What’s going on with Fauci?”

I explained that he had spent much of the hearing invoking the Fifth Amendment rather than answering senators’ questions.

There was a long pause.

Then he asked me something that caught me completely off guard.

“Is anybody ever going to say, ‘I’m sorry. I was wrong. It cost you and your family everything?”

I had to choke back tears because no—nobody has ever said that to us.

My husband and I worked hard. We built businesses. We lived what most people would call the American dream. We weren’t looking for a bailout. We weren’t failing. In fact, when COVID-19 hit, we were just weeks away from selling our restaurant company under a $31 million contract.

Then came “two weeks to slow the spread.”

Two weeks became months. Months became years.

Government policies, not the virus itself, destroyed everything we had spent decades building.

This hearing didn’t make me feel any better. If anything, it ripped open wounds that had finally started to scar over.

Americans are still carrying losses that will never appear on a government balance sheet. They exist instead as tears in the fabric of lives that once felt secure. Businesses built over decades disappeared. Retirement accounts were drained. Marriages came under tremendous financial pressure. Ours was one of them. Homes were lost. Careers ended. Dreams were abandoned. Six years later, many of those wounds have not healed.

It would be easy to make this article about Fauci, but the truth is he is just one bureaucrat.

He may be the most recognizable face of the pandemic response and one of its highest-paid officials, but he was never acting alone. Governors issued orders. County health departments enforced them. School boards complied. Corporate executives complied. Church leaders complied. Republicans complied. Democrats complied.

And so did we, the people.

That may be the hardest part for me to admit. Yes, I am angry at Fauci, but, to be honest, I am just as angry at us.

When I say “us,” I don’t mean that I personally embraced those policies. I questioned them from the beginning.

I have never been vaccinated. That wasn’t a decision I made because of COVID-19. It was how I had lived my entire life. My mother raised me to question pharmaceuticals and to be cautious about trusting the government. That foundation shaped how I viewed the pandemic from the very beginning.

I don’t think that made me special. I think it made me less susceptible to what I believe was the greatest psychological operation of my lifetime.

But we, the people, largely complied.

We accepted the closure of our churches.

We accepted the destruction of small businesses.

We accepted keeping children out of school.

We accepted that bureaucrats knew better than families, business owners, pastors, physicians, and neighbors.

I believe we knew remarkably early that COVID-19 posed overwhelmingly different levels of risk depending on age and overall health. I believe we knew that respiratory viruses are ultimately resolved through herd immunity. We knew children and healthy adults were at extraordinarily low risk compared with the elderly and those with serious underlying health conditions.

Yet instead of allowing the conversation to evolve as the evidence accumulated, fear became the dominant force. Questioning the policies often became more unacceptable than questioning whether the policies were actually working.

This wasn’t simply one man’s failure.

It was a national failure.

Bureaucrats at every level implemented policies that devastated ordinary Americans. Republicans and Democrats alike largely fell in line. Many citizens did as well, whether out of fear, trust, social pressure, or the belief that someone else surely knew better.

Those of us who resisted often paid dearly. My family certainly did.

I thought that chapter of my life was over. I thought I had graduated from wondering how I was going to pay the bills. I had lived that life in my 20s and early 30s. I had spent decades working eighty-hour weeks to build something that finally gave my family financial stability.

Then pandemic policies tore it all down, forcing me to start over.

Today, at 48, I find myself greeting every customer who walks through the door, hoping they’ll come back and tell a friend. I write every day, hoping my words ripple outward and bring people who believe in what we’re building.

I am grateful to still have the opportunity to build.

But this is not where I imagined I would be after decades of working to finally get ahead.

A virus did not destroy everything I built.

Government policies did.

That doesn’t mean every decision was made with bad intentions.

It does mean that good intentions can still produce devastating consequences, and when those consequences permanently alter millions of lives, accountability matters. Humility matters. The willingness to simply say, “We were wrong,” matters.

This week, my husband asked me a question I still don’t know how to answer.

“Is anybody ever going to say, ‘I’m sorry. I was wrong. It cost you and your family everything?”

I don’t know if that day will ever come.

But I do know this.

This week, in that congressional hearing, was not that day.