Israel has attacked Syria for the first time in nearly a month. The last known airstrikes were May 3rd, but on Friday night major strikes rocked Syria’s coastal area.

State news agency SANA says that one civilian was killed “as a result of an Israeli occupation airstrike targeting the vicinity of Zama”. Social media videos showed large fireballs lighting up the night sky.

The Israeli military offered quick and rare confirmation that it had “struck weapon storage facilities containing coastal missiles that posed a threat to international and Israeli maritime freedom of navigation, in the Latakia area of Syria.”

Huge spoke plumes were seen over Tartus in the strike aftermath, and it should be noted that the coastal city is also home to Russia’s lone Mediterranean naval base, which has yet to be completely packed up amid negotiations with the new Jolani regime.

“In addition, components of surface-to-air missiles were struck,” the Israeli military (IDF) statement further stated, vowing that the IDF will “continue to operate to maintain freedom of action in the region, in order to carry out its missions and will act to remove any threat to the State of Israel and its citizens.”

The irony of the timing is that the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) government has been teasing the possibility of peace and normalization with Israel, despite Israeli forces currently occupying large swathes of southern Syria, even well beyond the Golan Heights.

The new post-Assad government has mostly shrugged off the Israeli attacks, which soon after Assad’s ouster came in the hundreds, as Tel Aviv sought to destroy any and all military hardware left by the former Syrian Arab Army.

Israel bombed Syria’s naval defences a few hours ago. Not a single word of condemnation from the new regime, who continues to beg for normalisation.

The “revolution” was fought by those who want to surrendering to Israel and against those who fight it. pic.twitter.com/yfVAB7HbZ9

— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) May 31, 2025

Tensions have been rising between Israel and Turkey over the ‘spoils’ in Syria. Turkey’s military has sought to set up anti-air defenses for the new regime, reportedly in the center of the country – in Palmyra – which Israel has tried to thwart through bombing raids.

Prior to Assad’s ouster, Israel said it repeatedly bombed Syria for ‘counter-Iran’ operations, but at this point the divide-and-rule policy of keeping Syria as weak and fractured as possible has certainly become more clear.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Sirius XM host Megyn Kelly has called out the FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino for not being “fully transparent” when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Both have claimed that they now believe Epstein did kill himself and that there is no evidence of foul play as far as his death goes.

Bongino revealed yesterday that the FBI has video that it intends to release showing that no one else entered Epstein’s cell when he died.

Bongino noted, however, that the footage doesn’t show Epstein at all, prompting many to conclude it will not prove or disprove anything.

While interviewing journalist Glenn Greenwald, Kelly pondered, “What’s happening? Because it doesn’t take that long to clean up quote clean up surveillance video from one camera of one cell.”

“I’m not sure what’s happening here. I trust Dan. I don’t know Kash as well, but I trust Dan. But I’m not sure we’re getting the straight scoop,” Kelly added.

She continued, “It’s starting to smell. When Dan and Kash gave a joint interview, and they were like ‘he committed suicide,’ they looked like hostages.”

“They have the disadvantage of us having heard countless hours of Dan, in particular, speaking extemporaneously and from the heart, and he is an honest guy, but there’s certain limits to how honest you can be when you’re holding these positions,” the host further noted.

“And I had the same reaction that a lot of people had, which is, he looks like he’s not being fully transparent. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?” Kelly asked.

She further asserted that the “best theory” she has heard is “that it’s something having to do with Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to intelligence, and that would be something they’d have to keep covered potentially, and they can’t say it.”

“They can’t be as transparent as they like to be,” Kelly reiterated.

Watch:

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World

• The world economy is facing a predicted contraction due to physical limits related to resource extraction and diminishing returns in various areas, including energy and minerals.

• Current economic indicators, such as high debt levels, falling oil and coal production, and rising inflation, suggest an impending downturn that will affect global living standards and government stability.

• As existing economic systems falter, new economic models are expected to emerge, though the transition period will likely be marked by financial instability, job losses, and a decrease in overall prosperity.

I predict that the world economy will shrink in the next 10 years. I think that this is bound to happen because of energy and debt limits the world economy is hitting. There are a variety of other factors involved, as well.

In this post, I will try to describe the physics-based limits that the economy is facing, related to diminishing returns of many kinds. The problem we are facing has sometimes been called “limits to growth,” or “overshoot and collapse.” Such changes tend to lead to a loss of “complexity.” They are part of the way economies evolve. I would also like to share some ideas on the changes that are likely to occur over the coming decade.

[1] The world economy is a tightly integrated physics-based system, which is experiencing diminishing returns in far more areas than just oil supply.

When extraction of a mineral takes place, usually the easiest (and cheapest) portion of the mineral deposit is extracted first. After the most productive portion is removed, the cost of extraction gradually increases. This process is described as “diminishing returns.” Generally, more energy is required to extract lower quality ores.

The economy is now reaching diminishing returns in many ways. All kinds of resources are affected, including fossil fuels, uranium, fresh water, copper, lithium, titanium, and other minerals. Even farmland is affected because with higher population, more food is required from a similar amount of arable land. Additional-cost efforts such as irrigation can increase food supply from available arable land.

The basic problem is two-fold: rising population takes place while the easiest to extract resources are depleting. The result seems to be Limits to Growth, as modeled in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth.” Academic research shows that problems such as those modeled (sometimes referred to as “overshoot and collapse”) have been extremely common throughout history.

Precisely how this problem unfolds varies according to the specifics of each situation. Growing debt levels and increasing wage disparity are common symptoms before collapse. Governments become vulnerable to losses in war and to being overthrown from within. Epidemics tend to spread easily because high wage disparity leads to poor nutrition for many low-wage workers. Dr. Joseph Tainter, in his book, “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” describes the situation as the loss of complexity, as a society no longer has the ability to support some of the programs it previously was able to support.

At the same time the existing economy is failing, the beginnings of new economies can be expected to start. In some sense, economies “evolve,” just as plants and animals evolve. New economies will eventually replace existing ones. These changes are a necessary part of evolution, caused by the physics of the biosphere.

In physics terms, economies are dissipative structures, just as plants, animals, and hurricanes are dissipative structures. All dissipative structures require energy supplies of some type(s) to grow and remain away from a dead state. These structures do not “live” endlessly. Instead, they come to an end and are often replaced by new, slightly different, dissipative structures.

[2] Over the next 10 years, the general direction of the economy will be toward contraction, rather than growth.

There are many indications that the world economy is hitting a turning point because of rising population and diminishing returns with respect to resource extraction. For example:

[a] Debt levels are very high in the US and other countries. A rising debt level can temporarily be used to pull an economy forward without adequate energy supplies because it indirectly gives workers and businesses more spendable income. This income can be used to work around the lack of inexpensive energy products of the preferred types in a variety of different ways:

• It can allow consumers to afford a higher price for existing energy products, if the additional funds get back to customers as higher incomes or lower taxes.
• It can allow businesses to find more efficient ways of using resources, such as ramping up international trade or building more efficient vehicles.
• It can allow the development of new energy products, such as nuclear power generation and electricity from wind and solar.

What we are finding now is that these new approaches tend to encounter bottlenecks of their own. For example, oil supply is sufficiently constrained that the current level of international trade no longer seems to be feasible. Also, wind and solar don’t directly replace oil; electricity based on wind turbines and solar panels can lead to blackouts. Furthermore, diminishing returns with respect to oil and other resources tends to get worse over time, leading to a need for ever more workarounds.

If at some point, extraction becomes more constrained and workarounds fail to provide adequate relief, added debt will lead to inflation rather than to hoped-for economic growth. Higher inflation is the issue that many advanced economies have been struggling with recently. This is an indication that the world has hit limits to growth.

[b] Because of low oil prices, companies are deciding to cut back new investments in extracting oil from shale, and likely elsewhere.

Figure 1. Brent equivalent oil prices, in 2024 US dollars, based on a combination of indications through 2023. Sources include historical oil prices in 2023$ from the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute; the increase in average Brent spot price from 2023 to 2024, published by the US EIA; and the US Consumer Price Index for Urban consumers.

Figure 1 shows that oil prices rise and fall; they don’t rise endlessly. They rose after US oil production hit its first limits in 1970, but this was worked around by ramping up oil production elsewhere. Prices rose in the 2003 to 2008 period and then fell temporarily due to recession. They returned to a higher level in 2011 to 2013, but they have settled at a lower level since then.

One factor in the price decline since 2013 has been the production of US shale oil, adding to world oil supply. Another factor has been growing wage disparity, as workers from rich countries have indirectly begun to compete with workers from low-wage countries for many types of jobs. Low-wage workers cannot afford cars, motorcycles, or long-distance vacations, and this affordability issue is holding down oil demand.

US oil production from shale is in danger of collapsing during the next few years because prices are low, making new investment unprofitable for many producers. In fact, current prices for oil from shale are lower than shown on Figure 1, partly because US prices are a little lower than Brent, and partly because prices have fallen further in 2025. The recent price available for US WTI oil is only about $62 per barrel.

[c] World per capita coal production has fallen since 2014. A recent problem has been low prices.

Figure 2. World coal production through 2023 based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

Transportation costs are a major factor in the delivered price of coal. The reduced production of coal is at least partly the result of coal mines near population centers getting mined out, and the high cost of transporting coal from more distant mines. Today’s coal prices do not seem to be high enough to accommodate the higher costs relating to diminishing returns.

[d] In theory, added debt could be used to prop up oil and coal prices, but debt levels are already very high.

Besides the problem with inflation, mentioned in point [a], there are problems with debt levels becoming unmanageably high.

Figure 3. Figure from page 10 of The Long-Term Budget Outlook 2025 to 2055, published in March 2025 by the US Congressional Budget Office.

Figure 3 shows US government debt as a ratio to GDP. If we look at the period since 2008, there was an especially large increase in debt at the time of the 2007-2009 Financial Crisis and the 2020 Pandemic. The debt level has become so high that interest on the debt is likely to require tax revenue to rise endlessly. The underlying problem is needing to pay interest on the huge amount of outstanding debt.

Putting together [a], [b], [c], and [d], the world has a huge problem. As the world economy is currently organized, it is heavily dependent on both oil and coal. Oil is heavily used in agriculture and in transportation of all kinds (cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships). Coal is especially used in steel and concrete making, and in metal refining. We don’t have direct replacements for coal and oil for these uses. Wind and solar are terribly deficient at their current state of development.

The laws of physics tell us that, given the world’s current infrastructure, a reduction in the availability of both crude oil and coal will lead to cutbacks in the production of many kinds of goods and services around the world. Thus, we should expect that GDP will contract, perhaps for a long period, until workarounds for our difficulties can be developed. Today’s wind turbines and solar panels cannot solve the problem for many reasons, one of which is that fact that production and transport of these devices is dependent upon coal and oil supplies.

Thus, without adequate oil and coal to meet the needs of the world’s growing population, the world economy is being forced to gradually contract.

[3] Overall living standards can be expected to fall rather than rise during the next decade.

A recent article in the Economist shows the following chart, based on an analysis by the United Nations:

Figure 4. Chart showing global average “Human Development Index,” as calculated by the United Nations, in the Economist.

Figure 4 shows the trend in the Human Development Index as level in 2023-24. I expect that the trend will gradually shift downward in 2024-2025 and beyond. Modern advances, such as the availability of potable water in homes and the availability of electricity 24 hours per day, will become increasingly less common.

The Economist article displaying Figure 4 notes that, so far, most of the drop in living standards has happened in the poorer countries of the world. These countries were hit harder by Covid restrictions than rich countries. For example, the drop in tourism had a greater impact on less advanced countries than on rich countries. Poor countries were also affected by a decline in export orders for luxury clothing.

Outside of poor countries, young people are already finding it difficult to find jobs that pay well. They are often burdened with debt relating to advanced education, making it difficult for them to have the same standard of living that their parents had. This trend is likely to start hitting older citizens, as well. Jobs will be available, but they won’t pay well. This problem will affect both young and old.

[4] Governments will be especially vulnerable to cutbacks.

History shows that when overshoot and collapse occur, governments are likely to experience severe difficulties, indirectly because many of their citizens are getting poorer. They require more government programs, but if wages tend to be low, the taxes they pay tend to be low, too.

Unfortunately, the kinds of cutbacks being undertaken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are very much necessary to get payments by the US government down to a level that can be supported by taxes. Regardless of how successful the current DOGE program is, I expect a huge reduction in the number of individuals on the payroll of the US government, perhaps by 50% to 75%, in the next 10 years. I also expect major cutbacks in the funding for outside organizations, such as universities and the many organizations DOGE has targeted.

At some point, the US government will need to reduce or eliminate many types of benefit payments made now. One approach might be to try to send many kinds of programs, such as job loss protection, Medicaid, and Medicare, back to the states to handle. Of course, the states would also have difficulty paying for these benefits without huge tax increases.

[5] Ten years from now, universities and colleges will enroll far fewer students.

I expect that university enrollments will fall by as much as 75% over the next 10 years, partly because government funding for universities is expected to fall. With less funding, tuition and fees are likely to be even higher than they are today. At the same time, jobs for university graduates that pay well will become less available. These considerations will lead fewer students to enroll in four-year programs. Shorter, more targeted education teaching specific skills are likely to become more popular.

There will still be some high-paying jobs available, requiring university degrees. One such area may be in finding answers to our energy and resource problems. Such research will likely be carried out by a smaller number of researchers than are active today because some current areas of research will be discarded as having too little potential benefit relative to the cost involved. Any approach considered will need to succeed with, at most, a tiny amount of government funding.

High paying jobs may also be available to a few students who plan to be the “wheeler-dealers” of the world. Some of these wheeler-dealer types will want to be the ones founding companies. Others will want to run for public office. They may be able to succeed, as well. They may want to study specialized tracks to advance their career goals. Or they may want to choose institutions where they can make contacts with people who can help them in pursuing their career goals.

For most young people, I expect that four-year university degrees will increasingly be viewed as a waste of time and money.

[6] In a shrinking economy, debt defaults will become an increasing problem.

A growing economy is very helpful in allowing financial institutions to prosper. With growth, future earnings of businesses tend to be higher than past earnings. These higher earnings make it possible repay both the borrowed amount and the required interest. With growth, there is little need to lay off employees. Thus, the employees have a reasonable chance to repay mortgage loans and car loans according to agreed-upon terms.

If an economy is shrinking, overhead becomes an ever-larger share of total revenues. This makes profits harder to achieve and may make it necessary to lay off employees. These laid-off employees are more likely to default on their outstanding loans. As debt defaults rise, interest rates charged by lenders tend to rise to compensate for the greater default risk. The higher interest rates make debt repayment for future borrowers even more difficult.

All these issues are likely to lead to financial crises, as debt defaults become more common.

[7] As debt defaults rise, banks tend to fail. This can lead to hyperinflation or deflation.

In a shrinking economy, the big question when banks fail is, “Will governments bail out the banks?”

If governments bail out the failing banks, there is a tendency toward inflation because the bailouts increase the money supply available to citizens, but not the quantity of goods available for purchase. If enough banks fail, the tendency may be toward hyperinflation–way too much money available to purchase very few goods and services.

If no government bailouts are available, the tendency is toward deflation. Without bailouts, the problem is that fewer banks are available to lend to citizens and businesses. As a result, fewer people can afford to buy homes and vehicles using debt, and fewer businesses can take out loans to purchase needed supplies. These changes lead to less demand for finished goods. This change in demand can indirectly be expected to affect commodity prices, as well, including oil prices. With low prices, some suppliers may go out of business, making any supply problem worse.

Regardless of whether bailouts are attempted or not, on average, citizens can be expected to be getting poorer and poorer as time goes on. This occurs because with a shrinking economy, fewer goods and services will be made. Unless the population shrinks at the same rate, individual citizens will find themselves getting poorer and poorer.

[8] Expect more tariffs and more conflicts among countries.

Without enough oil for transportation, the quantity of imported goods must be cut back. A tariff is a good way of doing this. If one country starts raising tariffs, the temptation is for other countries to raise tariffs in return. Thus, the overall level of tariffs can be expected to rise in future years.

Without enough goods and services for everyone to maintain their current standard of living, there will be a definite tendency for more conflict to occur. However, I doubt that the result will be World War III. For one thing, the West seems to have inadequate ammunition to fight a full-scale conventional war. For another, the nuclear bombs that are available are valuable for providing fuel for our nuclear power plants. It makes no sense to use them in war.

[9] Expect an increasing share of empty shelves, as time goes on.

High tech goods are especially likely to disappear from shelves. Replacement parts for automobiles may also be difficult to find, especially before an aftermarket of locally manufactured parts appears.

[10] Interest rates are likely to stay at their current level or increase to a higher level.

The high level of borrowing by governments and others makes lenders reluctant to lend unless the interest rates are high. It should also be noted that current interest rates are not high relative to historical standards. The world has been spoiled in recent years with artificially low interest rates, made possible by Quantitative Easing and other manipulations.

[11] Clearly, this list is not exhaustive.

The world economy has gone through two major disruptions in recent years, one in 2008, and one in 2020. Very unusual changes such as these are quite possible again.

We don’t know how soon new economies will begin to evolve. Eric Chaisson, a physicist who has researched this issue, says that there is a tendency for ever more complex, energy-dense systems to evolve over time. This would suggest that an even more advanced economy may be possible in the future.

As the drone and aerial war between Russia and Ukraine continues heating up, there’s been another ‘close call’ which is being viewed as a possible direct threat by a NATO member country.

Ukrainian officials said Friday that Russian forces sent drones on a Ukrainian town on the border with NATO member Romania in Odessa region, as cited in Reuters.

“The attack hit the town of Izmail, Ukraine’s biggest port on the Danube river, which is important for critical imports and which lies across the river from Romania,” the report underscores.

There were reports of damage, including the total destruction of a post office and parcel center, regional Governor Oleh Kiper said, but no immediate reports of casualties.

Throughout the war there have been similar border town strikes, but they remain rare, as Moscow is seeking to avoid any action which can be seen as a brazen attack on NATO territory.

Still, there have at times been threats connected with Western-supplied F-16s, as the Kremlin long ago warned that if these jets take off from NATO airbases next to Ukraine, those very bases could be ‘fair game’.

But both sides have thus far carefully avoided build-up to nuclear-armed confrontation pitting Russia vs. the NATO bloc, led by the US. Russia may at this point be increasingly targeting ‘command centers’ in Ukraine as well.

Drone warfare over the past months has been greatly expanded by both sides. Ukraine too has been pummeling Russian territory with constant nighttime drone attacks, in hopes of crippling the country’s infrastructure and destabilizing Russia’s leadership.

Ukrainian military leaders have boasted of some startling figures, which can’t be verified:

Ukrainian soldiers hit and destroyed in May more than 89,000 Russian targets using drones of various types, Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi said on May 30.

Syrskyi did not specify which targets were hit. Throughout Russia’s all-out war, Ukrainian drones have been used to target Russian vehicles, troops, as well as fortified positions.

“Each drone means a destroyed enemy, and therefore a saved life of a Ukrainian serviceman. A special emphasis is placed on the destruction of enemy UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) operators and their command centers,” the commander said. Presumably he’s tallying all drone use, whether on the front lines inside Ukraine or sent against Russian territory or Crimea.

But these nightly tit-for-tat assaults threaten to derail Trump-backed efforts to achieve peace, at a sensitive moment going into the second round of Istanbul talks, scheduled for Monday. Analysts are currently setting expectations low, also given the Russian delegation is made up of mid-level officials.

By Brian Martucci of UtilityDive

Executive Summary:

• The White House wants to deploy 300 GW of net new nuclear capacity by 2050 and have 10 large reactors under construction in the U.S. by 2030 while expanding domestic nuclear fuel supplies, according to an executive order signed by President Trump.
• Trump signed three other orders on Friday to accelerate Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews of reactor license applications and reconsider strict NRC radiation limits; expand departments of Energy and Defense roles in nuclear power plant licensing and siting; and speed up deployment of new test reactors.
• Nuclear power advocates hailed the orders as a boon for the industry, but warned that staff cuts at NRC and DOE could slow progress. A representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists said the proposed reforms would make the public less safe.

Shares of publicly-traded advanced nuclear and reactor fuel companies have soared, suggesting investors see Trump’s orders as more than just words on paper. 

Oklo, the advanced reactor developer previously chaired by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, was up more than 20% since Friday afternoon. Oklo’s shares got another boost Tuesday morning as it announced a design and development partnership with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power to accelerate deployment of its Aurora powerhouses.

Shares of small modular reactor developer NuScale and uranium suppliers Centrus Energy and Uranium Energy also rose more than 20% in Friday and early Tuesday trading.

Trump’s “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” executive order called on Wright and other cabinet secretaries to develop a national policy for spent nuclear fuel management. The order singles out recycling and reprocessing activities that could benefit companies like Oklo, which plans to build fuel reprocessing capabilities and is developing reactors that can run on recycled fuel.

Another order, “President Donald J. Trump Deploys Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” calls on Wright “to release at least 20 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium into a readily available fuel bank for private sector projects operating nuclear reactors to power AI infrastructure at DOE sites.” 

Congress last year banned Russian uranium imports from 2028, cutting off a key supply of HALEU in particular and adding urgency to ongoing federal efforts to expand domestic supplies. 

“Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” also calls for the DOE Loan Programs Office to prioritize support for construction of new large reactors and 5 GW of power uprates to existing reactors by 2030. It specifically mentions support for “completing construction of nuclear reactors that was prematurely suspended,” signaling possible LPO support for the completion of the two unfinished AP1000 reactors at Santee Cooper’s VC Summer site in South Carolina.

Recent changes at DOE could undermine that goal, Nuclear Innovation Alliance President and CEO Judi Greenwald said in a statement.

“Recent DOE staffing reductions and proposed budget cuts undermine the Department’s efforts and make it harder to implement these executive orders,” Greenwald said. “We urge the Administration and Congress to adequately resource and staff DOE to meet this moment.”

Greenwald said proposed NRC process changes in another executive order, “President Donald J. Trump Directs Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” while well-intentioned, could also prove counterproductive. 

“NIA has long thought it is important that NRC improve the efficiency of its activities,” she said. “However …[o]ur assessment is that NRC is already making significant progress on reform in compliance with congressional direction including the 2024 ADVANCE Act. It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”

Greenwald added that the “effectiveness, efficiency and independence” of the NRC is essential for public confidence in nuclear power and for ongoing efforts to commercialize and export nuclear technology.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was more blunt in a statement that also criticized the administration’s proposal to involve other federal departments in nuclear reactor siting, licensing and fuel supply.

“The U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” Lyman said. “By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety and livelihoods of millions.”

Setting aside potential safety risks, involving the departments of defense and energy could cause needless confusion for nuclear technology developers, said Atomic Canyon CEO Trey Lauderdale.

“New capabilities for the Department of Defense and DOE to license and oversee projects could actually create additional red tape as companies navigate between three new potential oversight bodies instead of one,” Lauderdale said.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

Recently, President Donald Trump has escalated his struggle with Harvard University.

Remember what the issues were.

Harvard had not really followed the letter of the law according to the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which it and the University of North Carolina had lost.

In other words, they were, by court order, to stop giving preference in admissions, in hiring, in promotion, in retention on the basis of race, gender, etc., what we would call DEI. Harvard has been skirting that. And I think the data’s pretty clear how they have and no question that they’ve been doing it.

Second, they have also been getting a lot of money from foreign governments, not always fully accounted for, that is reported to the Department of Education, specifically Communist China and Qatar, over the years.

You could make the argument that there have been, in the past, graduations, dorms that have a racial basis, almost a segregation element to them.

You can make the argument that they don’t fully honor the First Amendment when you have guest speakers. Sometimes when they want to give a presentation at a formal lecture or even an informal class, students—while they may be officially discouraged from it—they are allowed, de facto, to shout the speaker down or to protest.

I think there’s no question that there is a climate of antisemitism throughout Harvard. Recently, two Harvard students who assaulted a Jewish student—one of whom was kind of rewarded with a $65,000 honorarium through the auspices of the law school, another one was given an honorific title at a graduation at the Divinity School of marshal. That sent the wrong message.

What I’m getting at is there was a lot of cause for Donald Trump to suggest, “I don’t need this, the country doesn’t need this.” But in his bill of complaints that were contingent on Harvard making compromises, he also got into elements of instruction, curriculum, and hiring.

He said, “Why are you hiring people from only one point of view?” Which I think is indisputable. Very few conservatives. Or one particular take on the American history, i.e., negative. That prompted the Council on Higher Education and other venues that have published it to solicit letters from people who would be called center-right—some of my colleagues at Hoover. And they objected to what Donald Trump’s add-ons were. And I think that’s reflected in The Wall Street Journal column by Jason Riley.

Essentially, they’re saying: We understand when Harvard’s clearly violating laws or charging too much for individual research grants—60% overhead. But now you’re entering the inner domain of the Harvard complex and you’re trying to micromanage and that’s wrong.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I don’t know whether my colleagues and friends on the right have characterized it the way in which the argument is coming from the Trump administration.

They are saying, “This is analogous to immigration. When somebody is a guest and applies to come here in a visa, that’s an invitation. And we don’t have to give reasons why we don’t want a particular person to come to the United States. What the federal government does with its money vis-a-vis private education is kind of like an invitation. They invite us to give them money. And sometimes we don’t wanna do it. Maybe we say, ‘We don’t like Harvard. We like Fresno State.’ And we don’t have to give you a reason at all because it’s not a requirement. It’s a privilege. Some colleges like Hillsdale don’t take any money. They don’t want us to give them money.”

And so, I think the argument from the administration that maybe our right-wing friends are missing is not that the Trump administration doesn’t have a right to go in and micromanage. They’re just saying, “I don’t really wanna give Harvard any money. They’ve got $53 billion. They’re private. They’re not public institutions. But you know, if they ask us and they want money, then we have to look at why we would give it to them.”

And it’s kind of like Mr. Smith coming from Korea or Mr. Jones coming from Sweden. We look at them and we don’t really think they add to the Americans. So, we don’t have an invitation.

It’s kind of like foreign aid. Maybe Denmark wants foreign aid. Maybe Ghana wants foreign aid. And we look at it and then, we’re under no—we can say, “Well, Denmark, you have to give us Greenland—if we want—before we give you foreign aid.” We’re under no requirement to explain every decision we make for an optional gift.

So we would apply that logic. I think that’s what the Trump administration is doing: “Harvard, here’s some money. We don’t really care if you want it or not. But if you do want it, we would suggest that you broaden your curriculum, you give both points of view, and just try to hire more conservatives to balance out. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t worry about it. We’ll just give the money to trade school.”

This is as simple as that.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced sweeping leadership changes Thursday as part of an effort to dramatically ramp up arrests of illegal migrants.  New goals for deportations start at 3000 arrests per day at ‘bare minimum’ according to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and this will grow as the agency receives increased funding.

The change in quota is nearly double the 1800 arrests per day originally mandated by the Trump Administration in January.  If arrests remain static at 3000 per day, the new goal would result in over a million deportations of illegal immigrants per year. 

To put the situation in perspective, there were at least 11 million border encounters recorded under the Biden Administration’s open border bonanza.  Add to this approximately 2 million getaways (border jumpers that were not intercepted by Border Patrol).  The vast majority (around 85%) of all encounters were released into the US under asylum policies, meaning it is likely that 10 million or more illegal migrants were able to enter the US unfettered.  

Considering that the Trump Administration reduced those numbers by 95% at the border in only four months, it’s clear that the border invasion was highly coordinated and supported by Democrat politicians and leaders.  The migrant crisis was engineered.

Unfortunately the success at the border does not solve the problem of millions of illegals already within the US.  Trump is seeking to make deportation a tangible threat and this requires far more arrests.  With deportation becoming a common occurrence, the effort may inspire most illegals to simply leave the country on their own.  

As part of the shake-up, Kenneth Genalo is out as the head of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division – the branch tasked with executing arrests and deportations.  Genalo “decided to retire and will continue to serve the public as a special government employee to ICE,” the agency said in a statement.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Acting Executive Associate Director Robert Hammer has also been reassigned to a “critical leadership position.”

Career ICE officials Marcos Charles and Derek Gordon will replace Genalo and Hammer at ICE and HSI, respectively.   In total, more than half a dozen personnel changes were made at ERO, HSI and other ICE divisions Thursday, according to the agency.

The change in momentum comes with rising public concerns about migrant crime and the possibility that Trump’s second term will not be enough time to undo the damage done by Democrats since 2021.  With constant interference from leftist judges, the process of removing illegals from the US is far more difficult that opening the gates and letting them flood in. 

Progressives are doing everything in their power to maintain a mass illegal migrant presence, with all their future election prospects resting on an eventual political action to turn most illegals into voting citizens through mass amnesty.     

Via Middle East Eye

Hundreds of Saudi women are being held in “hellish” conditions in secretive care homes, used to “rehabilitate” women banished by their families, according to a report in the Guardian. Over a period of six months, the Guardian collected testimonies about conditions in the care homes, known as Dar al-Reaya. 

The homes are where women are sent by their families or husbands for alleged disobedience, extramarital sexual relations or absence from home. Conditions were described to the Guardian as “hellish”, and included weekly floggings, forced religious teaching and a ban on any contact with the outside world. 

Sarah al-Yahia, who lives in exile and campaigns for the abolition of the homes, said she had spoken to a number of inmates about life in the homes. The women and girls described several abuses, including being given sedatives to put them to sleep, strip searches and virginity tests. 

One woman described getting lashes for not praying, and also getting lashes and being accused of lesbianism for being alone with another woman. 

Yahia herself was threatened by her father that she would be sent to one of the facilities when she was 13. “My father used it as a threat if I didn’t obey his sexual abuse,” she said. 

“I know a woman who was sentenced to six months in jail because she helped a victim of violence,” Yahia added. “If you are sexually abused or get pregnant by your brother or father you are the one sent to Dar al-Reaya to protect the family’s reputation.”

‘Utterly alone and terrified’

There have been reports of women committing or attempting to commit suicide due to the abusive conditions, according to rights group Alqst. Saudi officials describe the institutions as “shelter for girls accused or convicted of various crimes who are aged less than 30”. 

It says that they serve to “rehabilitate the female inmates in time of entering the facility in order to return them to their family”. 

Amina, whose name was changed for security reasons, said she sought refuge in a care home in Buraydah, central Saudi Arabia, after being beaten by her father. She found staff at the home to be “cold and unhelpful”, and belittling of her experience. 

Amina said that the facility asked her and her father to write down “conditions”. Her conditions included not being beaten or forced into marriage. However, she said once she was released, the beatings continued, and she was later forced into exile. 

“I remember being utterly alone and terrified. I felt like a prisoner in my own home, with no one to protect me, no one to defend me,” she said. 

Another woman told the Guardian that she was held in Dar al-Reaya after she told the police that she had been abused by her father and brothers. She said she was held there until her father agreed for her to be released, despite the fact that her father was the alleged abuser. 

“If they are serious about advancing women’s rights, they must abolish these discriminatory practices and allow the establishment of genuine shelters that protect, rather than punish, those who have experienced abuse,” Nadyeen Abdulaziz, of Alqst, said. 

Allegations denied

A Saudi spokesperson rejected claims of enforced confinement and mistreatment in the facilities. “These are not detention centers, and any allegation of abuse is taken seriously and subject to thorough investigation,” the spokesperson told the Guardian. 

“Women are free to leave at any time, whether to attend school, work, or other personal activities, and may exit permanently whenever they choose with no need of approval from a guardian or family member.”

Since taking de-facto control of the kingdom in 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has overseen a widespread crackdown on dissent, even as he pushed several nominally liberalising reforms.

Those reforms include allowing women to drive, and relaxing restrictions preventing women from travelling without the consent of a male guardian. However in recent years, Saudi Arabia has jailed several women who have spoken out against women’s rights and human rights abuses in the country. 

In May 2023, Fatima al-Shwarabi was given a 30-year sentence for anonymously tweeting about political prisoners, women’s rights and unemployment. Last January, Saudi activist and fitness instructor Manahel al-Otaibi was sentenced to 11 years for promoting women’s rights on social media.

Salma al-Shehab, a Leeds University doctoral candidate and women’s rights activist who was handed down a decades-long sentence for her tweets in 2022, was released this year. 

Left-wing activist and U2 frontman Paul David Hewson—better known as “Bono”—made the ridiculous claim that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) decision to scale back funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has resulted in 300,000 deaths.

“So, so just a recent report, it’s not proven, but the surveillance suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cutoff, this hard cut of USAID. So, there’s food rotting in boats, in warehouses,” Bono told Joe Rogan on the latest episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.

Bono continued, “There is this this this will will f*ck you off. This will not make you happy. No American will. But there is … I think it’s 50,000 tons of food that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas. And that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan, because the people who know the codes or for the warehouse are fired. They’re gone.”

“And so this I don’t know. I just it’s and what do you think? What, what is that? That’s not America, is it?” the Irish singer questioned. 

Joe Rogan pushes back after Bono blames 300,000 deaths on DOGE cuts.

“[USAID] was a money laundering operation… there’s no oversight, no receipts. There is a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering.”pic.twitter.com/3bdJ1vpKG1

— (news) DOGE (@DOGE__news) May 31, 2025

Rogan pushed back on Bono’s claims: The podcaster said global aid programs funded through USAID have done real good—like providing clean water, food, and medicine, however, there has also been massive fraud, money laundering, and a lack of oversight…

Here’s Rogan’s response to Bono: 

“Well, they’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. Right. Right. This is the problem. The problem is for sure there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it [USAID] was a money laundering operation. For sure there was no oversight. For sure. billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for were sent off into various they they don’t even know where because there are no receipts. The way Elon Musk described it, he said if any of this were done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be in prison. But in the United States, this is standard.

When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the 73 days, they spent $93 billion from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places. And there’s no oversight, no receipts. Like the whole thing, there’s a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering, but also we help the world. 

And when you’re talking about making wells for people in the Congo to get fresh water, when you’re talking about food and medicine to places that don’t have access, like no way that should have been cut out and that should have been clear before they make these radical cuts. Like there’s got to be a way to keep aid and not have fraud and you can’t have you can’t say we’re going to kill everything so that there’s no fraud. But then you’re killing all the good and you’re doing it without letting anybody know it’s going to happen.

So no one’s it’s not like they had three years to prepare. Let’s build a new infrastructure. Let’s make sure that everything’s set up.

They wanted change and they want to change quickly. And due to the nature of American politics, they have about two years before the midterms, right?

So everything has to get done as quickly as possible. You have to show a GDP growth. You have to show that the economy is booming again under these ideas. Make America first, tariffs for the world, bring back American manufacturing, and this mad rush to do it all as quickly as possible while cutting out as much waste as possible. Yeah. But the ironic thing is even though Elon Musk has proposed all these things and the Doge committee has proposed all these things, they’ve made no cuts in terms of the budget.”

Watch

It is worth noting that Bono’s claim may be based on projections by Brooke Nichols, a mathematician and infectious disease professor at Boston University, who modeled an estimated 300,000 deaths, with over 200,000 of them being children. However, much like weather models, these projections are highly speculative and come with significant uncertainty.

For context, Bono is involved in several nonprofit and philanthropic initiatives focused on combating poverty and disease and promoting social justice.

His key nonprofit affiliations include

ONE Campaign

Co-founded by Bono in 2004, the ONE Campaign is an international, non-partisan, nonprofit organization advocating for investments to create economic opportunities and improve health in Africa. It utilizes data, grassroots activism, and political engagement to influence policy decisions aimed at ending extreme poverty and preventable diseases.

RED

Established in 2006 by Bono and Bobby Shriver, (RED) partners with iconic brands to raise awareness and funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Proceeds from (RED) products go directly to the Global Fund to support health programs in Africa.

DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa)

Founded in 2002, DATA aimed to raise awareness about Africa’s challenges related to debt, AIDS, and trade. The organization focused on influencing policy and public opinion in developed countries to support Africa’s development. In 2007, DATA merged with the ONE Campaign to consolidate efforts.

EDUN

In 2005, Bono and his wife, Ali Hewson, launched EDUN, a fashion brand promoting fair trade and ethical practices in Africa. The initiative aimed to stimulate sustainable employment and growth in developing regions through the fashion industry.

The Rise Fund 

Bono co-founded The Rise Fund in 2016, a global impact investing fund managed by TPG. The fund invests in companies that deliver measurable social and environmental impact alongside competitive financial returns.

Making sense of Bono’s claims—and his information war against DOGE—requires following the money. Specifically, the ONE Campaign, which he co-founded, receives major funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bono’s comments mirrors Bill Gates’ recent anti-DOGE media blitz, as seen across corporate outlets:

• “Gates Is A Huge Liar”: Musk Hits Back After Bill Gates Claims DOGE ‘Killing World’s Poorest Children’

Gates is a huge liar

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 8, 2025

Bill and Bono in 2006.

Bono and failed far-left presidential candidate Kamala Harris. 

Sigh. 

SOME NEWS: Bono takes U2 on a break from Achtung Baby to perform “All I Want is You” and dedicates song to all women in world, on their crew, women experiencing hardship in world. Then he dedicates it to special guest in Sphere audience…”your First Lady, Jill Biden.” pic.twitter.com/CF4nGlYmYV

— Chris Gardner (@chrissgardner) March 3, 2024

Play the DC Swamp game, and get an award. 

Bono receives his Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/TISAgAzayZ

— bethandbono (@bethandbono) January 4, 2025

At the end of the day, only the grifters scream the loudest. Gates and Bono want the taxpayer-funded money spigot turned back on.

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

Since last November, Democrats and their friends in the media have spent a great deal of time wondering what they can do to win back male voters. Now they’re prepared to spend a great deal of money to help them figure it out. The “gender gap” in American politics was traditionally about Republicans’ inability to win over a majority of women voters, but this imbalance has more than evened out over the last few election cycles. Today, the Democrats’ struggle to win male voters—and young male voters, in particular—is as pronounced—if not more so—than their opponents’ struggle with women. Some of them, at least, would like to know why and would like to spend $20 million of their donors’ money in the process.

The explanations and consequent solutions offered so far range from the seemingly practical to the hopeless to the head-scratching. One might think that $20 million would buy something more insightful than this, but then, this is the same party that triumphantly chose Tim Walz as its vice-presidential nominee, fully expecting him to be the answer to their gender gap problem. Or in other words, don’t hold your breath.

In reality, the odds that the contemporary Democratic party will be able to win back men, now or in the foreseeable future, are vanishingly small. The party, as it is currently constituted, lacks both the will and the ability to make the changes that would be necessary to do so. What I mean by this is that the contemporary Democratic party is built on a handful of foundational notions that are, by and large, incompatible with the goal of appealing to men.

To start, historically, biologically, and evolutionarily, men need a purpose. That may sound trite or even sexist, but it’s nevertheless true. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that men need an externally imposed purpose. Whatever the case, women, by definition, have a purpose, namely to create and nurture new life. While men are necessary to create life as well, their role is, obviously, not as involved or enduring. Once upon a time—which is to say from the dawn of history until about 50 or 60 years ago—man’s purpose, therefore, was to provide for and protect the family, to enable the nurturing of new life as safely and successfully as possible. There is an evolutionary reason that men are, generally, bigger and stronger than women—because they had to be able to hunt and work for food and defend their loved ones from danger.

Over the course of the last half-century or so, men’s historical purpose has been undone. There is no sense whatsoever in lamenting this development, of course. It is what it is, which is an inevitable consequence of modernization. As the physical requirements of providing for a family have dissipated, so has men’s exclusive purview to that aspect of human existence. Women’s equality in society and the workforce is both an important and positive occurrence. The pretense that women are somehow “less than” men was always a profane notion and one that modern societies have, rightly, abandoned.

But while women have retained their evolutionary purpose and have taken on additional societal purposes, men have largely only found themselves displaced, their purpose arrogated. Again, there is no use lamenting this, but there is no use in celebrating it either, which is precisely what the contemporary Democratic party is built to do. Rather than sympathizing with men as they struggle to find their purpose in modern society, Democratic progressivism often seems to gloat at their disorientation. The Democratic Party still sees men as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It is fundamentally defined by its belief in a constitutional (i.e., Creator-granted) right that applies only to women and, in fact, aggressively rebukes men for even thinking that they might, theoretically, have an interest in the effects of their own behavior. Although it may not state its animating spirit quite as brashly, the Democratic party essentially functions according to the Steinem Principle (popularized by its namesake, the feminist icon Gloria Steinem) that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Democrats lament the fact that men are attracted to Joe Rogan and other “manly man” new-media stars, and (as noted in a link above), they desperately want their own Joe Rogan, a “liberal” who appeals to young and restless men. What they don’t understand is that men don’t listen to Rogan for his deep political insights. I mean, the “liberal” Joe Rogan would be… Joe Rogan, who, up until 15 minutes ago, was a Bernie Sanders guy. Rather, men listen to Rogan because he is interested in the things that used to comprise men’s purpose. He is a practitioner and a professional observer of martial arts/combat sports. He likes to fight (in a controlled environment), and he celebrates men who share that interest and those abilities. Rogan also likes to hunt. He likes to kill things and then eat them. That too appeals to otherwise lost and purposeless men. Rogan laughs, swears, and is irreverent. He doesn’t see himself as part of the problem—or as part of the solution. He just is who he is, which is someone who celebrates the things that used to define men as men.

The Democrats—in the aggregate—don’t get any of that at all.

A second, related problem for the Democrats is that they are completely out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist among men, making their hopes of outreach painfully incoherent and cringeworthy. A few weeks ago (again, as detailed in a link above), Democratic National Committee vice chairman (and longtime anti-gun activist) David Hogg told Bill Maher that his party’s problem is that it is governed by nannies, who wish only to scold men for behaving like men. “Young people,” he said, “should be able to focus on what young people should be focused on, which is how to get laid and how to go and have fun.”

To be fair, this isn’t the most insane thing I’ve ever heard, and in some ways, it makes sense. But what neither Hogg nor his Democratic compatriots realize is that it’s no longer 1965, when the inimitable P.J. O’Rourke admittedly headed off to college and decided immediately to become a hippie liberal because, of course, the hippie liberals got all the girls. Much has changed in this country over the last 60 years, including the things that animate and interest young men.

It is inarguably true that young men are today and will always be concerned with how to attract and impress the fairer sex, but that’s not all there is to it. Young men today have been profoundly and negatively influenced by the nihilistic view that all there is to life is enjoying hedonism. Whether they recognize it cognitively or not, many have rejected that stunted and ultimately dispiriting view and desire something more substantive in their lives. There is a reason, after all, that religiosity and orthodox religiosity especially are resurgent primarily among young men. There is also a reason that young men are drinking and binge drinking less than young women today. Men are lost, and they want to find not only their way home but also their way to a brighter and more fulfilling home.

Right now, Democrats can do none of those things for men. And if I had to guess, I’d say that they wouldn’t be able to offer any of them, even if they spent $20 billion trying to figure it all out. It’s not who they are anymore. It’s not in their nature. It’s just not who they are.