Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Though America is beset by increasingly bitter political divisions, there are two convictions that unite Americans across party and demographic lines. Large majorities are certain that Congress isn’t serving the interests of the American people, and that Capitol Hill would become far more virtuous with the imposition of term limits.

Despite their broad appeal to our “throw out the bums” instincts, term limits would probably make Congress even worse than it is now. Even as a proposed policy, the concept does the country a disservice by distracting Americans from the more extreme remedies required for a federal government guiding us along a dangerous path into mounting partisan hostility, unconstitutionally-concentrated power, and obliviousness to coming financial ruin.

According to a 2023 McLaughlin and Associates poll, an overwhelming 87% of US adults favor congressional term limits, a finding that’s consistent with other surveys. Proposals vary. Reflecting a common recommendation, one of the term-limit bills introduced this session would limit House representatives to six two-year terms, and senators to two six-year terms, thus maxing out both varieties of legislator at a dozen years. Notably, members who served before 2023 — including the bill’s introducing sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — would be exempted.

One dynamic that makes term limits appealing is the overwhelming power of incumbency in US electoral politics: Federal incumbents who sought reelection had a 98% success rate in 2024, matching the pace of 2022 and edging the 96% rate seen in 2020.

Jarring as they are, those stats create a false impression of the degree of stagnancy in the House and Senate. That’s because — over the dozen years often floated as a term-limit maximum tenure — a substantial number of legislators already leave on their own. According to the most recent Pew Research calculations, over a 12-year period, 69% of House seats and 62% of Senate seats had different occupants at the end versus the beginning.

With those numbers in mind, Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie — who has backed term-limit bills– cautioned that the idea is not a “silver bullet.” Pointing to the notion that term limits would open more seats to good people since incumbents are otherwise hard to dislodge, Massie noted the substantial churn in seat-holders, and asked, “Where are all the good guys/gals?”

Note that about 84% of congressional seats are “safe seats,” where party control isn’t in question, and the real election happens in the party primary. This incentivizes primary candidates to take positions that maximize their appeal to their party’s extreme, which contributes to polarization in Washington. Term limits wouldn’t change that, other than increasing the frequency of contested primaries, which, if anything, might make the phenomenon slightly stronger.

Cycling more people out of Congress may exacerbate one of the worst dynamics of Washington: the “revolving door” that sees legislators frequently moving on to lobbying posts and board positions, and incentivizing them to cater to lobbyists and corporations before their swing through the door happens. “Mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence,” wrote Casey Burgat at Brookings.

Term-limit proponents are hopeful that bringing new faces into Washington would reduce the power of special interests, lobbyists and the entrenched bureaucracy — the last of which is sometimes called the “Deep State.” However, lacking understanding of complex federal issues and experience with DC’s legislative machinery, wide-eyed, rookie legislators are even more susceptible to outside influences who bring clear guidance sprinkled with money and favors.

Advocates of term limits often envision a warm, fuzzy new era where career politicians are replaced by humble “citizen legislators” who come from all walks of life and professions. However, the great majority of US representatives and senators held some other office before winning their current seat, and there’s no reason to think term limits would do away with the inherent advantages that state and local officeholders have when they seek federal office.

Many champions of term limits are convinced that term-limited federal legislators would spend far less time on electoral politics and fundraising. Don’t bet on it. First, until a legislator’s final term, they’d still be focused on re-election. More importantly, much and perhaps even most of the time and energy that members spend on fundraising isn’t for their own campaigns, but for their parties.

Here, it’s important to spotlight a little-known yet powerful congressional dynamic, one that guarantees that even term-limited legislators would continue spending substantial time on party fundraising: Each party ties committee assignments to how much money a legislator raises for the party.

The numbers are big. “Between 2023 and 2024, Democratic Party members were expected to raise between $100,000 and $30 million per year in dues to the party to move up in the [House] chamber,” wrote Maya Kornberg of the Brennan Center for Justice. It’s the same on both sides of the aisle. Here’s how Republican Massie candidly described the arrangement to Reason’s Matt Welch:

“[Members] have to raise money and give it to the party in order to rent or buy their committee assignments. Literally, the party comes to you, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, and says, ‘if you want an important committee, you’re going to have to pay us this much money,’ not one time, but every election cycle. You can’t go back to your district and ask your constituents at a fundraiser to help you buy a seat on a committee. You get that money from the lobbyists who are in Washington, DC.”

For members striving for plum committee assignments, there’s another major avenue of fundraising, one that turns legislators into glorified telemarketers, calling party donors across the country and asking for donations or inviting them to events that require them. It’s illegal to make such calls from their offices, so legislators walk to nearby party call centers to do it.

“You’re told…don’t even ask for one of these ‘A’ committees unless you’re ready to do the hard work across the street,” said Massie. He refuses to participate, and pays the price via exclusion from powerful committees such as Ways and Means, Appropriations, or Energy and Commerce.

As Florida Democrat and then-congressman David Jolly told CBS News, dialing for dollars is a major part of life on the Hill:

“The House schedule is actually arranged, in some ways, around fundraising…You never see a committee working through lunch because those are your fundraising times. And then, in between afternoon votes and evening votes, that’s when you can see Democrats walking down this street, Republicans walking down that street to spend time on the phone making phone calls.”

Under term limits, the only thing that would change in this bleak picture are the particular faces trudging off to a Red Team or Blue Team call center, or lunching with lobbyists offering fundraising help — rather than learning about any of the infinite issues subjected to federal governance. (Knowing their time on the Hill is limited, legislators will have even less reason to invest their time in building mastery of complex issues.)

In fact, to the extent that term limits manage to put a modest dent in the power of incumbency and render a few more of their seats vulnerable, parties would be even more concerned with raising money to either defend a majority or take it over, and would thus exert more pressure on members to refill the party’s coffers.

There’s one more way term limits would exacerbate the problem of outside influences: With a shortened span on Capitol Hill, more members would be focused on what they’ll do next. Though “citizen-legislator” daydreamers may have quaint visions of a farmer returning to his tractor, most term-limited legislators will be either planning a run for a different office, or looking for a job. Either ambition makes them susceptible to the policy overtures of people outside the chamber promising funding for future campaigns, help getting the inside track on a lobbying job of their own, or maybe a private-sector post in the industry the lobbyist represents.

Term limits would bring many unintended consequences that run counter to their advocates’ noble intentions. However, the concept’s worst attribute is that, even as a mere proposal, it diverts attention from what’s most wrong in Washington. Term limits focus on the frequency with which Washington’s power is exchanged, when the biggest problem is the power itself. For more on that, see the most-read article at Stark Realities: Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist

* * *

Stark Realities: Invigoratingly unorthodox perspectives for intellectually honest readers. Join thousands of free subscribers at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge

Authored by Alan Mosley via AntiWar.com,

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an $838.7 billion fiscal 2026 defense spending bill, moving one of the largest appropriations measures in US history toward final passage in the Senate. In a 341-88 vote that crossed party lines, lawmakers advanced the sprawling defense and related appropriations package, underscoring persistent majorities in both parties willing to expand military outlays even amid growing concerns about fiscal discipline.

The total exceeds the Pentagon’s original FY 2026 budget request by $8.4 billion but still falls far short of more than $50 billion in additional funds the Defense Department sought after submitting its budget to Congress. That gap reflects, among other things, a stark $26.5 billion in “funding discrepancies” between the Pentagon’s request and the broader reconciliation bill – essentially accounting errors that left vital programs underfunded and were partly addressed by the House’s topline increase.

To fiscal conservatives and critics of Washington’s military spending consensus, those discrepancies signal deep structural problems in defense budgeting: an inability to accurately forecast needs, manage programs, or adhere to prudent fiscal stewardship. Lining up nearly three dozen major weapon systems, force structures, and procurement lines every year, the Pentagon’s budget process has consistently produced overruns and unpredictable spending swings that funnel money to entrenched interests rather than identified national priorities.

Yet the House markup did not merely bridge gaps; it added money to programs that the services themselves did not request – or, in some cases, explicitly asked to cancel. Lawmakers tacked on $897 million for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter program, directed a contract award for engineering and development, and preserved $1.1 billion for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft, which the service had sought to terminate. The Army’s agile funding proposal was rejected, while about $300 million was allotted for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program despite the Army’s call to end it.

Such additions comprise what critics deride as classic “pork-barrel” spending: earmarks and authorizations that serve narrow local or industrial constituencies rather than measurable defense needs. Funding lines for munitions procurement, disparate platforms, and legacy systems balloon irrespective of operational justification, raising perennial questions about legislative oversight and taxpayer value.

Compounding those concerns, the House Rules Committee refused to allow several amendments aimed at reigning in spending or constraining executive war powers to reach the floor. Measures that would have restricted funding for operations in Venezuela and others that would limit the scope of presidential military action were blocked from debate, leaving the core text untouched since its release. To some observers, the procedural closure itself was as significant as the topline figures: despite robust majorities on the floor, substantive policy alternatives were stifled before they could be considered.

Historically, the sheer scale of the defense appropriation reflects decades of incremental growth in U.S. military spending. Annual defense budgets have routinely eclipsed half a trillion dollars for more than a decade, and the FY 2026 package continues a long trend in which appropriators add funds above and beyond executive branch requests. By contrast, civilian programs and domestic discretionary spending have struggled to keep pace, prompting both political and public disquiet about national priorities.

Supporters of the bill defend the scale and scope as necessary to maintain US military readiness, industrial base capacity, and technological edge in an era of renewed great-power competition. They argue that predictable and robust funding deters adversaries and reassures allies, even if some line items exceed Pentagon forecasts. Opponents counter that emboldening the military establishment with ever-expanding budgets encourages intervention abroad and diverts resources from pressing domestic needs.

While the House’s 341-88 vote gives the bill substantial momentum, its journey is not complete. The Senate must act before the end of the current funding deadline on January 30 to avert a lapse in appropriations. Senate debate may give rise to further amendments or adjustments, but the core framework reflects a bipartisan consensus that large and growing defense outlays are politically durable, even as questions about accountability, efficiency, and strategic purpose multiply.

A 37-year-old anti-ICE agitator who was armed with a handgun was shot and killed by federal Border Patrol agents on Saturday morning during what the Department of Homeland Security described as a targeted immigration enforcement operation, sparking immediate political outrage and street protests.

Border Patrol officers were conducting a targeted operation against an illegal immigrant wanted for violent assault. According to the federal agency, a man approached officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Officers attempted to disarm the individual before he violently resisted, leading to an armed struggle. 

🚨 JUST IN: Slowed-down video PROVES the armed man in Minneapolis began to draw his firearm before Border agents took him to the ground

Self defense, case closed, the left lied again.

Probably radicalized by Jacob Frey and Tim Walz. FAFO.pic.twitter.com/MWdqAlqvZK

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 24, 2026

In a press conference, Border Commander Greg Bovino said the agent fired after assessing an immediate threat to officers on the scene. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots,” he said.

According to Bovino, medics provided aid immediately, but the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. He said the suspect was carrying two loaded magazines and had no identification. Bovino described the encounter as a deliberate attempt to inflict mass harm on law enforcement.

“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” he said.

Bovino added that the situation escalated when a large group arrived and began interfering with officers.

“Then, about two hundred rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement,” he said, noting that crowd control measures were deployed to protect the public and officers. Bovino said the investigation remains ongoing.

“The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.”

Despite the lack of complete details, Democrats pounced on the story to once again attack federal law enforcement and President Trump.

Mayor Jacob Frey held a press conference alongside Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara to address the shooting and rapidly growing protests. While O’Hara tried to de-escalate and call for calm, Frey had other intentions entirely.

“I just saw a video of more than six masked agents pummeling one of our constituents and shooting him to death,” he said.

“How many more residents, how many more Americans need to die or get badly hurt for this operation to end? How many more lives need to be lost before this administration realizes that a political and partisan narrative is not as important as American values?”

Gov. Tim Walz also responded to the shooting. 

“I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” he said in a post on X Saturday morning.

“The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

Walz has been accusing ICE agents of being inadequately trained for weeks; however, in a statement responding to the shooting, the Border Patrol Union pointed out that Border Patrol agents “are trained extremely well to protect themselves, their fellow agents, and innocent third parties. When a supposed ‘peaceful’ protester brings a weapon (such as a loaded handgun) and brandishes it, there are going to be severe consequences and repercussions.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) issued a statement accusing federal agents of murdering another member of the community.

“This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement. I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community. It is beyond shameful these federal agents are targeting our residents instead of protecting them,” she said.

“This isn’t isolated or accidental. The Trump administration is trying to beat us into submission rather than protect us. This administration cannot continue violating constitutional rights under the guise of immigration enforcement. ICE and CBP must leave Minnesota immediately. Their presence is terrorizing our communities, violating rights, and taking lives with zero accountability. Minnesota was once a place of refuge, and Trump has turned it into a war zone where unchecked federal forces murder our neighbors.” 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar urged the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to get ICE out of the state immediately. 

However, Vice President JD Vance, who was in Minnesota earlier this week, responded to the shooting by criticizing local authorities for failing to respond to requests for collaboration with federal agents.

“When I visited Minnesota, what the ICE agents wanted more than anything was to work with local law enforcement so that situations on the ground didn’t get out of hand,” he said.

“The local leadership in Minnesota has so far refused to answer those requests.”

President Trump also blamed the lack of police for the violence.

“Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers?” He asked in a post on Truth Social.

“The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves.”

The situation remains fluid, but one thing is clear: a man with a loaded gun and two loaded magazines was clearly looking for trouble, resisted arrest, and put federal agents in a position where they had to defend themselves.

Iran has flatly rejected a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning what it described as the “violent crackdown on peaceful protests” by Iranian security forces, after two weeks of raging economic protests earlier this month, which also included a government enforced total internet shutdown.

Following a closed-door session in Geneva on Friday, 25 council members – including France, Japan, and South Korea – voted in favor of the formal censure.

But there were significant voices among the seven that voted against, including China, India, and Pakistan. Fourteen others abstained.

The council demanded that Tehran halt arrests linked to the protests and take steps to “prevent extrajudicial killing, other forms of arbitrary deprivation of life, enforced disappearance, sexual and gender-based violence.”

UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the council that “the brutality in Iran continued, creating conditions for further human rights violations, instability and bloodshed.”

Tehran blasted the resolution as another display of Western hypocrisy, arguing that the sponsors of the emergency session have never genuinely cared about human rights in Iran.

Iran’s envoy Ali Bahreini pushed back at the meeting, saying as follows:

“It was ironic that states whose history was stained with genocide and war crimes now attempted to lecture Iran on social governance and human rights.”

This past week in Davos for the World Economic Forum, there was an interesting moment where US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent actually openly boasted that US sanctions helped drive the protests, after crippling the economy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues that US sanctions on Iran were intended to cripple the economy so people would take to the streets: “This is economic statecraft, no shots fired”
* I made this argument last week, and was accused of spreading Iranian propaganda… pic.twitter.com/O3Q32WhWhh

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 21, 2026

So Islamic Republic leaders are right to be skeptical when American, Israel, or European officials claims they ‘stand’ with the Iranian people, and seek ‘democracy’. Already, UN officials are invoking historical “genocide” instances and are dubiously comparing them with what’s going on in Iran:

A prosecutor said at least twice more people were killed in Iran in half the time compared with the Srebrenica genocide.

Iran’s Bahreini reiterated some of his government’s official casualty figures from clashes with police and security services, which were initially issued days ago via state sources. He said 3,117 people were killed during the unrest, but he also claimed that 2,427 of those deaths were caused by “terrorists” – covertly funded by enemies of Iran – namely the United States, Israel, and their allies.

Authored by Rob Carpenter via FreightWaves.com,

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy just dropped what I’ve been calling the nuclear option.

In an appearance on Katie Pavlich Tonight Thursday, Duffy made clear that withholding $200 million in federal funding isn’t the end of this fight. If California doesn’t come into compliance on the non-domiciled CDL issue, Duffy said, “we will eventually pull their ability to issue commercial driver’s licenses to anybody in California.”

Not just the 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight. Every single CDL in the state.

I’ve written extensively about this standoff since the FMCSA released its audit findings last September, which showed that roughly 25% of California’s non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued. I’ve covered the $160 million funding hit. I’ve warned about the decertification authority in 49 U.S.C. 31312 and 49 CFR 384.405, which most people in this industry didn’t even know existed.

How We Got Here

This didn’t start with the Trump administration’s September 2025 emergency rule restricting non-domiciled CDLs to certain visa categories. That rule, which limited eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders, has been stayed by the D.C. Circuit since November. The court found that petitioners were “likely to succeed” on their claims that the FMCSA violated federal law in its rulemaking.

The California problem predates all of that.

FMCSA’s August 2025 Annual Program Review found California had been violating federal regulations that existed long before Duffy took office. The state was issuing CDLs with expiration dates extending years beyond drivers’ lawful presence documentation. In one case that still makes my blood boil, California issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with passenger and school bus endorsements that remained valid months after his legal presence expired.

That’s not a new rule problem. That’s a California screwed-up problem.

California agreed in November to revoke all 17,000 improperly issued licenses by January 5, 2026. Then, on December 30, the California DMV unilaterally announced a 60-day extension to March 6, citing the need to ensure it doesn’t wrongfully terminate licenses for drivers who actually qualify.

Duffy’s response on X was blunt: “Gavin Newsom is lying.”

FMCSA never agreed to the extension. California proceeded anyway. On January 7, DOT made good on its threat and withheld approximately $160 million in National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grant funds. That’s on top of the $40 million already withheld over California’s refusal to enforce English language proficiency requirements.

The Nuclear Math

California has more than 700,000 CDL holders. The state is home to the nation’s largest trucking workforce, with over 138,000 truck drivers moving freight through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley, and every retail distribution center feeding the country’s largest consumer market.

Under full decertification, California would be prohibited from issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading any commercial learner’s permits or commercial driver’s licenses until FMCSA determines the state has corrected its deficiencies. Previously issued CDLs would technically remain valid until their stated expiration dates, but here’s where it gets ugly.

Other states could refuse to recognize California credentials during the noncompliance period. FMCSA could issue guidance declaring CDLs issued by a noncompliant state invalid for interstate commerce. The Commercial Driver’s License Information System, which enables interstate verification, could flag every California license.

For the 700,000 CDL holders in the Golden State, decertification wouldn’t just be an administrative headache.

It would effectively ground them from operating in interstate commerce.

I’ve been doing compliance work in this industry for over 25 years. I’ve never seen a federal-state confrontation escalate this fast or this far.

What’s That Look Like? 

The 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight represent just over 9% of California’s for-hire carrier base. I believe that number represents just under half the total increase in CDLs 

This isn’t really about 17,000 drivers anymore.

J.B. Hunt’s analysis suggests that, between non-domiciled CDL restrictions and English language proficiency enforcement, we could see 214,000 to 437,000 drivers removed from the U.S. supply over the next two to three years. FMCSA estimates that 97% of the current 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders nationwide won’t be able to satisfy the new requirements under the September rule, assuming it survives legal challenge.

Transport Futures economist Noël Perry puts the at-risk population even higher when accounting for undocumented drivers and new-hire restrictions: potentially 600,000 drivers, or 16% of the active workforce.

Whether those numbers hold up or not, one thing is clear. The days of states running their CDL programs with what Duffy called “reckless disregard” for federal requirements are ending.

What Happens Next

California is stuck between a rock and a hard place it created for itself.

On the one hand, the federal government is withholding $200 million and threatening to revoke the state’s authority to issue any commercial credential. On the other hand, a class-action lawsuit filed by the Asian Law Caucus, the Sikh Coalition, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP argues that the DMV’s own administrative errors caused the mismatches in expiration dates and that drivers should be able to immediately reapply for corrected credentials.

The lawsuit names five individual plaintiffs and the Jakara Movement, a Fresno-based organization serving the Punjabi Sikh community. An estimated 150,000 Sikh truck drivers operate in the United States, and many of the affected drivers argue they’re being punished for what amounts to clerical errors by the state.

They’re not wrong about the clerical errors. The DMV admitted in correspondence with federal regulators that “shortcomings of its technical systems and processes” led to the mismatched dates.

That admission doesn’t help California’s legal position with FMCSA. It strengthens it.

If California knew it had systemic programming errors that extended CDL expiration dates beyond work authorization periods, why didn’t it fix them before the feds came knocking? That’s the question that should concern every carrier operating in interstate commerce. A CDL issued in violation of federal requirements may not be valid for interstate operation, meaning drivers holding those credentials could face enforcement action in any state, and carriers dispatching them could face significant liability exposure.

Governor Newsom told the press that DOT had agreed to the March 6 extension. Duffy says that’s not true. FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs has been equally clear: “We will not accept a corrective plan that knowingly leaves thousands of drivers holding noncompliant licenses behind the wheel of 80,000-pound trucks in open defiance of federal safety regulations.”

California’s argument that its CDL holders are involved in fatal crashes at a rate far below the national average, and that Texas-issued licenses have a 50% higher rate of fatal crashes, might play well in press releases. It doesn’t address the fundamental regulatory compliance issue.

FMCSA didn’t withhold $160 million because of crash rates. It withheld funding because California admitted to issuing 17,000 licenses in violation of federal requirements and then refused to revoke them on the agreed timeline.

The nuclear option remains on the table, and based on everything I’ve seen from Duffy over the past six months, I wouldn’t bet against him using it.

Left-wing nonprofit groups in Minneapolis appear to have moved beyond pressure campaigns targeting ICE agents and federal law enforcement, shifting from street protests/riots toward actions that may disrupt critical infrastructure on Friday. The apparent objective is to target economic chokepoints and critical infrastructure, a pressure tactic consistent with the color revolution playbook previously deployed by dark-money funded NGO networks aligned with the Democratic Party’s protest-industrial complex and financed by left-wing billionaire foundations.

Local media outlet The Minnesota Star Tribune reported on Friday evening that “at a demonstration outside Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport’s main terminal, a Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman said police arrested roughly 100 demonstrators.”

Following a morning demonstration outside Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport’s main terminal, a Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman said police arrested roughly 100 demonstrators.

📸 Elizabeth Flores/The Minnesota Star Tribune

Follow updates here:… pic.twitter.com/h39Z5689IN

— The Minnesota Star Tribune (@StarTribune) January 23, 2026

Footage from the protest area appears to show demonstrators – mainly white liberal boomers – blocking the main access road to Terminal 1 at the international airport.

We’re not quite certain who organized the protest at the airport, but a flyer floating around social media appears to show the same left-wing nonprofit that organized ‘No Kings’ rallies across the country last year – largely seen as a failure because the mobilization effort only attracted white liberal boomers.

Here’s the flyer showing that Indivisible Twin Cities and 50501, dark-money-funded NGOs, could’ve been the organizers of the event to shut down critical infrastructure:

According to previous reporting by Peter Schweizer & Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute, the ‘No Kings’ protest brand was created by The Indivisible Project (or “Indivisible”). That entity and its eponymous offshoots – “Indivisible Civics,” “Indivisible Action,” “Indivisible East Bay,” et al – sprung up as an activist mobilization machine in response to Trump’s 2016 victory.

Parsing through 990 filings: Indivisible Civics funds the Indivisible Project.

As for Indivisible Project, the typical foundations that fund chaos nationwide also fund this entity.

The evolution of the protest to now shut down critical infrastructure comes as left-wing NGOs are attempting an “economic blackout” across Minnesota. As we noted days ago, the state is being used as a testing ground by Marxist revolutionists who will replicate pressure campaigns that work in the metro area across every sanctuary city when spring rolls around.

• Left-Wing NGOs Plan “Economic Blackout” Across Minnesota As State Becomes Testbed For Revolution

Let’s take a step back because the protest at the airport is a similar playbook that was used by revolutionary pro-Palestine groups in recent years that targeted critical economic chokepoints of the economy, from highways to bridges to airports and even land ports (read here). The goal of the protest industrial complex is not to help the cause; rather, it is all part of a sinister plan to collapse the nation from within.  

There is good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat down with journalist Christopher Rufo earlier this month to discuss plans to investigate dark-money-funded NGOs sowing chaos nationwide.

Among the topics discussed in the Bessent-Rufo interview were left-wing nonprofits, with Bessent acknowledging that “we are examining” NGO activities and funding structures…

Bessent continued:

Yes, yes, and yes. So, these groups that are engaging in this—we have the authority and are examining them. Because when you see these protesters, someone is financing them. There are safe houses. When you see the 300 people with the same laser that they’re using to blind DHS agents in courthouses in Portland, someone bought those lasers.

And again, what we do is follow the money—just like we followed it with the mafia, just like we follow it. We’ll find out who’s done this.

I announced today that we are going to put in effect a whistleblower program. And my sense is that the rats will turn on each other.

As I believe you reported—or someone talked about in a roundtable—one of the Somali fraudsters tried to bribe a juror with $120,000. What turned out, she’d been given $200,000 to bribe the jurors, and she skimmed. It’s like the scorpion—it’s in their nature.

EXCLUSIVE: Treasury ⁦@SecScottBessent⁩ tells me that the Trump Administration will launch investigations into left-wing nonprofits that serve as a front for violent protests and criminal obstruction of ICE operations. It’s time to stop left-wing terrorism in America. pic.twitter.com/roorsk4XLA

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@christopherrufo) January 9, 2026

Bessent said “rats,” the question there is whether he was referring to the actual rodent, or an acronym for the Rockefeller Foundation (R), Arabella network (A), Tides Foundation (T), and Soros Foundation (S), some of the foundations that have been funding the protest industrial complex against President Trump and attempting to derail the America First agenda.

Let’s circle back to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s comments in late November:

• General Flynn Calls For National Address From Trump On Color Revolution Threat

As spring and warmer weather approach, the protest industrial complex will be operating at full steam. It is time for the Trump administration to get ahead of these Marxist revolutionaries, whose main goal is a color revolution and regime change in the White House, the end of America First, and to collapse the nation from within.

Authored by Robert Burrows via BondVigilantes.com,

With geopolitics taking centre stage, the seismic tremors of Stablecoin activity go largely unnoticed. Stablecoins sit at a fascinating intersection of finance and technology. They promise the speed and programmability of cryptocurrencies with the price stability of traditional money.

What began as a niche settlement tool for crypto markets is now being discussed as a parallel monetary system—with profound implications for banks, credit creation, and financial stability.

What are stablecoins?

Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a stable value, usually pegged to a fiat currency like the US dollar. While there are several types, fiat-backed stablecoins dominate the market, accounting for roughly 90% of usage.

Two of the most widely used examples are USDC (Circle) and USDT (Tether). 

Both are backed by reserves, but the composition of those reserves varies:

Stablecoins are becoming major players in the treasury market with Tether now the 17th largest holder of treasuries on the planet.

Source: US department of Treasury as of October 2025

How are stablecoins different from cash?

If you can already pay with a bank card, does it matter if settlement takes two days instead or instantly?

For most consumers, the benefits of stablecoins look incremental compared to existing digital banking services.

But there is one notable difference: interest.

The GENIUS act and interest rules

The GENIUS Act, proclaimed by Donald Trump to have been named after himself, was signed into law in July 2025 and created a federal framework for stablecoins. Its aim is to provide regulatory clarity, consumer protection, and oversight. Crucially, the Act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders, ensuring they behave like cash rather than investment products.

However, third-party platforms, such as Coinbase or Binance can still pass through yield to users. That is, the interest earned by Circle or Tether from holding the interest bearing reserves is passed on to the exchanges, which then pass through to holders of the stablecoins through a process called ‘staking’. It is important to note that these yields are not guaranteed to be passed through and remain poorly understood, which has likely limited adoption.

Core use cases driving adoption

Payments and Settlement: Stablecoins enable near-instant, 24/7 settlement without relying on correspondent banking networks. For cross-border payments, this can be far cheaper and faster than SWIFT. Global remittance costs on average about 6.5% per transaction on flows of roughly $900 billion. Stablecoins could cut that close to zero. It’s no surprise Western Union is exploring its own stablecoin as its business model faces disruption.

Cryptocurrency market infrastructure: The cryptocurrency universe has gone from strength to strength (less so lately). Stablecoins act as the base currency of the crypto ecosystem, allowing traders to move in and out of risk assets without touching the banking system.

Financial Inclusion: In countries with weak banking systems or high inflation, dollar-pegged stablecoins offer a stable store of value without requiring a bank account. With the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, adoption in South America and Africa is easy to imagine. Asian markets may lean towards both US-backed and yuan-backed stablecoins. Financial inclusion can cut both ways, as it may accelerate capital flight from emerging economies and funnel more funding into US debt markets.

The funding threat to banks

Banks rely on deposits to fund loans.

Stablecoins disrupt this in three ways:

1. Deposit disintermediation: If households and corporates hold stablecoins instead of bank deposits, banks lose a cheap and stable source of funding.

2. Reduced credit creation: Stablecoin reserves are typically invested in:

   • Treasury bills

   • Reverse repos

   • Cash at central banks

This shifts money away from private lending and towards government financing. For the US, this is convenient given its $38 trillion debt stock, with 40–45% needing rollover in the next 18 months.

3. Pro-cyclicality risk: In a crisis, depositors may rush into stablecoins perceived as safer, amplifying stress on bank funding and making bank runs increasingly likely.

The stablecoin market is currently $300 billion in size, with bullish growth forecasts of $4 trillion by 2030. If this growth is realised, it will likely come at the expense of bank deposits and not from new external sources. This is a problem for the banks, and it won’t come as a surprise that recent crypto legislation stalled just last week amid banking industry lobbying against stablecoin interest payments. Stablecoins are not necessarily a catalyst for widening but is another concern for a sector which has spreads trading at all time tights.

To summarise, for everyday consumers, stablecoins offer little beyond what bank accounts already provide. For banks and the economy, the stakes are much higher. If stablecoins disintermediate banks, lending costs rise, credit availability shrinks, and growth slows, unless alternative credit channels scale up quickly.

The US Government will welcome the extra demand for short-term debt, but the cost could be a fundamental reshaping of the banking system.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Friday that the Golden State will remain a part of the World Health Organization’s network, even though the Trump administration just completed the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO.

“The Trump administration’s withdrawal from WHO is a reckless decision that will hurt all Californians and Americans,” Newsom wrote.

“California will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring. We will continue to foster partnerships across the globe and remain at the forefront of public health preparedness, including through our membership as the only state in WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network.”

As Jacki Thrapp reports for The Epoch Times, Newsom, who confirmed in October that he’s considering a 2028 presidential bid, revealed the new collaboration after meeting with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

Newsom’s decision goes against the Trump administration’s approach to the agency, which is managed by the United Nations.

Trump, a critic of the WHO’s pandemic responses, has wanted the United States to exit the WHO ever since his first term. His administration formally made the split on Thursday.

“This action responds to the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to rectify the harm from those failures inflicted on the American people,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr in a joint statement Jan. 22.

The Trump administration said the agency “abandoned its core mission and acted repeatedly against the interests of the United States,” even though America was a founding member and the largest financial contributor.

All U.S. funding of WHO has ended, amounting to about $111 million in annual “mandatory dues” and $570 million in “voluntary contributions,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

“We right these injustices and bring an end to the bureaucratic inertia, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international politics that have rendered the organization beyond repair,” the press release by Rubio and Kennedy added.

“We will get our flag back for the Americans who died alone in nursing homes, the small businesses devastated by WHO-driven restrictions, and the American lives shattered by this organization’s inactivity. Our withdrawal is for them.”

Rubio and Kennedy said the WHO refused to give the United States its flag back after the departure announcement.

A federal judge on Friday ordered the release of two Minnesota women who stormed a Minnesota church last Sunday after the FBI and Homeland Security agents arrested them on Thursday. 

US District Judge Laura Provinzino (Biden) said that the protesters, Nekima Armstrong and Chauntyll Allen, do not pose a flight risk – but must surrender their passports while they await trial. Provinzino found that the Trump administration offered “no factual or legal support” to justify their claim that this was a “crime of violence.” 

A video of the two women posted on line shows them emerging from detention on Friday, raising their fists.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Georgia Fort (@bygeorgiafort)

The pair were arrested Thursday morning and charged with Conspiracy to Deprive Rights for their key roles in storming Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota on Sunday. They each face up to 10 years in prison if convicted. 

Homeland Security Investigators and FBI agents arrested Nekima Levy Armstrong who played a key role in orchestrating the Church Riots in St. Paul, Minnesota.

She is being charged with a federal crime under 18 USC 241.

Religious freedom is the bedrock of the United States -… pic.twitter.com/LHh994fXf3

— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) January 22, 2026

A judge has also ordered the release of a third activist, William Kelly, who was involved in the protest, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.

Armstrong, former president of the NAACP in Minneapolis, helped lead a group that poured into the Cities Church in St. Paul before chanting “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good,” because one of the church’s pastors, David Easterwood, heads up the local ICE field office. 

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term saw historic reductions in violent crimes, while federal arrests soared by 100 percent, according to the FBI.

The 2025 milestones were achieved as a result of a “full-scale reset of the FBI—operationally, culturally, and fiscally,” FBI Director Kash Patel told The Epoch Times.

Murder rates fell by 20 percent nationwide, the largest decline on record, according to statistics released by the FBI on Jan. 22. 

Four of the top 10 most wanted fugitives were captured, matching the number detained over the prior four years. 

Approximately 1,800 gangs and other criminal organizations were disrupted, marking a 210 percent increase from the prior year, and more than 2,000 kilograms, or around 4,400 pounds of fentanyl—enough of the deadly opioid to kill more than one-third of the U.S. population—were seized. 

“The result was the most productive year in modern FBI history, measured by arrests, disruptions, victim recoveries, and taxpayer savings,” Patel said. “That’s what reform looks like, and there’s more to come.” 

The improvements came as he oversaw a complete overhaul of the FBI—including the closure of the Hoover Building—and the relocation of its headquarters, expected to save taxpayers approximately $5 billion. 

The FBI headquarters in Washington on July 16, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

An additional $1.2 billion in savings resulted from a comprehensive audit conducted last year. 

“We cut bureaucracy, pushed agents back into the field, delivered accountability, and rebuilt trust with our law enforcement partners,” Patel said.  

Restructuring the sprawling agency included the dismissal of some agents perceived to have political bias, balanced by the hiring of 1,422 individuals, including nearly 500 special agents. 

Patel refocused the FBI to prioritize crime-fighting and threat-detection operations.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel announce the arrest of Brian Cole during a press conference in Washington on Dec. 4, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Joint investigations resulted in the recovery of more than 6,000 missing children across the country and the arrest of about 1,700 child predators. 

Nearly 4 million accounts operated by pedophiles online were terminated. 

Agents investigated 900 percent more children potentially victimized by nihilistic violent extremism—a new class of terrorism that involves the exploitation and harm of children.  

The notorious 764 Network—a loosely organized, nihilistic, violent extremist group known to harm animals and children—was targeted, resulting in 20 percent more arrests than in 2024, with the founder sentenced to more than 80 years in prison. 

“This should be headline news every day, because the protection of our children is one of our biggest priorities here,” Patel said during an interview with Jan Jekielek, host of Epoch TV’s “American Thought Leaders.“

“We made a huge push this year to protect our children against these online predators, and this is the worst of the worst.”

Counterespionage efforts netted 41 individuals from China, 18 Russians, 10 Iranians, and 16 other people from around the world, totaling 36 percent more spies caught than the year before. 

“We are actually disrupting them. We’re kicking them out of our networks,” he said. “We’re bringing them to trial, and we’re putting them in prison. That is a very powerful public display of force.” 

FBI Director Kash Patel speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington on Nov. 19, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Agents are also using advanced biometric identification methods—including fingerprints and scans of irises and faces to secure records and prevent theft of sensitive materials.

Investigations stopped 640 individuals from committing terrorist attacks, as the counterterrorism division arrested more than 700 suspects, secured 242 convictions, and seized 245 firearms.  

International operations boosted global extraditions and transfers of custody to foreign nations by 40 percent, while nearly doubling the number of subpoenas, indictments, convictions, and sentences levied the year before. 

President Donald Trump highlighted the federal crime-fighting initiatives and results on the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration, saying the deployment of resources helped “restore law and order.” 

Special agents participated in the Memphis Safe Task Force and were involved in a number of operations, including “Summer Heat” and “Coast to Coast,” which resulted in 56,000 arrests and the seizure of more than 4,000 firearms.

Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization allowed extensive investigations that unveiled financial connections, according to Patel, who said about two dozen individuals were arrested for materially supporting terrorism. 

“We’re treating them as [the] terrorist organization that they are and mapping out the money,” he said, noting that more indictments are expected this year.

“With our partners in Treasury, we are following the money, mapping out the entire network, and treating them as a terrorist organization under the authorities the president has given us.”

An ANTIFA tag in Los Angeles on Oct. 20, 2021. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Restoring integrity to the FBI—following years of what the director described as politically motivated prosecutions and botched investigations—is a key element of Patel’s leadership approach. 

He engaged with Congress 50 times, a 25 percent increase from Christopher Wray’s record in 2024, and provided lawmakers with more than 400,000 pages of documents, representing 560 percent more pages than his predecessor produced. 

More transparency is on the way, according to Patel, after agents discovered burn bags filled with documents related to Russian collusion allegations involving Trump. 

“You’re going to see everything we found in that room, in one way or another, be it through investigation, public trial, or disclosure of the Congress,” Patel said.