Technically, the Bank of Japan actions overnight should be seen as “a hawkish hold”, according to Goldman Sachs Delta-One desk-head Rich Privorotsky.

The Bank raised its growth estimate and maintained its hawkish inflation forecasts on Friday even as it kept interest rates steady, signaling its confidence a moderate recovery would justify raising still-low borrowing costs further.

While Ueda had suggested that overall inflation will weaken below 2% soon, he also left open the possibility of an early rate hike.

“April is a month where there’s relatively high numbers of price revisions,” Ueda said.

“We have a certain amount of interest in that, and while it’s not the most important factor in deciding the next rate hike, it’s one of the factors.”

The BOJ gave other signs of a more robust view, too.

It softened its assessment of economic risks as they are now generally balanced. With the negative impact of US tariffs receding, the bank cut the wording that it needs to watch if the economic outlook will materialize “without any preconceptions.”

However, Governor Ueda’s press conference leaned cautious on market functioning, flagging discomfort with the pace of long end moves and a willingness to act if volatility becomes disorderly.

Ueda said the central bank may conduct operations to smooth volatility in the bond market in a nimble fashion if needed, while indicating that exceptional circumstances would be needed.

“In a situation that’s different from usual, we could conduct nimble operations to encourage stable yield formation in the markets,” Ueda said.

“We’ll keep closely cooperating with the government and keep watching the situation while considering our respective roles.”

That’s not a return to formal YCC, but it does keep a soft backstop in place.

The immediate reaction made sense…

• front-end rates higher,

• some flattening further out,

• and FX weaker (could be a lot weaker if people think YCC is back).

It remains very hard to thread the needle of strong growth, high inflation, stable rates, and a stable currency.

Repatriation flows help at the margin, but the currency still looks like the pressure valve.

Privorotsky ended his note by pointing out that “sharp moves as this is going to press, curious if some intervention happening…”

“USD/JPY initially moved higher after Governor Ueda’s comments were interpreted as slightly more dovish on rate hikes,” said Fukuhiro Ezawa, head of markets Japan at Standard Chartered Bank in Tokyo.

“The pair then pulled back, prompting market chatter that the move may have reflected intervention or a rate check. USD/JPY subsequently drifted lower, though dip-buying emerged on the downside, allowing the pair to retrace part of the move.”

Around 2amET, as Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda ended his post-policy decision press conference, with JPY weakness accelerating above 159/USD (near the 160 Maginot Line), there was a sudden and very violent lurch higher in the yen (USDJPY puked 150pips in minutes)…

The volumes traded during that period were dramatically above normal..

But, not particularly significant relative to recent (alleged) interventions…

Of course, that could simply reflect the ever shrinking level of liquidity (and this lower level of actual intervention required to move the Japanese currency).

“It is tempting to conclude that we may be in the early stages of an official intervention,” said Valentin Marinov, strategist at Credit Agricole.

“The reaction is also showing how nervous the markets are when the JPY is trading so close to the ‘line in the sand’ – levels where we had interventions in the past.”

Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama declined to answer when asked if Japan had intervened in the market, keeping investors in the dark regarding the moment of yen volatility.

“We’re always watching with a sense of urgency,” she said.

As a reminder, the government spent almost $100 billion on yen-buying to prop up the currency in 2024.

On each of the four occasions the exchange rate was around 160 yen per dollar, setting that level as a rough marker for where action might take place again… and very close to where we saw this move overnight.

The bottom line is simple: by refusing to admit they can control two opposing variables simultaneously, they will lose control of everything and as Privorotsky notes… the currency will likely be the release valve (hence the ‘alleged’ intervention)

Overnight Ueda effectively confirmed YCC coming, sparking yen selloff… then immediate U-turn spike driven by what appears to be one-time small intervention by MOF/BOJ.

BOJ hoping to control yields (yen negative) while intervening in FX to prop it up.

Another disaster coming https://t.co/HLlYjAGN10

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 23, 2026

“Another disaster coming” indeed!

US natural gas futures surged as much as 75% over the past week, well above $5/mmBtu, driven by sharply colder weather forecasts (comparable to the 2021 Uri storm that paralyzed Texas’ power grid), ongoing production freeze-offs, and a vicious market trap for bears that unleashed epic short covering.

As of Friday morning, around 0645 ET, front-month NatGas contracts in New York fell 1.4% to $4.97/mmBtu, after surging 63% over the last three trading sessions.

Prices were still on track for the biggest weekly gain on record, with Bloomberg data going back to 1990.

This week’s surge was largely fueled by below-average temperature forecasts across the Lower 48, combined with the threat of a potentially historic winter storm stretching from Texas to the Northeast.

Widespread winter activity across more than half the country has raised freeze-off risks, particularly in southern gas-producing states and Appalachia, while also stoking concerns about pipeline icing that could reduce volumes and pressure power grids this weekend and into next week.

Winter is Coming for Appalachia
This week’s Appalachian nat gas production is already down 1.1 Bcf/d versus last week, and the extreme cold is just getting started.

Pittsburgh overnight lows are headed to -6.8°F at their most intense levels next week, with this cold coming in… pic.twitter.com/l2oyl80cfe

— Criterion Research (@PipelineFlows) January 22, 2026

Our reporting this week:

• Appalachian NatGas Output Faces “Intense Losses” As Arctic Blast Drives Power Grid Risk Higher

• NatGas Jumps 75% As Extreme Cold, Blizzard Risks Threaten Appalachian Gas Supply

Samantha Dart, lead analyst on the Goldman Sachs commodities team, provided clients with critical color on the US NatGas market Thursday evening following a historic week of upside price action.

Dart was clear that the move in NatGas was purely weather-driven: prices surged amid sharply colder forecasts, production freeze-offs, and short covering. She said her desk views the spike as a near-term shock, with futures prices likely overshooting fundamentals rather than signaling a sustained rally.

She said that front of the curve rallied more than Summer 2026 (Sum26) contracts, highlighting two key risks:

• Production outages might hit exactly when heating demand peaks and the system might fall temporarily short on gas

• Storage path risks: Higher heating demand ultimately lowers overall storage levels, increasing the market’s vulnerability to tightening shocks during the 2026-27 winter.

Dart continued:

• We estimate that near-term deliverability risks are meaningful, even taking into account mitigating factors like gas-to-coal switching and the re-sale of gas by liquefaction facilities back to the grid. That said, we think this would ultimately be a temporary physical imbalance, likely to be reflected in very high cash prices during the tightening shock, rather than in a sustained rally in NYMEX gas. We think this is especially the case given the potential for strong Northeast production to help rebuild Gulf storage levels in the spring, as observed last year. As a result, while weather forecast shifts can keep price volatility elevated, prompt NYMEX prices seem to have overshot fundamentals.

She added that the upcoming storm (peak cold on Jan 26) is expected to create a temporary tightening, reflected in higher cash prices than NYMEX futures, similar to the 2021 Uri event, when cash spiked to $25/mmBtu while prompt NYMEX stayed flat.

Dart’s view is that prices post-storm and post-winter blast will return to the medium-term target, but stay above $3.50, and not exceed $4.

The full note can be found in the usual place for ZeroHedge Pro Subs.

After nearly four years of the Russia-Ukraine war, and the US having throughout poured billions into Kiev’s military and civic services sector, there are signs that other American allies are experiencing extreme delays in pre-scheduled arms shipments because Washington’s priorities are clearly elsewhere.

Israel over the past couple years has also been a high priority, amid its war in Gaza, which resulted in the US fast-tracking some bombs, ammo, and weapons deliveries. But countries like Japan are suffering from extreme delays, at a sensitive moment it is locked in an ongoing diplomatic standoff with China over the Japanese Prime Minister’s Taiwan stance.

Nikkei has referenced a Japanese government internal investigation which found that “118 orders for U.S. military equipment worth 1.14 trillion yen ($7.21 billion) have not been delivered at least five years after the contracts were signed, in some cases forcing the Self-Defense Forces to use older equipment.”

These startling figures were uncovered by Japan’s Board of Audit, and revealed upon completing its formal investigation last Friday.

“The 118 cases pointed out by the Board of Audit include equipment that Japan added to its orders later, and not all of them are delayed deliveries,” the Japan’s Defense Ministry said, adding that “we will address each of the issues in Foreign Military Sales procurement one by one.”

However, the Japanese government has not speculated as to specific causes or made any accusations of its key arms partner in the West. The Nikkei report, for example cites instances of problems at manufacturing companies, resulting in serious delays of advanced weaponry.

But the report does bring up the question of Washington’s shifting priorities, which can come into play even long after deals with Tokyo are inked:

Even with FMS contracts, deliveries can be delayed if the U.S. side lacks the items in stock. Shipments to Japan can be postponed when Washington determines that delivering equipment would disrupt American military operations.

Japanese opposition parties had expressed concern that deliveries of air defense missiles and other equipment could be delayed due to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The government said it was difficult to comment on such a possibility.

Examples of major military hardware delayed for the island-nation include E-2D early warning and control aircraft. Much of what Japan seeks is indeed defensive in nature, also as it knows it would have to rely heavily on its American ally if some kind of hot conflict were to ever kick off with China.

China has earlier warned Japan will suffer a “crushing” defeat if it ever decided to directly intervene in the Taiwan dispute. Recent years have also seen Beijing’s anger grow after NATO briefly talked about opening an official office in Tokyo, but these plans were soon abandoned.

The Trump administration’s primary venue at the World Economic Forum in Davos, known as USA House, issued a pointed warning on its website Tuesday after reports surfaced that some high-profile attendees had been duped by scalpers peddling counterfeit VIP access packages, Fox Business reports.

“Caveat billionaires,” the notice began dryly, “It has been brought to our attention that again this year external parties are selling ‘VIP access to USA House’ and other Stromback Global venues in Davos.”

Organizers said that USA House and Stromback Global maintain no partnerships with third-party resellers and will deny entry to anyone holding such bogus credentials.

The statement added a touch of literary flair:

“The volume of inbound queries this year suggests that these fake VIP passes may be the fastest-selling fiction about Davos since Thomas Mann’s Magic Mountain.”

The statement closed with sympathies for the victims of the apparent swindle.

USA House, a public-private initiative debuting this year to highlight American innovation on the global stage, centers its programming on the nation’s 250th anniversary and themes of opportunity, collaboration, and democratic values.

Access to elite World Economic Forum badges can run into the tens of thousands of dollars – up to $35,000 for top-tier entry, according to prior reporting – plus substantial annual membership fees that reach into the seven figures for the most influential participants, according to Fox Business.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The clips in this piece were all sourced and edited by Wide Awake Media. Please give them a follow on X.

As the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again initiative ramps up its assault on processed poisons and added sugars, Davos elites are scrambling to defend their synthetic food agenda. From lab-grown “meat” to artificial additives, the WEF crowd insists their tech-driven “solutions” will save the planet, even as public resistance mounts and states impose bans on cultivated cell products.

This clash highlights the divide between policies prioritizing nutrient-dense, farm-fresh eats and the globalist push for factory-farmed fakes and lab grown substances riddled with unknown risks.

WEF Insider Touts Lab-Grown Meat as ‘Way Forward’ Amid Ecological Claims

In a discussion on food innovation, Davos participant Andrea Illy championed tech foods like cultivated meat, dismissing cultural resistance as outdated, despite acknowledging massive consumer backlash.

Davos participant Andrea Illy claims that fake, lab-grown foods “represent the way forward”, despite massive public resistance.

“70% of the ecological footprint of agriculture is due to animal proteins.”

“Why should I use animals when I can cultivate meat [in a lab]?” pic.twitter.com/tZYK4uy6ST

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) January 22, 2026

The clip captures Illy saying: “So I think that I acknowledge, let me say, there is a terrible cultural resistance from consumer to accept tech foods. But in my opinion they represent the way forward.”

He continued, “If you look at it from the ecological perspective, maybe we have to be selective. And Because we know from statistics, correct me if I’m wrong, that 70% of the ecological footprint of agriculture is due to animal proteins, and then on the other side, they kind of physiological, we know that an excessive consumption of animal proteins is the first cause of non-communicable diseases. Which are like the number one health problem in the western society.”

“So what about reducing the animal protein to the level which is healthy and increasing, also optimizing the environmental impact?” Illy suggested, adding “Why should I use animals when I can cultivate meat and get only the best part of this? This I know is a kind of cultural revolution, it will take decades.”

This push ignores growing evidence of lab-grown meat’s inefficiencies, high costs, and potential health unknowns. 

Recent developments show the sector struggling, with shutdowns like Believer Meats in late 2025 amid declining investments. 

Dutch startup Meatable also ceased operations in December 2025 after failing to secure funding. 

Meanwhile, states are cracking down: Seven Republican-led states, including Texas, have banned the manufacture, sale or distribution of lab-grown meat. 

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller blasted a federal ruling allowing a lawsuit against the state’s ban to proceed, calling lab-grown products a “Trojan horse” threatening rural livelihoods and food safety.

Davos Speaker Warns MAHA Scrutiny on Additives Will ‘Injure’ Consumers and the Planet

During another panel, WEF participant Jasmin Hume voiced concerns over heightened scrutiny of synthetic additives and dyes, partly driven by MAHA, predicting harm to consumers, industry, and the environment.

In the footage, Hume explained: “Right now, the food industry is under an unprecedented amount of stress. There are increasing and ever-evolving consumer expectations in terms of the foods that they’re purchasing and prioritizing.”

She continued, “In the United States there’s been a lot of talk recently from Make America Healthy Again And how we need to take a really close look at some compounds like synthetic additives and dyes that have been in the food system for many decades in other countries and are now coming under scrutiny.”

Davos: WEF participant Jasmin Hume argues that increased public scrutiny of the “synthetic additives and dyes that have been in the food system for many decades”—driven in part by Make America Healthy Again—will ultimately harm the consumer, the food industry and the planet.… pic.twitter.com/PDtWOOLdKL

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) January 22, 2026

“It’s really, really difficult to be able to do the level of reformulation, and not mention regulation, that has to happen at the same pace,” Hume further claimed.

Hume argued that removing these long-used compounds would require massive reformulation and regulatory changes, creating backlogs under FDA’s GRAS process. She claimed consumers would suffer from foods lacking expected nutrition and value, while industry and the planet face injury.

This defense of synthetic ingredients clashes directly with MAHA’s mission, as outlined in our previous coverage of the Trump admin’s dietary guidelines overhaul. 

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has declared war on added sugars and ultra-processed junk, prioritizing real, nutrient-dense foods to combat chronic diseases. 

The reset ends subsidies for low-quality items in federal programs, saving billions in healthcare while bolstering American farmers.

Moderna CEO Blames ‘Misinformation’ for Vaccine Hesitancy, Pins Hopes on mRNA Cancer Shots

Meanwhile, at another Davos panel on cancer care, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel lamented societal pushback against mRNA vaccines, attributing it to under-communication during the pandemic and rampant social media misinformation.

Davos: Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel blames social media “misinformation” for declining vaccination rates, insisting no corners were cut on Covid mRNA “vaccine” safety.

He predicts that mRNA cancer vaccines will “change the pendulum” of public opinion over time.

“We’ve seen what… pic.twitter.com/cMXxnJej9b

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) January 22, 2026

In the clip, Bancel expressed regret over not addressing psychological barriers more effectively, while insisting no safety corners were cut. Bancel also highlighted declining vaccination rates amid a severe flu season and expressed hope that mRNA applications in cancer and other diseases would shift public perception over time.

This comes amid ongoing debates over mRNA tech’s long-term effects, with critics pointing to excess deaths and health issues post-rollout. Yet Bancel frames resistance as tragic, overlooking widespread distrust fueled by real-world outcomes.

The Davos rhetoric exposes globalists’ desperation as MAHA dismantles Big Food’s and Big Pharma’s grip. With lab-grown meat bans spreading—now in seven states including Texas—and public demand for transparency soaring, the era of unchecked synthetic slop is crumbling. 

America’s return to real food signals a victory against technocratic overreach, putting health and sovereignty first.

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.

Donald Trump’s opposition to the US continuing to bankroll NATO has become a defining issue in global politics, so much so that a considerable percentage of time and energy at the ongoing Davos conference has been spent talking about it.

During a panel discussion on Europe’s defense capabilities with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Polish President Karol Nawrocki, Finnish President Alexander Stubb argued that Europe ‘unequivocally’ has the ability to defend itself without US support. 

The claim coincides with the Finnish leader’s assertion that a ” new world order” is rising with the UN at the helm.  The suggestion has, of course, drawn scrutiny as being overly optimistic.

NOW – Finland’s President, Alexander Stubb, says Europe can “unequivocally” defend itself, without the Americans. pic.twitter.com/AeHFshxBr5

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 21, 2026

Stubb’s argument hinges largely on Finland’s military reliance on the mandatory conscription of at least 1 million citizens. 

It also assumes other European nations will be able to do the same.  Conscription propaganda in the EU and UK has become commonplace in the past couple of years, and European leaders have been lamenting the lack of interest among citizens to volunteer for service.

Finland and the majority of EU nations rely heavily on US weapons systems and military personnel with the expertise to use those systems.  Then there is the extensive abilities of US intelligence resources from satellites to covert assets.  

In the case of the war in Ukraine, it was largely US resources and intel that stopped Ukraine from being completely overrun by Russian forces.  European governments have been taking a larger part in this role since Donald Trump’s return to office, but the fact remains that Russia is not fighting Ukraine so much as it is fighting NATO in Ukraine and NATO is backstopped by the US. 

This has led European leaders to misrepresent Russia’s capabilities; downplaying their gains in Ukraine and ignoring their attrition warfare methods which have been grinding down the Ukrainian military.  European elites know that Ukraine is losing despite NATO aid, which is why they have been pushing for conscription and the deployment of troops to the Ukrainian theater.  A possible motive may also be their hope that this will force the US to also deploy ground forces.

The reality is, Europe has little to no industrial capacity needed to sustain a large scale war lasting years rather than months.  They have also been quietly and quickly destroying their own energy production capabilities in the name of “climate change.”  Even worse, most Europeans citizens have no intention of dying in the trenches for governments that have openly sought to replace them with third world immigrants.  Recruitment will be difficult or impossible.   

A key problem is the fact that European nations have grown comfortable in the shade of America’s security umbrella.  They rely almost exclusively on the US as a deterrent to Russian invasion (which is highly unlikely without European provocation).  The vast majority of NATO’s defensive capability is reliant on US military spending.  And, because the US foots the bill for Europe’s defense, they are free to spend exorbitant budgets on social welfare programs like subsidized healthcare while making fun of Americans for having to pay high prices for doctor’s visits. 

Meanwhile, progressive European governments have grown increasingly hostile to free speech and freedom in general.  The crackdown against conservative and “anti-immigration” discourse has placed the EU and UK in direct confrontation with the Trump Administration.  The arrests of citizens for “crimes” as innocuous as flying a national flag or posting memes on social media in the name of “not offending people” brings into question whether or not Americans and Europeans are ideological enemies rather than friends. 

EU governments clearly want to convince their respective populations that Europe can survive without the US.  The claim is delusional.

Trump’s battles over NATO membership are hindered by the fact that the President requires a two-thirds senate vote to withdraw from the agreement.  However, his efforts to acquire Greenland present on interesting scenario.  If Trump forces the sale of Greenland (or takes Greenland by force), European governments will effectively end the NATO alliance themselves.  In other words, Trump won’t need a Senate vote.  

The general reaction from many conservatives to the threat of a broken NATO alliance is “good riddance”.  Why should Americans continue to spend their tax dollars and risk their lives coddling Europe?  It’s a response the Europeans do not seem to understand.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which was envisaged as a game-changing geo-economic megaproject when it was announced in September 2023 at the G20 Summit in Delhi, was abruptly frozen by the Gaza War that broke out a month later and the West Asian War that followed.

The end of those conflicts then gave rise to optimism that Saudi Arabia would normalize ties with Israel like it reportedly planned to do prior to their outbreak as the political prerequisite for building IMEC.

After all, without the normalization of Israeli-Saudi ties, there can be no logistical connection between IMEC’s Emirati and Israeli Mideast anchors across the West Asian landmass.

Saudi Arabia requires Israel at least making superficial concessions on Palestinian independence, however, which Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is opposed to doing after the latest wars.

This dilemma might therefore derail IMEC yet again unless the US mediates a creative compromise or gets one of them to back down.

That’s difficult to imagine as a result of three fast-moving developments in December.

The first was Israel’s recognition of Somaliland’s 1991 redeclaration of independence as a sovereign state. Saudi Arabia fiercely opposes this, and while it was argued here that Israel was motivated more by its rivalry with Turkiye than its one with Iran (whose Houthi allies still control North Yemen), a related motivation could have been to ensure the security of maritime trade with India in the absence of IMEC.

That’s reasonable if Israel tacitly accepted by then that the normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia won’t happen as a result of pressure upon it by the international Muslim community (Ummah) over the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza War.

Shortly afterwards, Saudi Arabia militarily aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yemeni branch against UAE-backed South Yemen despite considering the group as a whole to be terrorists, after which South Yemen was swiftly conquered by the Saudis’ Yemeni allies.

Israel just finished a war with the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas, so the aforementioned development would have understandably led to a further deterioration of trust in the Saudis.

In parallel, the Saudis demanded that the UAE withdraw from South Yemen within 24 hours, which it did. That ultimatum also described the UAE’s actions in South Yemen as a threat to Saudi national security. Even though they didn’t come to blows in South Yemen, trust between them is now absolutely destroyed.

Accordingly, even if Israeli-Saudi ties were to normalize in spite of Saudi anger at Israel over its recognition of Somaliland, new Israeli distrust of the Saudis over their military alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen, the Ummah’s pressure on Saudi Arabia, and new Saudi-Emirati tensions would still undermine tangible progress on building IMEC.

India’s trade with Israel and Europe will therefore remain reliant on traditional maritime routes since IMEC’s future is once again in doubt.

In fact, given how serious Saudi Arabia’s problems with the UAE and Israel are, IMEC might never get off the ground at all.

India might then strengthen its ties with those two afterwards since it could consider them to be more reliable partners, especially after Saudi Arabia’s mutual defense pact with India’s Pakistani nemesis last September that Turkiye now wants to join too.

The end of IMEC might then result in an Emirati-Indian-Israeli bloc formed in opposition to the emerging Saudi-Pakistani-Turkish one.

One of the more interesting aspects to the Thursday signing ceremony for President Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ in Davos, Switzerland was who was not in attendance.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to attend the signing ceremony, but not necessarily by choice, as he is currently unable to travel to much of Europe on fears of being arrested.

In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes that included using starvation as a weapon of war and deliberately targeting civilians, as well as crimes against humanity.

Gaza sources have said over 70,000 Palestinians were killed in the some two-year long bombardment and siege of the Gaza Strip in the wake of the Oct.7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Israel has countered that tens of thousands of the deceased were armed Hamas militants.

Israel was still represented at the signing ceremony, however:

Netanyahu was replaced at the summit by Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, who travelled to Davos on Tuesday and met German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.

During the meeting, Herzog criticised the absence of Israeli officials from the forum and called for the removal of ICC arrest warrants issued against Israeli leaders, describing the court’s actions as “politically motivated”.

Israeli leaders have blasted the ICC, along with the US, which has actually sanctioned some ICC officials. “Israel is given here a bum rap. I think it’s dangerous. Basically, it’s the first democracy being taken to the dock when it is doing exactly what democracies should be doing in an exemplary way,” Netanyahu told CNN in a past interview. “It endangers all other democracies. Israel is first, but you’re next. Britain is next. Others are next, too.”

As for the newly initiated Board of Peace, the White House earlier this month named several members of the Trump administration, as well as international leaders, to top positions. It officially aims to mobilize international resources while overseeing Gaza’s transition and reconstruction. But critics have said it’s a colonial-style land grab and Western investment project which has nothing to do with the interests of the Palestinian people.

This is who is on the board and participated in the signing event:

• Isa bin Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, minister of the prime minister’s court, Bahrain
• Nasser Bourita, minister of foreign affairs, Morocco
• Javier Milei, president, Argentina
• Nikol Pashinyan, prime minister, Armenia
• Ilham Aliyev, President, Azerbaijan
• Rosen Zhelyazkov, prime minister, Bulgaria
• Viktor Orban, prime minister, Hungary 
• Prabowo Subianto, president, Indonesia
• Ayman Al Safadi, minister of foreign affairs, Jordan
• Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, president, Kazakhstan
• Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, president, Kosovo
• Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, prime minister, Pakistan
• Santiago Peña, president, Paraguay
• Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, president, Qatar
• Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia
• Hakan Fidan, minister of foreign affairs, Turkey
• Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, special envoy to the U.S. for the UAE
• Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president, Uzbekistan
• Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, prime minister, Mongolia

And here’s something deeply ironic: 11 of the 25 countries on Trump’s Board of Peace are currently banned from immigrant visas to the United States.

Jared Kushner presenting this morning at the “Board of Peace” ceremony their mock ups of “New Gaza” & “New Rafah.” pic.twitter.com/zWuhhqPVz1

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) January 22, 2026

Trump will chair the board, which will be tasked with overseeing the next phase in Gaza. Dozens of countries have been invited to join. Notably absent from the Davos signing event were Canada, France, Germany, Italy and some other European nations.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The European Parliament has voted to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the legality of the EU–Mercosur trade agreement, a move that delays ratification of the deal, but the European Commission could still apply the agreement “provisionally” if Germany has its way.

MEPs meeting in Strasbourg approved the referral by 334 votes to 324, following intense lobbying from farming groups and several member states opposed to the agreement. The vote took place against a backdrop of farmers’ protests outside the chamber.

The pact, signed on Saturday with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, aims to establish one of the world’s largest free trade areas by eliminating tariffs on more than 90 percent of bilateral trade, but those opposed have expressed concerns over the importation of cheaper products that need not adhere to the quality control standards European farmers must adhere to.

The vote was immediately criticized by Germany and the European Commission, both of which support the agreement and argue that it is legally sound. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the decision as “regrettable” and warned that it failed to account for Europe’s strategic interests.

“We are convinced of the agreement’s legality. No more delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally,” Merz said on X.

Die Entscheidung des Europäischen Parlaments zum Mercosur-Abkommen ist bedauerlich. Sie verkennt die geopolitische Lage. Von der Rechtmäßigkeit des Abkommens sind wir überzeugt. Keine weiteren Verzögerungen mehr. Das Abkommen muss jetzt vorläufig angewandt werden.

— Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz (@bundeskanzler) January 21, 2026

The European Commission said it “strongly regretted” the outcome, insisting that the legal concerns raised by parliament had already been addressed during negotiations.

“According to our analysis, the questions raised in the motion by the parliament are not justified because the commission has already addressed those questions and issues in a very detailed way,” said Olof Gill, the Commission’s trade spokesman. He confirmed that EU treaties allow for provisional application while the court review is underway.

Outside the parliament building, the reaction was markedly different. Hundreds of farmers, many arriving on tractors, gathered in Strasbourg to protest the deal, which they say would expose European agriculture to unfair competition. When the result was announced, crowds cheered and celebrated.

🟢 VICTOIRE !

Rien n’est jamais joué d’avance !
Après des mois de mobilisation agricole et plus de 7 000 agriculteurs hier à Strasbourg : le Parlement européen vient de voté la saisine de la Cour de Justice de l’UE sur l’accord #MERCOSUR.

La FNSEA et les @JeunesAgri n’ont… pic.twitter.com/HHw9wK0viE

— La FNSEA (@FNSEA) January 21, 2026

“We’ve been on this for months and months, for years,” said Quentin Le Guillous, head of a French young farmers group. “Tonight, I’m going home, I’m going to kiss everyone, and I’m going to tell my kids, ‘I got it, we got it, we can be proud.’”

France, Poland, Austria, Ireland, and Hungary have all voiced opposition to the agreement, citing risks to domestic agriculture and food standards. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the parliamentary vote strengthened that position. “The fight continues to protect our agriculture and guarantee our food sovereignty,” he said.

Several Polish politicians also welcomed the decision. “A major defeat for von der Leyen and her strategy of disregarding the European Treaties!” wrote MEP Beata Szydło, a former Polish prime minister, on X. Law and Justice MEP Maciej Wąsik said, “The farmers’ protests have brought results!” while Confederation MEP Anna Bryłka added, “Big applause for the farmers.”

Umowa UE z Mercosur wstrzymana! Zdecydowaliśmy w PE o skierowaniu skargi do TSUE. Wielka klęska von der Leyen i jej strategii lekceważenia Traktatów Europejskich! Dziś mówiłam o tym, jakim błędem i łamaniem zasad jest umowa z Mercosur: pic.twitter.com/KZzpdSe2EG

— Beata Szydło (@BeataSzydlo) January 21, 2026

Szydło also criticized Chancellor Merz’s call to apply the deal pending the judicial review, writing, “The German Chancellor’s incredible audacity in demanding that the Mercosur agreement enter into force despite the European Parliament’s decision! Does democracy mean nothing if Germans don’t like something?”

Irish MEP Billy Kelleher of Fianna Fáil said the Commission had ignored warnings about agricultural imports and environmental harm. “The European Commission must reflect on its own actions, respect the democratic will of the parliament and await the outcome from the European Court of Justice deliberations,” he said.

Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan said the vote should energize opposition to the deal. “Today is a good day, and hopefully will give momentum to the campaign to stop this rotten trade deal,” she said.

‘Ursula von der Leyen and her commission have to go!’ — Farmers descend on Strasbourg to oppose EU-Mercosur trade deal ahead of European Parliament vote

Supporters of the agreement argued that parliament had chosen delay over substance. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, said lawmakers had not actually voted on the merits of the deal. “The European Parliament did not take a substantive position on Mercosur today; it voted on a procedural motion instead,” he said. “This is an attempt to delay a much-needed agreement for ideological reasons.”

He, too, called for the provisional application of the trade agreement.

Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, was even more critical, calling the vote “absolutely irresponsible” and “an own goal” in a post on X. “Very harmful for our economic interests and standing,” he wrote.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had made a final appeal to lawmakers before the vote, warning against strategic paralysis. “The more trading partners we have worldwide, the more independent we are. And that is exactly what we need now,” she said.

The European Court of Justice is now expected to examine whether the agreement complies with EU treaties, a process that could take several months, but should the agreement be applied provisionally, celebrations among its critics and Europe’s agricultural sector could be short-lived.

Read more here…

Authored by Miguel Santos García via GlobalResearch.ca,

The inaugural BRICS joint naval exercise, “Will for Peace 2026”, that unfolded off the coast of South Africa from January 9 to the 16 marked a significant and symbolic evolution for the bloc but not without its hurdles. With the participation of naval forces from China, South Africa, Russia and Iran in the first multilateral military exercise under the BRICS, its location near the strategic chokepoint of Simon’s Town, SA – a crucial nexus between the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans – is a deliberate projection of presence into vital global trade arteries.

Previously, these nations have engaged in bilateral and trilateral exercises. However, “Will for Peace 2026” is distinctly different. Chinese military expert Zhang Junshe said it is a milestone as the first formal exercise within the BRICS framework itself.

The exercise stated objectives of deepening military exchanges, improving collective response capabilities to maritime threats, and safeguarding the security of trade routes and sea lanes. With an exercise curriculum, featuring anti-terrorism drills, hostage rescue, ship recovery and maritime assault maneuvers, covers a wide spectrum of potential disruptions.

For BRICS nations, the ability to conduct complex joint operations enhances their strategic autonomy, ensuring that vital sea lanes are not solely under the protection or potential control of traditional Western powers. In this way it is a move to “de-risk” their maritime security from the foreign policy whims of others.

Thus, it would seem the nascent institutionalization of defense cooperation moves BRICS beyond an economic dialogue forum into the realm of tangible security coordination.

Asserting Maritime Multipolar Sovereignty?

The BRICS maritime exercises occur against a backdrop of escalating and evolving US piracy threats that increasingly blur the lines between criminal acts and geopolitical coercion. Recent years have seen sophisticated hijackings and attacks targeting vessels from states the US has sanctioned like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela — some of them being China bound — all BRICS/BRICS+ partners.

This is a concerning trend of vessel seizures that target nations already under intense Western sanctions. The theft of tankers linked to Iran, Russia, and Venezuela points to a dangerous new paradigm where maritime crime becomes a tool for applying indirect pressure or for profiteering from geopolitical isolation.

“Peace Will 2026” then signals an intent to develop a bloc-specific capacity to secure member states’ sovereign assets, ensuring they are not solely reliant on Western-led coalitions whose political priorities may conflict with their own.

These nations, all key partners within the expanded BRICS/BRICS+ framework, find their critical energy exports uniquely vulnerable on the high seas. Hence the possible wish to develop an independent capacity to deter, intervene in, and resolve such incidents, ensuring that the bloc’s members’ assets are not sitting ducks against western pressure.

Although, this naval initiative is not necessarily an explicit declaration of hostility toward the United States, but rather a manifestation of a multipolar world in action. In a world where U.S. sanctions, unilateral actions, or naval posturing can disrupt economic lifelines, having a parallel cooperative security mechanism provides a counterweight capable of responding to threats that these nations themselves define, whether they be piracy, terrorism, or the coercive use of naval power by any state.

Decoding BRICS Peace Will 2026

However, to interpret this exercise solely as the birth of a unified naval bloc opposing the West is an oversimplification with the most significant limiting factor being internal fragmentation and lack of synchronicity. BRICS is not a monolithic alliance with a shared security vision but a consortium of often competing interests.

The unfolding “Will for Peace 2026” exercise has swiftly transformed from a display of BRICS unity into a stark revelation of its inherent tensions and the punishing realities of global alignment. South Africa’s eleventh-hour decision to relegate the visiting Iranian naval contingent from active participants to mere observers exposes the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the bloc’s ambitions and a wariness to US pressure. While aiming to project strategic autonomy from Western-led security structures, Pretoria found its symbolic gesture colliding with the hard calculus of national interest. The threat of jeopardizing its crucial trade benefits under the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), currently up for renewal, proved far more powerful than the allure of a consolidated anti-Western front.

This diplomatic reversal lays bare the bloc’s internal fractures, not only does it show South Africa’s precarious balancing act, but it also points to a potential failure of coordination, with reports suggesting the Iranian invitation was extended by a maverick general without full presidential sanction. Consequently, what was intended as a landmark demonstration of a multipolar maritime alternative may instead become a case study in the limits of such partnerships, demonstrating how Western economic leverage can swiftly unravel symbolic military posturing and forcing a reluctant host to choose between ideological companionship and economic survival.

The absence of India from these inaugural drills is very telling as the country is a major maritime power with its own tensions with China and strong ties to Western security initiatives like the QUAD.

Similarly, other new members like the UAE and Saudi Arabia maintain deep, strategic security relationships with the United States.

Consequently, “Peace Will 2026” serves multiple, overlapping purposes, at its core, it is a functional capacity-building exercise addressing real security gaps, particularly for sanctioned states. But also, it is a powerful piece of political performance, for China can show its leadership and normalize its far-sea naval presence, for Russia, it demonstrates strategic partnership despite isolation over Ukraine, while for South Africa, it affirms a “non-aligned” foreign policy. Its ultimate aspiration, however, is undeniably strategic of laying the groundwork for an alternative system of trade security guarantors.

“Peace Will 2026” is thus a pilot project led by its most geopolitically aligned members, not a demonstration of full-bloc consensus. While the current exercise involves only four of the ten BRICS members, it sets a powerful precedent. For global trade, this could eventually mean more actors with the capability to secure chokepoints and patrol routes, potentially reducing reliance on a single power.