Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Michael Cohen is back.

The disbarred lawyer has spent a lifetime marketing his curious skill set: a moral and ethical flexibility that allows him to do things that others would find revolting.  A legal thug who threatened students, journalists, and others on behalf of his former client. He then turned against Trump to cut a deal for himself after being criminally charged for fraudulent conduct. He has now turned against the New York prosecutors who sought to rehabilitate him to prosecute Trump.

For full disclosure, I have been a critic of Cohen for years, dating back to his time as a thug for Donald Trump, when I chastised the New York bar for failing to act against him. While the media once despised Cohen, he became a darling of the press when he turned against Trump.

Cohen’s North Star has always been pure, unadulterated self-interest. Neither loyalty nor decency has deterred Cohen from making false statements or serving the interests of his changing patrons.

His conduct as an attorney was a disgrace to the bar for years, as he gamed the system for his own benefit. Michael Cohen was long known as the “fixer” for former President Trump — a legal thug who threatened students, journalists, and others on behalf of his former client.

His signature has been to threaten lawsuits against critics. He even sued Trump and failed.

When his fraudulent business conduct led to criminal charges, it was clear that he was again entertaining best offers. Cohen reinvented himself as a redemptive sinner and received financial support from Trump critics.

Throughout this process and after his conviction, he continued to be accused of lying.

He claimed urgent medical needs for release from prison. Of course, he previously claimed health problems for failing to appear to testify, only to be spotted out on the town for a fancy dinner.

During the Trump trial, Cohen was again accused of lying. He spent two days insisting that he had been a liar but had lied to help former President Donald Trump.

Cohen has lied to Congress, courts, special counsels, the IRS, the banks, and virtually every creature that walks or crawls on the face of the Earth.

Notably, his past convictions for business and tax fraud were not taken in Trump’s interest but in his own.

When he admitted on the stand that he lied during his prior plea agreement, it was to advance his own interests.

Cohen has now continued this pattern of shifting loyalties and turned on New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing them of pressuring him to frame his testimony to guarantee Trump’s conviction.

After Trump’s recent court victories and the remanding of his federal case, Cohen is claiming that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the New York Attorney General’s Office “pressured and coerced” him into tailoring testimony:

“I felt pressured and coerced only to provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump.”

The posting led some to speculate that Cohen is again marketing his availability to the highest bidder.

Whatever the reason, his statement clearly undermines his former allies as they struggle to preserve what remains of their prior prosecutions.

Cohen remains the personification of the old fable of the scorpion and frog. In the fable,  a scorpion convinced a leery frog to carry him across a river, noting that he could not sting him since they would both drown. Halfway across, the scorpion struck, and the frog asked why he would doom them both. The scorpion replied, “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s in my nature.”

James and Bragg just felt that all-too-familiar sting from Michael Cohen.

The Small Business Administration’s crackdown on Washington’s oldest DEI program, otherwise known as the 8(a) program for “socially disadvantaged” businesses, which has largely amounted to a major vector for fraud, pass-through schemes, and artificially inflated contract costs, has expanded to the Department of War.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth revealed late Friday on X that his team is “taking a sledgehammer to THE OLDEST DEI program in federal government…a program few people outside of Washington have ever heard about! It is called the 8(a) program.”

“Providing these small businesses with opportunities is a laudable goal but over decades as it happens the 8(a) program has morphed into swamp code words for DEI race based contracting. And here’s the worst part – in many, many instances these socially disadvantaged businesses don’t even do the work!” Hegseth said, adding, “They take a 10%, 20% sometimes 50 percent fee off the top and then pass the contract to giant consulting firms commonly known as Beltway Bandits. For decades this is what they’ve been doing…for years now. This program, 8(a) has been a breeding ground for fraud. And this administration is finally doing something about it.”

Hegseth revealed that the DoW will begin an audit of every small-business sole-source contract over $20 million. He noted that the DoW accounts for the largest share of 8(a) spending by far, roughly 10 times that of any other agency. As a result, the cleanup, he said, will be more complex but will still accomplish the mission because “We have no room in our budget for wasteful DEI contracts that don’t help us win wars. Period. Full stop. Second, we’re doing away with these pass-through schemes.”

We are taking a sledgehammer to the oldest DEI program in the federal government—the 8(a) program. pic.twitter.com/c9iH8gcqG7

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 16, 2026

Late last year, journalist James O’Keefe blew the lid off 8(a), DC’s best-kept secret. O’Keefe went undercover and captured video of an individual linked to ATI Government Solutions bragging about keeping $65 million of a $100 million contract while subcontracting out the work.

Then O’Keefe’s reporting was picked up by Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and the investigative journalist who broke the Clinton Cash corruption story, who correctly called months ago about how to end the 8(a) waste, fraud, and abuse once and for all:

1. Congress needs to investigate the program and subpoena ALL contractors suspected of fraud

2. Every agency that has 8(a) contracts needs to audit those contracts (start with the Pentagon!

3. The rules need to be rewritten to get rid of DEI focus, level the playing field, and close the “pass-through” loophole

⚖️ Here’s what needs to happen to end the 8(a) waste, fraud, and abuse once and for all:
1. Congress needs to investigate the program and subpoena ALL contractors suspected of fraud
2. Every agency that has 8(a) contracts needs to audit those contracts (start with the Pentagon!)… pic.twitter.com/OnbcfsrpKr

— Peter Schweizer (@peterschweizer) November 26, 2025

Related and excellent reporting by RealClear Investigations’ Benjamin Weingarten:

• One Fell Swoop: Lawsuit Eyes Death Blow To Racial Preferences

More here:

• SBA Investigating $1.2 Trillion On Payments As Part Of Fraud Probe: Loeffler

• “Widespread Misconduct”: Trump Admin Orders All Beneficiaries Of Nation’s Largest DEI Program To Surrender Financial Records

Ending the swamp’s corruption will transform business around the DC-VA-MD area and provide new opportunities for legitimate small and medium-sized businesses based on merit and cost, rather than DEI-driven corruption.

We’ll end with Peter Schweizer’s lead researcher, Seamus Bruner, who recently told Morning Wire that the 8(a) corruption his team uncovered was just the tip of the iceberg and that “the Pentagon is where a lot of these billions will be hiding out.”

🔨GREAT WORK, @SecWar!!! Smash the 8a program aka the DEI fraud machine. Last month, I told @MorningWire that the 8 (a) corruption we had uncovered was just tip of the ice berg and “the pentagon is where a lot of these billions will be hiding out.” https://t.co/zzJ4TBqDqo pic.twitter.com/MALUGFHLQn

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) January 17, 2026

What’s happening is a major, urgent reset of the federal procurement landscape that needs to happen across every agency.

“These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable,” warned President Trump as he escalated his quest to acquire Greenland, threatening multiple European nations with tariffs of up to 25 percent until his purchase of the Danish territory is achieved.

A 10% tariff “on any and all goods sent to the United States of America” will impact Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland starting Feb. 1, according to a Truth Social post on Jan. 17. .

On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%.

The countries are all NATO members.

“This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland,” Trump wrote.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States needs Greenland for US “national security.”

“We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration.

Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake!

China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently. Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. “

Trump warned the NATO members that they are playing “a very dangerous game”:

“On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown.

This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.

Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. “

Meanwhile in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, thousands of people, including the territory’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, waved Greenlandic flags, chanted slogans and sang traditional Inuit songs under light rain.

Many wore caps with the words “Make America Go Away” – a riff on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

President Trump is unmoved by the small protests, noting the timeliness of getting a deal done now:

“The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. 

Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important.”

He went on to reiterate the specifics of why Greenland is so crucial for national security:

“Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it.

The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades.”

The remarks came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation (led by Chris Coons, a Democratic senator from Delaware) arrived in Denmark to try and de-escalate the situation.

Stephen Miller, an influential presidential adviser, said the president had been “clear” he wanted America to control the island and rejected suggestions it should simply increase its military presence there in response to what Trump claims is a growing military threat from Russia and China.

“They want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25 per cent bigger than Alaska at 100 per cent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100 per cent to Denmark,” Miller said on Fox News.

Authored by Ruy Teixeira via The Liberal Patriot,

Back in 1956, Elvis Presley recorded his massive hit “Don’t Be Cruel.” With all due respect to the King, this great song has many virtues but providing a guide to policy isn’t one of them. Yet it appears to be dictating Democrats’ current approach to the red-hot immigration issue despite its profound inadequacy in the policy realm.

Consider that Democrats have been unremittingly hostile to Trump’s immigration policy since he began his second term, despite its undisputed success in completely shutting down the southern border to illegal immigration. Instead, Democrats have focused relentlessly on the question of interior enforcement—that is, the activities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) aimed at detaining and deporting illegal immigrants currently living within the United States. The general approach has been to portray all ICE actions as essentially illegitimate, arbitrary and, well, cruel.

Conspicuously lacking has been any recognition that, in fact, interior enforcement against illegal immigration is an entirely legitimate law enforcement operation and that ICE is the government agency charged with these legitimate activities. Therefore, what ICE does is presumptively legitimate not illegitimate.

Democratic treatment of ICE has turned this on its head; their activities are presumptively viewed as illegitimate and if there are any legitimate ICE actions, Democrats are being mighty quiet about it. Instead, characterizations of ICE as a modern-day Gestapo, Nazis, an occupying force, etc have become so common as to be unremarkable. This attitude has led Democrats down a path where their policy on interior enforcement against illegal immigration seems to amount to: “Don’t do it! Don’t be cruel!”

Of course, there is much not to like about how ICE has gone about their business, all of which has been copiously documented. This has been red meat to those sectors of blue America and their political representatives whose revealed preference is not to deport anyone. Think about those ubiquitous “In This House, We Believe” signs in liberal professional-class neighborhoods.

The ICE/interior enforcement issue hits the Daily Double for the “In This House, We Believe” crowd. No human is illegal. Check. Kindness is everything. Check. These may be utterly useless as guides to effective, sustainable immigration policy but they sure do get the juices flowing.

That’s why, from Los Angles to Minneapolis, Democratic activists have felt completely justified in interfering with ICE activities and Democratic politicians in refusing to cooperate with a duly constituted federal law enforcement agency. And that’s why, especially with the tragic recent death of Renee Good, calls of “Abolish ICE!” are beginning to ring out across wide sectors of the Democratic Party. There is no good ICE, only bad ICE. There is no legitimate ICE, only illegitimate ICE.

This is the logical terminus of an attitude that starts with no human being is illegal and kindness is everything. Since ICE’s remit is that illegal immigrants are, in fact, illegal and that the law must be followed, even if the outcome is not particularly kind, it only makes sense to get rid of the agency.

This is a terrible idea in so many different ways. As a very useful new memo from the reform Democratic group Searchlight points out:

[S]aying you want to “Abolish ICE”…means that you support getting rid of the agency responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws, creating a lawless system where people who enter the country illegally can stay here indefinitely, leaving no agency charged with finding and removing them. This will, inevitably, incentivize others to come to the United States illegally. “Abolish ICE” is not some proxy for more humane immigration enforcement, or to change ICE’s culture to adhere to due process, or to impose accountability on rogue officers. It’s advocating for an extreme.

Unless you truly believe that the United States should not have an agency that enforces immigration and customs laws within our borders, and you want to increase illegal immigration, you should not say you want to abolish ICE…[W]e will always need a federal agency charged with deporting people who are in the United States illegally.

That’s clearly correct as a matter of policy. Democrats need to reflect that in how they talk about ICE or the momentum will continue to shift toward those in the party who simply want to get rid of the agency entirely.

And that would be a disaster. The reasonable—and popular—desire to reform ICE practices would inevitably be subsumed in a contentious debate about abolishing the agency. This is not likely to turn out well for the Democrats despite the solid basis in public opinion for some reform and pullback of ICE activities. Abolishing ICE will likely never be generally popular, despite its sky-high popularity with Democrats where there has been a recent spike in support.

Instead, as the Searchlight memo points out, Democrats will be setting themselves up for a rerun of the “Defund the Police” debacle, also driven by a viral incident (and also in Minneapolis!). A maximalist demand like “Abolish ICE” will serve only to signal a lack of Democratic commitment to immigration enforcement, just as defund the police signaled a lack of Democratic commitment to public safety. This is highly undesirable both for the Democrats politically and for the general cause of reforming ICE practices.

A further lesson from the recent past is provided by the Democratic reaction to Trump’s border crackdowns in his first administration. Seizing on some well-publicized excesses, Democrats pilloried Trump for being cruel and inhumane and promised to be different. And they were! They were kind and humane—and also completely ineffective at controlling the border and preventing abuse of the asylum system once they got back in power, producing the huge wave of illegal and irregular immigration that discredited the Democrats and helped Trump win the 2024 election. “Don’t be cruel” didn’t work out so well then and it won’t work out so well now, either in or out of power.

Democrats instead need to get beyond mindless slogans like “Abolish ICE” and blanket opposition to everything ICE does and embrace what I have termed immigration realism. That approach means taking on board the following realities of immigration into this rich country of ours:

1. Many more people want to come to a rich country like the United States than an orderly immigration system can allow.

2. Therefore, many people are willing to break the laws of our country to gain entry.

3. If you do not enforce the law, you will get more law-breakers and therefore more illegal immigrants.

4. If you provide procedural loopholes to gain entry into the country (e.g., by claiming asylum), many people will abuse these loopholes.

5. Once these illegal and irregular immigrants gain entry to the country, they will seek to stay indefinitely regardless of their immigration status.

6. If interior immigration enforcement is lax, such that these illegal and irregular immigrants do mostly get to stay forever, that provides a tremendous incentive for others to try to gain entry to the country via the same means.

7. If you provide benefits and dispensations to all immigrants in the country, regardless of their immigration status, this further incentivizes aspiring immigrants to gain entry to the country by any means necessary.

8. Tolerance of flagrant law-breaking on a mass scale contributes to a sense of social disorder and loss of control among a country’s citizens, who believe a nation’s borders are meaningful and that the welfare of a nation’s citizens should come first.

9. There is, in fact, such a thing as too much immigration, particularly low-skill immigration, and negative effects on communities and workers are real, not just in the imaginations of xenophobes.

10. If more immigration is desired by parties or policymakers, from whichever countries and at whatever skill levels, then immigration should be regular, legal immigration and approved by the American people through the democratic process. Backdooring mass immigration over the wishes of voters because it is “kind” or “reflects our values” or is deemed “economically necessary” leads inevitably to backlash. Wheelbarrows full of econometric studies on immigration’s aggregate benefits will not save you.

Obviously, the current Democratic vogue for treating all ICE activities as illegitimate and susceptibility to dumb maximalist slogans like “Abolish ICE” points them in precisely the wrong direction for dealing with the thorny and complex realities of the immigration issue. They’re just setting themselves up for future failure.

In short, it’s time to stop coddling the “In This House, We Believe” crowd and adopt a serious, grown-up approach to immigration and immigrants. “Don’t Be Cruel” isn’t gonna cut it.

The Justice Department is investigating leftist Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents during deportation operations, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

Sources say the probe centers on statements Walz and Frey have made about ICE and Border Patrol agents deployed to the sanctuary city in recent weeks. Subpoenas have not yet been issued, but sources said that could be nearing.

Details remain scant about the specific comments by Walz and Frey that DOJ investigators have focused on, but there is a recent interview in which the mayor acknowledges the existence of a network of left-wing nonprofits organizing pressure campaigns in the city. He stopped just short of identifying which nonprofits were involved.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey refuses to reveal the identities of the NGOs he’s working with to organize protests in his city. The DOJ is investigating the groups with funding and directives from Soros and CCP-linked NGOs. pic.twitter.com/C9cWgIZ5VN

— @amuse (@amuse) January 8, 2026

The focus of DOJ investigators and the White House should be the rapid-response efforts of militant left-wing groups and rogue nonprofits that were quick to activate their foot soldiers to unleash a pressure campaign against ICE agents. It was not just Minneapolis; this dark-money-funded NGO network was activated in other sanctuary cities, like New York City, within hours.

New York City councilwoman Vickie Paladino said it best on X:

ICE is doing what should be very mundane work of deporting people who aren’t allowed to be in the country anymore, by law. Just as they have for years.

However, a bunch of lunatics, encouraged by the media and reckless democrat officials, have decided that basic immigration enforcement is ‘literally fascism’ and declared war, turning routine enforcement activity into dangerous civil war cosplay. And people are getting hurt because of it.

The federal government has every right to enforce immigration law, in every jurisdiction of the country. The legal fiction of the ‘sanctuary city’ is completely irrelevant.

Municipalities don’t get to set their own immigration policy, and they don’t get to obstruct federal law enforcement.

And they certainly don’t get to foment and deploy an army of dangerous foot soldiers to physically attack federal agents, for no other reason than a political disagreement over immigration law. It’s actually insane that this even needs to be said.

These people are coming dangerously close to committing insurrection, and the consequences of that will be monumental. This is not the fight they want, and everyone with even half a brain should be urging these Democrats to seriously back off immediately.

If Democrats believe our immigration laws are wrong, we have an election coming up in November and they can run on an explicit platform of repealing these laws, ending immigration enforcement, and re-opening the border.

But they won’t, because they know that platform is a loser outside of a very few very far-left districts. So they’ll continue to pretend that routine immigration enforcement is actually a replay of 1939 Germany, and continue to send mentally unwell liberal women and antifa activists out to risk injury and legal peril in order to win a few news cycles.

Very very sad. And it needs to stop.

ICE is doing what should be very mundane work of deporting people who aren’t allowed to be in the country anymore, by law. Just as they have for years.

However, a bunch of lunatics, encouraged by the media and reckless democrat officials, have decided that basic immigration… https://t.co/GRNTwTZ1hs

— Councilwoman Vickie Paladino (@VickieforNYC) January 16, 2026

The manufactured chaos in Minneapolis is part of the Democratic Party’s dark-money-funded NGO network that has spent years sparking riots and chaos nationwide – remember the nation-killing days of BLM riots. This network was also part of the Los Angeles riots last summer, where Marxist protesters burned Waymo vehicles.

President Trump has finally received the memo.

And so has Scott Bessent at Treasury.

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

It is time for the Trump administration, as General Flynn has said, to address the American people about the Democratic Party’s ongoing color revolution operation that uses the protest-industrial complex to spark riots and chaos.

This is manufactured chaos at its best and really shows Democrats do not actually have a pro-America platform or any economic plan for the working class; they only have protests, riots, and chaos, with an end goal of their Marxist militant faction to loot and destroy.

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via Bitcoin Magazine,

West Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation this week that would authorize the state treasurer to invest a portion of public funds in bitcoin, precious metals, and regulated stablecoins, marking a significant step toward integrating digital assets into state-level finance.

West Virginia Senate Bill 143, introduced by Sen. Chris Rose during the 2026 regular legislative session, would create a new section of state law titled the “Inflation Protection Act of 2026.” The measure permits the Board of Treasury Investments to allocate up to 10% of funds it oversees into gold, silver, platinum, and certain digital assets, subject to existing investment rules.

Under the bill, the West Virginia could invest in digital assets that maintained an average market capitalization above $750 billion over the prior calendar year.

That threshold currently limits eligibility to only bitcoin, without naming the asset directly in statute. 

At the end of the digital bill, there is text that says “The purpose of this bill is to empower the Treasurer to invest in gold, silver, and bitcoin.” 

The bill also allows investments in stablecoins that have received regulatory approval at either the federal or state level.

The proposed 10% cap would apply at the time an investment is made. If asset prices rise and push the allocation above that threshold, the board would not be required to sell holdings, though it would be barred from making additional purchases until the allocation falls back below the limit.

The legislation includes detailed custody requirements for digital assets. Holdings would need to be secured either directly by the West Virginia treasurer through a defined secure custody system, by a qualified third-party custodian, or through a registered exchange-traded product. 

The bill outlines standards for key control, geographic redundancy, access controls, audits, and disaster recovery.

In addition to holding digital assets, the bill would allow the treasurer to pursue yield-generating activities. Digital assets could be staked using third-party providers if legal ownership remains with West Virginia. The treasurer could also loan digital assets under rules designed to avoid added financial risk.

Precious metals investments could be held through exchange-traded products, by qualified custodians, or directly by West Virginia in physical form. The bill allows for cooperative custody arrangements with other states, subject to rules established by the treasurer.

West Virginia retirement funds would face tighter limits. Under the proposal, retirement systems could invest only in exchange-traded products registered with federal or state regulators, rather than holding digital assets directly.

The bill grants the treasurer authority to propose implementing rules, which would require legislative approval.

The proposal reflects a growing interest among U.S. states in using bitcoin and hard assets as long-term stores of value for public funds. 

West Virginia and other states exploring bitcoin

Several states have explored or enacted similar measures allowing limited exposure to digital assets, though most have relied on exchange-traded products rather than direct custody.

Most recently, Rhode Island lawmakers reintroduced Senate Bill S2021, which would temporarily exempt small Bitcoin transactions from state income and capital gains taxes, allowing up to $5,000 per month and $20,000 annually to be tax-free.

Introduced January 9 by Senator Peter A. Appollonio, the bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and is framed as a pilot program to reduce tax friction for everyday Bitcoin use. 

This marks the second consecutive year Rhode Island legislators have proposed a targeted Bitcoin tax exemption.

West Virginia Senate Bill 143 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance, with a subsequent referral to the Committee on Finance. 

Rick Rieder, senior investment executive at BlackRock, met with President Donald Trump yesterday, according to Bloomberg, a development that has intensified speculation around who Trump will choose as his next chair of the Federal Reserve.

The meeting immediately elevated Rieder’s standing in what is now a narrowing field of candidates. Rieder is best known as BlackRock’s chief investment officer for global fixed income, a role that has made him one of the most influential voices in bond markets over the past decade. While he has never served inside the Federal Reserve or in a government policy role, his public views on monetary policy are closely followed by investors and policymakers alike.

Rieder has consistently argued that interest rates remain higher than necessary given how the economy is evolving. He has said the Federal Reserve should be open to cutting rates toward what he views as a more neutral level, often pointing to something closer to 3 percent over time. His thinking reflects concern that keeping policy too restrictive for too long could strain credit markets and slow growth more than intended, particularly as inflation pressures cool unevenly across sectors.

Rather than focusing narrowly on inflation, Rieder tends to emphasize overall financial conditions and market plumbing, a perspective shaped by decades spent navigating bond markets through crises.

He has suggested the Federal Reserve has leaned too heavily on backward-looking inflation metrics and risks overtightening by keeping rates restrictive for too long, even as growth cools and financial conditions do some of the work for policymakers.

Rieder has also raised eyebrows by downplaying fears around large government deficits, arguing that strong demand for U.S. assets and structural forces like aging demographics and high global savings make those deficits more manageable than critics claim. At times, he has gone further, questioning whether inflation slightly above target is necessarily harmful if it helps stabilize debt dynamics and sustain employment, a view that runs counter to the Fed’s traditional emphasis on price stability above all else.

Those views align with Trump’s long-standing criticism of the Fed for maintaining overly tight policy. Trump has made no secret of his desire for a central bank leader who is more willing to lower rates and less inclined to err on the side of restraint. Still, a Rieder nomination would be unconventional, putting a Wall Street asset manager in charge of the institution that sets the benchmark for global interest rates.

At the same time, Trump has begun to publicly rule people out. Last week he signaled that Kevin Hassett will not be his pick, despite months of speculation that the current economic adviser was a leading contender. Trump suggested he wants Hassett to remain in his current role, implying that moving him to the Fed would leave a gap inside the White House. That statement effectively removed one of the most familiar names from consideration.

Source: Polymarket

With Hassett sidelined, the race appears to be tightening around a smaller group. Alongside Rieder, the remaining names most often mentioned include former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current Fed governor Christopher Waller. Both bring deep experience inside the central bank and would represent a more traditional choice, in contrast to Rieder’s market-driven background.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the decision is coming soon. He has indicated that Trump plans to announce his Fed pick before, or right after Davos, signaling an effort to provide clarity well ahead of the end of Jerome Powell’s term.

With the field narrowing and Trump actively meeting candidates, Rieder’s appearance at the White House underscores that the president could be weighing both conventional and unconventional paths for the future of U.S. monetary policy.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Top officials in Maine said they are expecting the Trump administration to send Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the state for enforcement operations soon.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills on Wednesday in a video uploaded on X said operations may be conducted in the state “in the coming days.”

Mills and other local Democratic officials appeared to make references to protests in Minneapolis that arose after an ICE officer fatally shot driver Renee Good after she drove her vehicle toward the agent. The ICE agent was struck by the vehicle and suffered internal bleeding in the incident, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE.

“If they come here, I want any federal agents—and the president of the United States—to know what this state stands for,” Mills said, referring to the operation. “We stand for the rule of law. We oppose violence. We stand for peaceful protest. We stand for compassion, for integrity and justice.”

My statement on speculation that the Federal government may conduct Federal law enforcement operations in Maine in the coming days pic.twitter.com/aNriEQv7aI

— Governor Janet Mills (@GovJanetMills) January 14, 2026

Aside from Mills, Lewiston Mayor Carl Sheline, a Democrat, wrote in a social media post that it was his understanding “that there will be ICE enforcement in … Lewiston, Maine soon. I urge residents and businesses to know their rights and have a plan of action if ICE stops them in the street, visits their home, or visits their business.”

The mayor of Portland, Maine, also suggested that operations may be coming to his city.

“Portland rejects the need for the deployment of ICE agents into our neighborhoods,” Portland Mayor Mark Dion, also a Democrat, told local media outlet News Center Maine.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, Maine in a statement about potential ICE operations that he wants “to encourage everyone to look out a little closer for one another and be mindful of the rights that our Constitution gives to every man, woman, and child in this nation.”

DHS has conducted operations in a number of major U.S. cities since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, targeting illegal immigrants with an emphasis on violent criminal offenders. On Thursday, Trump warned he may invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy troops to quell protests and violence against the federal officers sent to Minneapolis amid an ICE push in the city.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in social media post.

Homeland Security also said in a statement that federal law enforcement officers on Wednesday were attacked in Minneapolis by three illegal immigrants with a shovel and broom handle in a bid to evade arrest.

The claims made by local Maine officials did not include details about the expected ICE operations, and DHS has not commented on their statements.

The Epoch Times contacted DHS for comment Thursday but did not hear back by time of publication.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The White House announced on Jan. 16 the names of members appointed to the Gaza Board of Peace, which President Donald Trump created as part of phase two of a U.S.-backed plan to end the war in Gaza.

Among the “founding executive board” members are U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, presidential special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The board also includes private equity executive Marc Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and U.S. national security adviser Robert Gabriel, according to a White House statement.

The board, to be chaired by Trump, will oversee the Palestinian technocratic committee—also known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG)—which will be led by former Palestinian Authority official Ali Abdel Hamid Shaath.

The White House said each of the members will be tasked with managing Gaza’s “governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilization,” which it said are vital to the enclave’s stability and long-term success.

The administration also named Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum as senior advisers to manage the board’s daily strategy and operations, and appointed Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat and former United Nations envoy to the Middle East, as the high representative for Gaza.

Trump also tapped Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers to lead the International Stabilization Force, which will oversee security operations and the safe delivery of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials to Gaza.

The administration also announced a separate 11-member executive board, comprising some of the founding members, which will support both the technocratic committee and Mladenov’s office.

The executive board includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi, Major General Hassan Rashad – head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service, UAE minister for international cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy, Israeli-Cypriot billionaire Yakir Gabay, and Dutch diplomat and U.N. envoy Sigrid Kaag.

The White House said more members of both boards will be announced in the coming weeks.

“The United States remains fully committed to supporting this transitional framework, working in close partnership with Israel, key Arab nations, and the international community to achieve the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,” it said.

In announcing the board’s formation on Jan. 15, Trump said the United States will work with Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar to secure an agreement that will require Hamas to surrender all weapons and dismantle its tunnel network.

“Hamas must immediately honor its commitments, including the return of the final body to Israel, and proceed without delay to full Demilitarization,” the president said.

“As I have said before, they can do this the easy way, or the hard way. The people of Gaza have suffered long enough. The time is now.”

The Gaza peace plan, which began in October 2025, is expected to unfold in three phases to achieve the 20-point plan Trump laid out in September last year to end the war in Gaza.

Witkoff said on Jan. 14 that phase two of Trump’s peace plan has started, which involves the complete demilitarization and reconstruction of Gaza.