Authored by Christian Vezilj via American Thinker,

Hollywood has mastered the art of moral performance. Award shows have become political stages where actors speak with the confidence of prophets and the certainty of philosophers. But beneath the applause lines and emotional crescendos lies a contradiction that becomes impossible to ignore: the courage they demand from others is courage they themselves will never have to summon.

This contradiction was unmistakable at the recent Golden Globe Awards. The ceremony quickly transformed into a coordinated tribute to Renee Nicole Goode, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent. Mark Ruffalo dedicated his award by saying, “This is for Renee Nicole Goode, who was murdered,” adding, “I don’t know how I can be quiet.” Wanda Sykes echoed the sentiment on the red carpet, declaring, “Of course, this is for the mother who was murdered by an ICE agent, and it’s really sad.” She went further, urging confrontation: “We need to be out there and shut this rogue government down, because it’s just awful what they’re doing to people.”

Celebrities wore coordinated pins reading “BE GOOD” and “ICE OUT,” signaling solidarity and moral urgency. The messaging was unified, emotional, and unmistakably political. The narrative was clear: this was a moment to resist, to rise up, to confront injustice.

But what was equally clear — and far more revealing — was what they chose not to say.

While the Golden Globes stage was filled with speeches about ICE, not a single celebrity mentioned the mass slaughter, imprisonment, and torture taking place in Iran at that very moment – Hundreds of protesters have been killed by the Iranian regime. Thousands have been dragged into prisons. Torture, rape, and forced confessions have been documented by human rights groups. The government has imposed sweeping internet blackouts to hide the brutality from the world. [ZH: regardless of whether this is yet more ‘regime change paint by numbers’ – it was completely ignored].

And yet, on one of the most visible cultural platforms in America, the silence was absolute.

• No speeches.
• No pins.
• No hashtags.
• No calls to “shut down” the Iranian government.
• Nothing.

The contrast is staggering. When the villain is a U.S. agency, outrage is immediate, coordinated, and emotionally charged. When the villain is a foreign authoritarian regime slaughtering its own people, the outrage evaporates. The issue is not the moral weight of the cause. The issue is whether the cause is useful to the narrative they want to tell.

But the hypocrisy runs even deeper. It extends to the way Hollywood reacts to domestic events that do not fit its preferred storyline. When Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed inside the Capitol, there were no celebrity tributes. No emotional speeches. No coordinated pins. No calls for accountability. Instead, the officer who shot her was widely described as a hero. The shooting was framed as necessary, justified, even praiseworthy.

Whether one agrees with either shooting is not the point. The difference in reaction reveals the deeper truth: Hollywood’s activism is not driven by universal moral principles. It is driven by selective outrage, selective empathy, and selective courage.

This brings us to the heart of the matter: the asymmetry of risk. Celebrities routinely encourage ordinary people to “stand up,” “fight back,” or “put your body on the line.” Sykes’s call to “shut this rogue government down” is a perfect example. These are not metaphorical suggestions. They imply confrontation, danger, and the possibility of violence.

Yet the people delivering these messages do so from behind layers of insulation that ordinary Americans do not have. They live in gated communities. They travel with private security. Their homes are protected by surveillance systems, controlled access, and armed guards. They are not wrong for wanting safety — everyone wants safety — but they are wrong for preaching danger for others while choosing safety for themselves.

A working‑class person who confronts ICE or police in the street faces real, immediate, physical danger. A celebrity who posts a hashtag or makes a speech faces none. Their activism is symbolic, not sacrificial. It costs them nothing. And yet they speak as though they are shoulder‑to‑shoulder with the people they are urging into the streets.

This is where the phrase “We’re in it together” collapses. When celebrities use it, they rarely mean shared sacrifice. They mean shared sentiment. They mean shared optics. But they do not mean shared risk. Their version of solidarity is digital, not physical.

The deeper civic insight is this: selective outrage and selective courage are symptoms of a broader cultural problem. We have built a society where moral authority is often claimed by those who bear none of the consequences of their own prescriptions. Hollywood’s activism is not dangerous to Hollywood. It is dangerous to the people they encourage to act on their behalf.

True solidarity requires more than a speech, a pin, or a social media post. It requires standing in the same place, facing the same risks, and sharing the same consequences. Anything less is performance.

And performance, no matter how passionate, is not courage.

At the start of December, China stunned the world when it reported that its trade surplus had surpassed a record $1 trillion, with one month still left to go in calendar 2025.

Fast forward to last night when China reported that in December, its trade balance rose from $112 billion in November to a whopping – and the second highest on record – $114.14 billion, matching Bloomberg estimates…

…  exports grew 6.6% YoY in dollar terms, more than double the average forecast from a Bloomberg poll of analysts of 3.1% and greater than November’s growth rate of 5.9%, while imports rose 5.7% in dollars last month on a year earlier, also far outpacing analyst expectations of 0.9% growth and the previous month’s figure of 1.9%.

Adding across, China’s full-year trade surplus exceeded $1 trillion for the first time – $1.2 trillion to be precise – blowing away last year’s figure of $993bn despite exports to the US falling 20%, as those to the EU rose 8.4% and to south-east Asia rose 13.4%, where as we show below the bulk of transshipments to the US take place, as Chinese producers diverted shipments to other markets while ultimately still targeting US consumers. 

And since China’s record $1 trillion trade surplus hit a month earlier had already outraged its trading partners, who finally called out Beijing (long after Trump did so first) for its mercantilist, imbalanced trade policies, Beijing needed a scapegoat for the even bigger number it reported. It decided to blame the US, the one country that until recently had reportedly “alienated the world” in its pursuit of more balanced Chinese trade.

As the FT reported, “China blamed the US for growing global trade imbalances as the world’s second-biggest economy reported a record full-year trade surplus of $1.2tn for 2025 despite President Donald Trump’s trade war.”

Why? Because as we first reported last month, China’s gargantuan surplus will further inflame global trading tensions, particularly with the EU where China is indiscriminately dumping cars below cost and singlehandedly putting the entire German auto industry into an early grave; it’s not just Europe – all export-focused developing countries are also seething, as they find their exports are simply not competitive with cheap Chinese goods which are being dumped at a furious pace around the globe. 

YIKES

China just posted a record-breaking $1.2 trillion global trade surplus. The EU’s is up 18.1%. Germany’s numbers are BONKERS – a staggering 108% surge in surplus, meaning that it now accounts for nearly a third of China’s entire EU surplus.

The US has been aggressively… https://t.co/ikpiHIiADr

— Melissa Chen (@MsMelChen) January 14, 2026

In a sign of the growing decoupling of direct trade between China and the US, the American share of Chinese exports last year was 11.1% , down from 14.7% in 2024, some of the lowest levels since the 1990s, the FT reports. Of course, that is woefully inaccurate at worse, and at best incomplete, since China has merely redirected its US goods via intermediary countries – i.e., transshipments – such as Vietnam, which has seen imports from China soar to a record high.

And since Vietnam didn’t grow an affluent middle class overnight, all that is happening is China is sending its trinkets to Hanoi first, before they are reshipped onward to China, under the guise of Vietnamese exports.

But, as last month, the loudest complaints about China’s surplus are expected from the EU (which said nothing when Trump was complaining loudly over the past decade and now is stuck with a crippled economy which has lost all export vibrancy for ever), yet which is terrified of its own shadow, and still has to follow the US and implement broad-based tariffs. Instead, the bloc has called for Beijing to stimulate domestic demand and reduce its own barriers to manufactured imports, something Beijing – already stuffed to its gills in debt – has shown precisely zero interest in doing, or being able to create organically.

And so, China decided to… blame Trump.

Wang Jun, vice-minister of the General Administration of Customs of China, said on Wednesday that trading partners’ export controls on high-tech products were preventing China from importing more, in not so thinly veiled comments directed at the US. Successive US administrations have imposed stringent curbs on China’s access to high-end semiconductors.

“It should be pointed out that some countries politicize economic and trade issues, using various pretexts to restrict exports of high-tech products to China; otherwise, we would import more,” said Wang, adding: “There is vast room for import growth.”

Actually no, there isn’t, because as the upcoming Chinese data dump will reveal, China’s domestic economy continues to deteriorate with retail sales and fixed investment at a level that signals flat GDP at best, if not negative. 

Which only leaves a flood of exports to keep China’s economy alive. Sure enough, economists have warned that China’s economy is too reliant on manufacturing and exports for growth amid anaemic domestic consumption and a years-long property sector slowdown. 

“China’s staggering trade surplus is simultaneously a symbol of its exporting prowess and the weaknesses in its growth model,” said Eswar Prasad, professor of economics at Cornell University.

One more point: China’s staggering trade surplus is a remnant of an era in which nobody dared point out that the neoliberal, mercantilist emperor is dead, until Trump came along. And while Europe laughed at him at first (just like they laughed when he told Germany they are entirely reliant on Russian gas), Brussels has finally figured out that it can do nothing and watch its economy implode from inside while purchasing cheap Chinese trinkets, or it can join the US president in calling out China’s trade practice. At which point China’s record trade surplus will collapse, with various unpleasant consequences for its economy. As for the US, it is on the right path, but it too needs to plug the gaping loopholes such as record trans-shipments through Vietnam and other Pacific rim countries. Once it does that, only then will Beijing be forced to finally revise its export-led model which is the main reason why the world finds itself in a brutal trade war for the second year running. 

The US Senate killed a Democrat-led resolution that would constrain President Donald Trump (and the next guy’s) ability to wage continued military action against Venezuela.

The War Powers resolution, sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), was on track to make it to a final vote until Sen. James Risch (R-ID) raised a point of order challenging the premise of Kaine’s resolution. Then, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Todd Young (R-IN) voted to support said point of order after coming under intense pressure from Trump – who earlier called for their ouster from the Senate last week. 

Vice President JD Vance then stepped in with a tie-breaking vote to break the 50-50 deadlock, handing Democrats a loss. 

NOW: U.S. Senate votes 51–50 against effort to block Trump from further Venezuela military action without Congress’ authorization, Vance breaks the tie. pic.twitter.com/GAiB2xTjrN

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 14, 2026

Democrats forced the debate after US troops captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a nighttime raid a few weeks ago.

“Here we have one of the most successful attacks ever and they find a way to be against it. It’s pretty amazing. And it’s a shame,” said Trump on Tuesday during a speech in Michigan, slamming several Republicans who advanced the legislation including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (a ‘stone cold loser’), and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine (‘Disasters’). Those three Republicans stuck to their guns in support of the Democrat legislation. 

Trump’s latest comments followed earlier phone calls with the senators, which they described as terse. The president’s fury underscored how the war powers vote had taken on new political significance as Trump also threatens military action to accomplish his goal of possessing Greenland.

The legislation, even if it had cleared the Senate, had virtually no chance of becoming law because it would eventually need to be signed by Trump himself. But it represented both a test of GOP loyalty to the president and a marker for how much leeway the Republican-controlled Senate is willing to give Trump to use the military abroad. Republican angst over his recent foreign policy moves — especially threats of using military force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally — is still running high in Congress. -AP

Hawley – who initially helped advance the resolution last week – said Trump’s message during a phone call was that the legislation “really ties my hands,” and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio promised him “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops.”

Young, meanwhile, pointed to a letter from Rubio which stated that Trump will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he engaged in “major military operations” in Venezuela. 

The Senators also said Rubio’s efforts were instrumental in the administration releasing a 22-page DOJ memo which laid out the legal justification for snatching Maduro – which suggested that the administration has no current plans to ramp up military action in the country.

“We were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war,” reads the memo signed by Assistant Attorney General Elliot Gaiser.

Submitted by The Bureau’s Sam Cooper,

In the aftershock of the Trump administration’s special-forces extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a new report from the Heritage Foundation advances a sweeping, Cold War–inflected thesis: that the real command post for much of Latin America’s authoritarian drift — and a significant driver of American street unrest since 2020 — is Havana.

Its most incendiary claim is also, arguably, the one most relevant to a Trump administration now tightening its focus on leftist heads of state from Mexico City to Bogotá: that Cuba’s communist regime, working through Venezuela and allied networks across Latin America, has sought to weaponize narcotics trafficking while also stoking social unrest inside the United States.

“Venezuela is rightly getting all the attention after the arrest of dictator Nicolas Maduro, but it is important to bear in mind that Cuba’s communist regime is the mastermind of Caracas’s plan to destabilize U.S. streets through narco-trafficking and political unrest,” Heritage senior fellow Mike Gonzalez writes, citing letters from two senior Venezuelan figures now imprisoned in the United States for their roles in “a narco-terrorism conspiracy,” who both portrayed the enterprise as part of a Cuban effort “to dismantle the moral fiber of America from within.”

In Gonzalez’s telling, the allegation is substantiated — though he is drawing heavily on witnesses whose motives, perhaps including bids for clemency, critics could question.

Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal, a former Venezuelan intelligence chief, and Cliver Alcalá Cordones, a former senior Venezuelan military officer, both separately wrote to President Donald Trump, according to the Heritage report, accusing Cuba’s regime of masterminding narco and political conspiracies emanating from Venezuela.

The conspiracy, wrote Carvajal, “was suggested by the Cuban regime to Chávez in the mid-2000s,” and was “successfully executed with help from FARC, ELN [both Colombian guerilla groups cited in the DOJ’s indictment of Maduro), Cuban operatives, and Hezbollah.”

Gonzalez casts Cuba’s intelligence services as the hemisphere’s enduring “revolutionary operator”: training guerrillas, embedding security cadres inside allied states, and building political infrastructure designed to outlive the era of jungle insurgencies.

Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Maduro, he argues, became Cuba’s richest proxy — financing Havana with oil, exporting the revolution’s methods, and, serving as a staging ground for narcotics and leftist terror networks that United States officials have cast as direct threats.

Moving to an element that many readers may find as implausible as any narco-conspiracy claim — and backing his argument with intelligence records and open-source material — Gonzalez writes that, “From training Marxist terrorists in the 1960s, to the pro-Hamas mayhem at U.S. universities in 2024 and 2025, to the spread of transnational crime syndicates in U.S. cities, Cuba’s rulers have long plotted America’s demise.”

Heritage can be viewed as an ideologically driven, controversial, strongly conservative-leaning institution, but its work can also carry added signaling value in a Trump-era Washington because it often functions as a personnel and policy pipeline.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe has had ties to Heritage and helped shape Project 2025-era thinking on intelligence reform—linking the report’s framing to currents inside the administration itself.

Heritage’s new Cuban influence report is framed as a 60-year flow chart, structured around a turning point in Havana’s own revolutionary mythology: the Tricontinental Conference.

In 1966, Fidel Castro convened revolutionary movements, party cadres, and aligned delegations from Africa, Asia, and Latin America in Cuba to coordinate what the regime cast as a global campaign against “Yanki imperialism” — and what Gonzalez depicts as a blueprint for exporting upheaval through training, financing, propaganda, and the patient building of transnational networks.

Most readers will seize on the report’s most recent — and most incendiary — contention: that Black Lives Matter and other leftist social-justice groups did not merely ride the wave of outrage after George Floyd died in May 2020, during a police arrest in Minneapolis, but helped accelerate and channel it in ways that, in Heritage’s telling, served a longer-running Cuban strategy of political destabilization.

To support that framing, the report points to what it describes as coordination across the Western Hemisphere — Chile, the United States, and Colombia — from 2019 to 2021.

It contends there is “much evidence of Cuba and Venezuela attempting to destabilize the United States and its allies in the Americas,” and coordinating those efforts through the Foro de São Paulo (the São Paulo Forum), which Heritage depicts as a Marxist convening infrastructure that reactivated in 2019, including a New York gathering attended by aligned activists and representatives of leftist political parties across Latin America.

“From that point on,” Gonzalez writes, countries in the Western Hemisphere “suddenly started experiencing street riots that led to political change.”

Chile and Colombia saw major protests in 2019; protests in Colombia were “repeated and magnified” in 2021. Both, the report says, contributed to electoral outcomes — with the election of Gabriel Boric in Chile and Gustavo Petro in Colombia.

In the United States, Gonzalez writes, the George Floyd riots in 2020 “almost came close to leading to societal overhaul.” He adds that, aside from what he describes as the long-standing relationship between BLM and Maduro — and between BLM and Bolivia’s Evo Morales — Black Lives Matter has “taken parts in Foro conferences,” including one in the Washington, D.C., area on July 17, 2017, where one of the stated goals was to create “strategic links” with groups inside the United States.

To ground that claim, Gonzalez leans heavily on a prior Heritage special report from 2024 that examined what it called an interlocking “ecosystem” of organizations behind pro-Palestinian protests and parts of the Black Lives Matter movement.

In that earlier report, Heritage highlighted the People’s Forum in New York, led by Manolo De Los Santos, portraying him as a Cuba-aligned organizer who helped build movement infrastructure and, according to Heritage, mobilized activists ahead of the April 2024 takeover of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University.

Separately from the new Heritage report, open-source monitoring of the online narrative in the hours following Maduro’s extraction pointed to the same organizing source driving a storyline of “kidnapping,” illegality, and U.S. imperial overreach — including messaging from the People’s Forum and its director, self-acknowledged Marxist Manolo De Los Santos.

Within hours, similar language appeared in statements from prominent U.S. left figures — among them New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who publicly condemned the operation and characterized it as unlawful.

The new Heritage report expands the frame: it argues that the São Paulo Forum has extended its outreach to U.S. groups invited to conferences over the years — naming, among others, Black Lives Matter, Democratic Socialists of America, Code Pink, and the ANSWER Coalition — and portrays these connections as part of a deliberate strategy to create “strategic links” inside the United States.

Some of the report’s most serious allegations rest on contested or difficult-to-verify claims drawn from opinion journalism rather than court records.

One example is a 2025 Washington Examiner column by Heritage report author Gonzalez that cites an unnamed former Venezuelan official claiming that Hugo Chávez personally provided suitcases of cash — the source estimates “at least $20 million” — to a U.S. activist before she went on to co-found Black Lives Matter, describing it as funding meant to export street protests into the United States.

“Chávez ordered his people to hand the suitcases to them — suitcases filled with dollars, at least $20 million,” the defector told him, Gonzalez’s column says, adding that the purported defector “is cooperating with and providing evidence to the U.S. government on other subjects, particularly the close connection between the Cartel de los Soles narco group and the Venezuelan state.”

According to Gonzalez’s column, the defector claimed, “The meeting took place at the Miraflores presidential palace, in a huge suite called the Japanese Suite, where private meetings are held.”

Gonzalez presents that alleged episode as emblematic: the revolution as a transnational political-financial project with paid beneficiaries and operatives in the United States, not merely an ideologically motivated movement.

But the Heritage thesis is not primarily about money.

It is about intelligence tradecraft — and the report’s central claim is that Cuban operatives embed themselves within allied regimes to “coup-proof” leaders by monitoring militaries and securing palaces, often maintaining loyalty to Havana rather than the host nation.

Gonzalez cites a 2024 essay by former Mexican foreign minister Jorge G. Castañeda arguing that thousands of Cubans have been stationed in Venezuela over the years — including security advisers and intelligence agents — to help keep Maduro in power, and that this Cuban presence may have constrained Maduro’s room to maneuver as U.S. pressure intensified.

The report’s historical flow chart then moves into Central America, leaning on Washington’s own record as evidentiary scaffolding.

Gonzalez highlights a 1978 U.S. State Department analysis written a year before the Sandinistas toppled Nicaragua’s dictator Anastasio Somoza. The document, as quoted in the Heritage report, said that “since the FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) was formed in the early 1960s,” the Sandinistas “have looked to Cuba for ideological inspiration, strategic guidance, tactical training, material support, and sanctuary,” and that “throughout the FSLN’s existence, Cuba has been a training site.”

The report argues that Havana’s method then evolved — not away from revolutionary ends, but away from overt insurgency as the primary tactic.

Gonzalez leans on what he presents as the São Paulo Forum’s blueprint “formula” for leftist politicians in the Western Hemisphere: de-emphasize Marxism, run as reformers, win elections — and then, once in office, rewrite the rules. He points to Colombia’s current president, Gustavo Petro, as both a contemporary example and, in the report’s telling, an unusually candid witness to earlier Cuban involvement.

Petro, a former member of the leftist insurgent group M-19, is quoted as saying: “Fidel Castro helped M-19 in many of its Colombian actions and, we should admit it, M-19 troops trained in Cuba.”

Petro — who, in recent weeks, has also shown signs of seeking a détente with Washington, softening some of his fiercest rhetoric — had previously, in what Gonzalez calls a “loose-lipped” moment, “also revealed that Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum was also a secret M-19 asset,” quoting Petro calling her “a collaborator and militant of M-19 in Mexico.”

From there, Gonzalez lists what he presents as the cascading regional success of Castro’s influence model: “This formula worked in 1998 in Venezuela with the election of Hugo Chavez, the (São Paulo Forum’s) first triumph and a dictator who went on to use his country’s oil wealth to keep Castro’s Cuba afloat.” Lula was elected in Brazil in 2003; Evo Morales in Bolivia in 2005; Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras in 2006; and Ollanta Humala in Peru in 2011 — “all Marxists,” the report says, who “obscured their ideology and ran as reformists,” and all São Paulo Forum participants.

Taken together, the report advances a unifying thesis: social unrest, street violence, and narco-terror cannot be understood as separate problems. They are instruments — in this view — of an intelligence-led revolutionary strategy refined over six decades, updated for the age of social media and protest politics, and funded for years by Venezuela’s oil.

That thesis also reads as a political finger to the wind — one that seems to match the rhetoric coming from the White House now: that the Trump administration’s Venezuela operation is not the end of a campaign, but the opening move in a broader rollback of Marxist-aligned regimes.

What the report does not do — and cannot do, on its own — is prove a single controlling hand behind every riot, protest, or crime wave in the United States since 2020. It assembles a narrative from history, open sources, and United States government statements, then asks readers to see continuity.

A center-left think tank is urging Democrats to abandon the “Abolish ICE” rallying cry, warning that the slogan threatens to sabotage any chance at immigration enforcement reform while playing directly into Republican hands.

Third Way released a memo on Tuesday responding to a surge of progressive demands to eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old anti-ICE activist Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis after she attempted to run the agent over with her vehicle. 

While the memo acknowledges that many Democrats see the Trump administration’s immigration policies as excessive and lawless, it also warns that frustration cannot justify scrapping enforcement altogether. 

The group argues that Democrats need to distinguish between reforming abusive practices and destroying the institution responsible for upholding immigration law.

“Moments like this can and should provoke anger and demands for dramatic action,” the memo explains. “In the wake of Good’s death and a growing number of disturbing immigration enforcement incidents, calls to abolish ICE have once again surged on the left. The impulse is emotional. The slogan is simple. But politically, it is lethal.”

The memo, authored by Sarah Pierce and Lanae Erickson, warns the Democratic Party that calls to abolish ICE “risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform of immigration enforcement—while handing Republicans exactly the fight they want.”

The memo insists that “The goal is not to eliminate enforcement. It is to ensure enforcement is lawful, targeted, and worthy of public trust.”

The think tank even drew a direct parallel to the 2020 “defund the police” movement, which became toxic within the Democratic Party and likely cost them some seats in multiple cycles

Democrats have seen this movie before with calls to “defund the police” after lethal, law enforcement abuses that stoked racial tensions. We know how this movie ends.

Calls to abolish ICE follow the same script. It would be a tragedy built upon a tragedy if Democratic overreach allowed the inexcusable killing of Renee Good at the hands of ICE to be used to the advantage of Donald Trump and a Republican Party that is sympathetic to its excesses. Republicans understand this. They have deployed the “Abolish ICE” phrase to their advantage before and will use it as a political lifeline again.

It’s hard to argue that progressive slogans that sound anti-law enforcement don’t cost Democrats politically and shut down space for substantive policy change. And the think tank’s argument rests on a pragmatic political calculation based on the most recent national election. Voters responded to what they perceived as weak enforcement under President Biden. 

What Third Way misses is that Trump is following through on his campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation program in American history” if elected. They see an opening for Democrats to stake out the middle ground, focused on accountability and restraint, rather than abolishing the agency.

“The lesson is clear: when the debate sinks into polarizing slogans that read as anti-law or anti-safety, space for practical reform disappears,” the memo warns.

But what we’re seeing nationwide reflects a party with no interest in the middle ground. Blue states and cities have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, and local leaders are actively pushing for ICE to leave their jurisdictions, not tone down their activities. 

“Immigration laws are meaningless if they are not enforced,” Third Way argues. “And they can be enforced in ways that protect public safety, respect legal norms, and uphold civil liberties. Voters understand this.”

While voters get it, Democrats in Washington, D.C., do not.

But not everyone in the party is on board. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) recently reiterated her position that ICE should be abolished, not reformed.

 Speaking on MSNOW this week, Pressley made it clear she doesn’t believe ICE should exist.

“I will continue to demand an independent and thorough investigation, continue to call on Congress in this moment to use appropriations and the power of the purse to rein in ICE,” Pressley said. “Again, I believe it should be abolished. We need public hearings and accountability.“

ICE cannot be reformed. It must be abolished. pic.twitter.com/ouRBFD0BtD

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) January 11, 2026

It’s doubtful Democrats will shift toward a more moderate stance on immigration enforcement. Democrats have clearly signaled that their priority is to resist Trump at every turn, not to compromise.

SMR developer Nano Nuclear announced a partnership with South Korean industrial company DS Dansuk to pursue the deployment of Nano’s Kronos throughout Asia.

DS Dansuk will act as Nano’s partner to coordinate with other Asian companies involved in chemical processing and heavy manufacturing, and enable Nano to access the coveted nuclear industry in South Korea. Multiple American companies have signed agreements with firms in South Korea as the country currently holds the leading international position, outside of China, in nuclear power plant development and construction.

“DS Dansuk is exactly the type of commercial partner NANO Nuclear needs as we expand into Asia,” said Jay Yu, President and Chairman of NANO Nuclear Energy. “They bring industrial credibility, manufacturing depth, regulatory access, and trusted supply chain relationships throughout South Korea”

Jay Yu was also on Fox Business earlier discussing the company’s progress, highlighting Nano’s integration with the state of Illinois for initiating the hiring of over 100 nuclear industry support personnel for the ramp up of construction at their University of Illinois project.

$NNE Thank you @MariaBartiromo and @FoxBusiness for having our Founder and Chairman on your show this morning. In 2026, $NNE looks to continue our momentum with our Patented & High Technology Readiness Level KRONOS MMR with worldwide demand surging #USA https://t.co/orMzZGUbEa

— NANO Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) (@nano_nuclear) January 14, 2026

This announcement follows Nano’s selection of reactor startup favorite Ameresco for progressing the development and deployment of the Zeus, Kronos, and Loki, reactor models in the US. And on the back of the Korea news, Nano is now positioned for aggressive global expansion even as it seeks commercialization in the US.

Meanwhile, Nano Nuclear’s strategic partner, LIS Technology, also continues to raise money for the development of their third-generation uranium laser enrichment technology. While they joined international enrichment giant Urenco in being left out of the DOE’s recent award announcement, the next-gen developer raised $17 million from investors in a funding round that was 240% oversubscribed.

BLESSED 🙏⚛️🇺🇸 : “LIS Technologies Inc. Announces Fourth Consecutive Oversubscribed Funding Round of $17 Million, Totaling $64 Million to Revitalize the Only U.S.-Origin, Patented Laser #Uranium Enrichment Technology to Support the Domestic Nuclear Fuel Cycle” #HALEU #LEU #USA pic.twitter.com/85W3OlDoxF

— LIS Technologies Inc. (@LaserisTech) January 13, 2026

LIS Technology also recently brought on Dr. Kirk Rector. Rector spent time as the Program Manager for the DOE’s Isotope Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and will now serve as LIST’s Director of Medical and Stable Isotopes.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Plan selections in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace were 3.5 percent behind 2025’s number with two weeks left in open enrollment, but the drop-off has not been as severe as some analysts predicted.

Some 22.8 million people had selected a plan by Jan. 3, about 830,000 fewer than at the same point in 2025. The program, popularly known as Obamacare, appears on track for its second-highest enrollment ever.

The open enrollment period began on Nov. 1, 2025, and ends on Jan. 15 in most states. During open enrollment, anyone can sign up for Obamacare. Outside that period, only those who report a qualifying life event such as a birth, divorce, or job change can enroll.

The decline for 2026, if it continues through the final weeks of open enrollment, will mark the first drop in participation since 2020.

Subsidies Boosted Enrollment

Since its inception, Obamacare enrollments started slower than predicted, taking three years to reach 12.7 million in 2016. From there, enrollment decreased by about 10 percent over four years.

Enrollment was bolstered by enhanced subsidies starting in 2021, more than doubling to 23.4 million by 2025.

The scheduled expiration of the enhanced subsidies in December 2025 sparked heated debate in Congress on the affordability of the program without them.

Congressional Democrats sought to make the enhanced subsidies permanent. That effort failed to advance in the Senate despite Democrats’ willingness to withhold federal government funding throughout the fall in an attempt to force negotiations.

The enhanced subsidies were implemented in 2021 as a two-year measure to ensure the affordability of health coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic era. They were later extended through 2025.

Health insurers judged that middle-class Americans who had opted into Obamacare in recent years would opt out again when the subsidies expired, dramatically changing the risk profile of remaining enrollees and shifting it toward those with chronic conditions or higher medical needs.

In response, insurers raised premiums by an average of 27 percent, according to data from health policy research group KFF.

Drop Less Than Predicted

Many observers predicted a huge drop in enrollment in 2026 based on both the decrease in subsidies and the increase in premium costs.

Jason Levitis, senior fellow at Urban Institute, told senators in November that 4.8 million people would lose health coverage in 2026 if the enhanced subsidies expired, based on a report from his organization.

The expiration of the subsidies would “leave millions uninsured or forced to make impossible choices,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Although the initial 3.5 percent drop of 830,000 enrollees is significant, it does not approach those predictions.

At 22.8 million enrollees, the 2026 figure is 12 percent ahead of 2024 and 43 percent ahead of 2023.

Over the past four years, the number of plan selections increased by an average of 3.7 percent during the final two weeks of open enrollment. In 2025, the increase was 2.4 percent.

On the current track, the number of 2026 plan selections would be the second-highest ever.

Further Decline Likely

Yet some analysts say there will be a further drop after open enrollment closes.

“While we do eventually expect to see declines in Marketplace enrollment, following the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits at the end of 2025, it is too soon to tell how much it will change,” said Jared Ortaliza, a policy analyst at KFF studying the Affordable Care Act.

The data available now indicate marketplace plan selections, which become “effectuated” enrollments when consumers begin paying premiums.

The vast majority of 2026 plan selections so far—20 million—are 2025 customers who were automatically reenrolled in the plan, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Those automatic plan selections do not always become premium-paying enrollees, according to Ortaliza.

“The extent of [Affordable Care Act] enrollment changes likely won’t be known until this summer, when effectuated enrollment data are typically released,” he said.

In 2025, the number of effectuated enrollments was about 4 percent less than the number of plan selections.

Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, theorized that much of the decline in plan selection, and a likely further decline in effectuated enrollments, is attributable to improper or fraudulent enrollments.

“The decline in enrollment from ’25 to ’26 means that some of the fraudulent enrollment exited the market,” Blase wrote on social media.

Blase estimated that about 5 million enrollments in 2024 and 6.4 million in 2025 were improper, with many being fraudulently enrolled in plans with $0 premiums. He said many will disappear as people do not effectuate coverage, which involves paying a premium.

“This means that people who are unaware of their enrollment, in other coverage, or ‘fake’ people will not pay their share of the premium and should (assuming insurers follow the rules) be removed,” Blase wrote.

An effort to reinstate the enhanced subsidies is ongoing in Congress.

Open enrollment in Kentucky and Maine closes on Jan. 16 and in Massachusetts on Jan. 23. Open enrollment closes in California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Washington on Jan. 31.

Authored by John Kudla via American Thinker,

Let’s pretend you are a liberal living in a red state.  If you feel aggrieved about the condition of the world and believe that conservatives are to blame, you can find a few like-minded souls, print up some signs covered in half-clever phrases, and go protest.  In most cases, unless you chain yourself to a railing on the courthouse steps or attack the police, you will usually be ignored.

On the flip side, let’s pretend you are a conservative living in a deep blue state.  If you don’t like the school policy, E.V. mandates, high electricity prices, or restrictive gun laws, and you dare to complain, not only will you not be ignored, but you might be harassed, shunned, or canceled.  Your solution to the hard blue insanity is a four-letter word: move.

Now let’s pretend you live in a state with a blue megalopolis somewhere over the horizon, but you don’t want to move.  Let’s also pretend you have lived in your community all of your life and have roots there — a job or a farm or a business that would be difficult to replicate somewhere else.  Why should you suffer because once upon a midnight dreary, councilors to a long dead king or a few drunk senators drew a line on a map that ignored rational boundaries?

Generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with people living the way they want to.  That is called freedom.  However, I object to some of our more right-leaning or left-leaning citizens forcing their ideas on everyone else, then treating those who disagree with them as second-class citizens.  In some cases, this has prompted states to heavily gerrymander congressional districts, which disenfranchises both liberal and conservative voters.  One solution is to adjust state boundaries to more adequately reflect local political values.

Ever since the founding of the republic, various groups and political movements have sought to redraw state boundaries.  Some have been successful.  Maine was originally part of Massachusetts, and the states of Kentucky and West Virginia were created from land originally part of Virginia.  Other partitions to existing boundaries have been suggested, but none has been adopted.  The reason is that the Constitution requires both the blessings of the partitioned state and the U.S. Congress.

Ask yourself a simple question.  Why would any state governor or legislature willingly give up territory if it is not forced to?  The serfs — excuse me, taxpayers — there help balance the state budget.  How they feel about their lives or the number of potholes in their roads is secondary to ensuring that state budgets are met and the state programs, even those for non-citizens, continue.

Despite the obstacles, secession movements continue.  Let’s look at three of the more recent secession ideas.

In 2014, residents of western Maryland, reportedly unhappy with taxes and gun control policy, started signing petitions to secede from Maryland and form a new state.  Later in 2021, Republican lawmakers in Allegany, Garrett, and Washington counties in Maryland sent a letter to the West Virginia legislature asking if the Mountain State would be willing to annex them.

The Maryland panhandle, an artifact of English colonial land grants, is a mountainous area more similar to West Virginia than the rest of Maryland.  The three counties have a combined population of just over a quarter of a quarter million.  That is probably not enough to take a congressional seat from Maryland or give one to West Virginia.  Will it change the U.S. political structure if these counties are allowed to switch states?  Not really.

The state of Oregon is divided almost in half by the Cascade Mountain Range.  The majority of the population lives on the western or Pacific Coast side of the mountains, either in the city of Portland or towns in the Willamette Valley.  In 2021, five counties in eastern Oregon, unhappy with the liberal state government, voted to take steps to secede from Oregon and join Idaho.

By 2024, a total of thirteen Oregon counties had voted to join Idaho.  The population in these counties is roughly 240,000, or about 5.5% of Oregon’s population — again, probably not enough to change the number of congressional seats between the states.

A third secession movement is active in Illinois.  Since 2011, more than one attempt has been made to separate the city of Chicago from the rest of Illinois or individual counties from the state.  The issue here is the dominance of Chicago and Chicago politics over the rest of Illinois.  As of 2024, 33 counties had voted to secede, about a third of the state’s counties.

In 2025, lawmakers in Indiana discussed annexing those counties, although only twenty-seven of them are contiguous with the Indiana border.  The others are on the western side of Illinois and would be a better fit with Missouri.  The twenty-seven counties represent nearly half a million residents.  This would almost certainly take a congressional seat from Illinois and add one to Indiana.

Besides liberal political values, another reason people are moving from blue states or seeking to join red states is that blue states typically have higher tax burdens than red states.  Call it an issue of affordability. 

There is an easy way to check this.  Let’s take the median income in the U.S., which was roughly $84,000 in 2024, multiply it by the average tax burden in the blue state of origin, do the same for the red state destination, and then subtract the two numbers.

The following results are based on a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.  If the Oregon counties join Idaho, residents earning $84,000 would save about $250 per year, or about 0.3 percent of their income.  If the Illinois counties join Indiana, their residents would save over $750 per year or about 0.9 percent of their income.  And if the three Maryland counties joined West Virginia, residents there would save about $924 per year or about 1.1 percent of their income.  Remember, these are ballpark numbers and will change depending on income and other individual circumstances.

As the country approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, perhaps it is time to consider a constitutional amendment to facilitate changes to state boundaries.  After all, most of our state boundaries were arbitrary to begin with.

Counties wishing to become a separate state would have to follow the rules for statehood.  Imagine Chicago as the 51st state, along with New York City plus Long Island as the 52nd.  Upstate New York and downstate Illinois could then breathe a sigh of relief.

Until then, you can still move.

On a similar note, I hear the Canadian province of Alberta is thinking about leaving Canada.  Maybe Trump can talk the Canadians into a straight-up swap of Alberta for Minnesota.  It couldn’t hurt to try.

Authored by Jeffrey Folks via American Thinker,

The difference between red and blue states is not just a matter of degree; it is a qualitative difference based on the loss of freedom in blue states and an entirely different attitude in the red states.  The best example is the contrast between what now exists in New York and Florida.  Whereas New York, especially New York City, is slipping into a socialist nightmare, Floridians are living the dream.  In New York, freedom is constrained by high taxes and regulations, and things are only getting worse.  In Florida, taxes are low and getting lower, and the sun almost always shines.

Florida voters understand the importance of limited government, and they have created a well governed, fiscally sound state.  Eliminating the state income tax in its entirety was only the beginning: Now there is movement toward lowering property taxes or eliminating them altogether, which would benefit nearly everyone in the state.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is perhaps the biggest supporter of property tax reform.  The governor proposed eliminating property taxes for all Floridians in his 2025 State of the State address, in which he said forcing citizens to pay property taxes for life is like “renting one’s property from the government.”  The governor’s proposal would apply to all property, including commercial and rental property.  There is widespread support for some form of property tax relief, but the devil is in the details.

An interim plan to rebate approximately $1,000 to owners of primary residences was proposed in March 2025.  In response, Senate Bill 7034 was introduced to create a legislative commission to study the feasibility of eliminating all or part of the state’s property taxes and with the likelihood of a state constitutional amendment to appear on the 2026 ballot.  Other legislative proposals include an increase in the state’s homestead exemption (currently totaling $50,000 for the primary residence), a tax exemption of $100,000 on all types of property, or a reduction in the state’s sales tax.  Republican lawmakers generally support some form of tax relief, whereas Democrats oppose it, but since Republicans outnumber Democrats by 84 to 33 in the state House and 27 to 11 in the Senate, it seems likely that some form of tax reform will become law.

Meanwhile, states like California and New York are moving the opposite direction.  The marginal income tax rate in California is 12.3%, and this on top of state property taxes, sales taxes of 7.25%, and numerous other local taxes and fees.

As for New York, the statewide income tax is a marginal 10.9% (14.78% for high earners in New York City), with state and local sales taxes as high as 8.875%, property tax rates averaging more than twice those in California, and numerous other state and local taxes and fees (including a ludicrous $9 “congestion zone” fee for entering lower Manhattan).  On top of this, New York is one of a handful of states that still charges a death tax, with a marginal rate of 16% on qualifying estates, and this on top of the marginal federal estate tax of 45%.

Mayor Mamdani has vowed to raise corporate taxes from 8.85% to 11.5% and to impose a 2% surcharge on those earning over one million, on top of existing taxes.  According to the Cato Institute, “the income-tax increase would tempt high earning New Yorkers to relocate to Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley, where they can still be close to the city,” if not out of state altogether.

To recap, Floridians pay a total of 6% in state taxes and average property tax rates that are already half of what they are in New York and may be further lowered in 2026 or 2027.  Adding it up, affluent New Yorkers pay marginal rates of at least 36% (including the estate tax) or nearly 40% in New York City — and all of this on top of federal income and estate taxes.  There is not much left for individuals, and this level of taxation is an assault on personal liberty.  There’s not much difference between communism, where the state owns everything, and an American city where government takes 80%.

One should also note that the public debt ratio in New York is already 442%, while California has twice as much debt in absolute terms ($500 billion).  Under Gov. DeSantis, Florida’s debt ratio is 2.6%, a 25-year low.

Clearly, New York and California are moving in the wrong direction, whereas Florida is moving very much in the right direction, and this because Florida is a well run conservative state filled with well informed voters.  What will be the effect of these continuing high and potentially higher taxes in blue states?  Migration of wealthy and middle-class residents, and it’s already happening.  Affluent citizens are leaving New York “in a steady stream.”  Between 2019 and 2020 alone, nearly 10% of high earners left New York City.  More recently, the exodus has continued.

California is experiencing its own outward migration of wealthy and middle-class residents, and not merely for tax reasons.  California ranks 6th in the nation for “high violent crime” and 8th for property crime.  The cost of living is the third highest in the U.S.  Homelessness is at a record high, with 24% of the nation’s homeless living in California.  And California’s public schools, once near the top, now come out well below average.

One could cite many other blue states, including Illinois, as evidence of liberal mismanagement, and other red states like Texas and Tennessee for proof of sound conservative governance.  The fact is that all human beings want much the same thing: safety, security, prosperity, and freedom (including freedom from government restrictions and high taxes).  Today in America, Florida offers that freedom.  New York and California do not.

In America, the red states are keeping the American Dream alive.  Personal liberty includes freedom from government confiscation of wealth, whether that confiscation takes the form of Soviet-style direct  confiscation or seizure through taxation.  Voters in New York and California have not learned the lesson that high taxes and regulation lower the quality of life and infringe on freedom.  Fortunately, we live in a country, unlike communist China or North Korea, where one can relocate freely to another state.  Freedom may be dying in New York, but the sun is still shining in Florida.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture, most recently Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

There are reports that President Trump is listening to the non-interventionists in his cabinet, as he says Wednesday afternoon he’s been told that the killing in Iran is stopping, and with no plan for executions. WTI futures immediately dropped on the newswires: 

• WTI fell from USD 62.30 to lows of 59.80/bbl over 7 minutes.
• Brent fell from 66.80 to 64.20 over the same time frame.
• With Trump noting Iran has no plans for executions, it drastically reduces the chances of the US attacking Iran, particularly a kinetic attack.
• Expectations of an attack had been building today with reports suggesting it could happen within 24 hours, which saw crude gain throughout the session; several nations urged citizens to leave Iran.
• S&P 500 ENERGY INDEX PARES GAINS AFTER TRUMP IRAN COMMENTS
• Iran FM: There is calm, we are in full control, Fox News reports

Via Bloomberg… Trump has an “out” and Iran strikes appear to be off:

President Donald Trump said he had been assured that Iran would stop killing protesters, in a signal he could hold off on a threatened military response to the repression of widespread demonstrations in the nation. “We’ve been told that the killing in Iran is stopping – it’s stopped,” Trump told reporters Wednesday in the Oval Office. “And there’s no plan for executions or an execution.”

The US president said he would be “very upset” if the information proved untrue and the violent crackdown continued. The comments come after Trump urged Iranians to continue protests against the government of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and said he would “act accordingly” after being briefed on how many demonstrators have been killed. He posted on social media that “help is on the way” to those protesting in Iran.

BREAKING — Trump says he has been told that killing in Iran has topped and there would be no executions

“I’ve been told that on good authority” he says and if they occur “we would be upset”

pic.twitter.com/fTl99jyXKD

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 14, 2026

Dangerous indicators there was (before this ‘change of mind’) about to be a strike?

The bulk of the US Navy’s strike group has remained in the Caribbean Sea after the Trump-ordered Venezuela operation to oust Maduro, and there’s as yet nothing to signal a new build-up of naval power in the Mediterranean or anywhere in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. However there are signs that logistics transport flights have increased.

However, there are other signs President Trump might be serious about an attack on Iran. Various news sources including Reuters is reporting Wednesday that the United States is pulling some staff out of major regional bases as a precaution amid rising tensions related to the Iran protests and a potential US military response.

This comes after a senior Iranian official earlier stated that Tehran has warned neighboring countries hosting US forces that American bases would be targeted if Washington launched strikes.

Reuters writes, “Earlier today, some personnel were advised to leave the US military’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar by this evening. Al Udeid is the Middle East’s largest US base, housing around 10,000 troops. Ahead of the US airstrikes on Iran in June some personnel were moved off US bases in the Middle East.”

In the last instance where Iran faced attack by the US and Israel, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Al Udeid Air Base outside Doha. All or most were intercepted, with no reports of troop casualties. This attack occurred on June 23, one day after the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities with deep penetrating bunker-buster bombs.

Backing down or covering up his plans to launch an attack like last time? https://t.co/yw6bELZBtf

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) January 14, 2026

The aforementioned warning from a senior Iranian official stated as follows: “Tehran has told regional countries, from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Turkey, that US bases in those countries will be attacked if the US targets Iran.”

While the week started with talk of some kind of dialogue between Washington and Tehran toward de-escalation, Trump quickly changed his mind, and by Tuesday said he cancelled all meetings with Iranian officials, citing the brutal crackdown on protesters. He wrote on Truth Social that “help is on its way” for Iranians.

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” Trump wrote.

“I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA [Make Iran Great Again]!!!” he added.

However, there’s ample evidence that many dozens of security personnel have been killed and wounded as well. Clearly in many locales rioters have deadly weapons, and Tehran says it is facing the beginnings of a foreign backed terror operation and insurgency.

Tehran Governor:

• 1,000 passenger cars and 26 administrative centers in Tehran province have been damaged

• Commercial shops, residential units, buses, ambulances, fire trucks, 44 mosques and Hosseiniyehs were damaged pic.twitter.com/nMXClOvnK7

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 14, 2026

But it should be obvious by now that organizations like the CIA, MI6, and Mossad are constantly looking for ways to take advantage of the situation and destabilize the country, ripening it for regime change. Trump has just dodged another interventionist disaster in the Middle East by choosing not to pull the trigger.