Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The German economic crisis is slowly but surely making its way into the balance sheets of banks. Above all, the crisis in the largely credit-financed Mittelstand is increasingly weighing on savings banks and cooperative banks.

The year 2025 is ending as a disastrous year for the German economy. Around 24,000 companies filed for insolvency—a record figure, surpassed only in the crisis year 2003 following the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the subsequent recession. Back then, a total of 39,000 companies went bankrupt.

Deindustrialization and Loan Defaults 

Loan defaults in the past year are estimated at around €57 billion. These losses hit suppliers and banks hard, especially since the German Mittelstand finances roughly 40% through savings banks and 25% through cooperative banks.

Already in the previous year, losses from corporate insolvencies had accumulated to around €59 billion. The causes have long been known: the persistent weakness of the German economy results from a toxic mix of overregulation, climate-policy-driven deindustrialization, a self-inflicted energy crisis, and high fiscal burdens. This poisonous cocktail severely strains the economy, weakens private demand, and makes industrial production in Germany increasingly unattractive on the international stage.

The ripple effects of a roughly 20% drop in industrial production reach far into other sectors. Supplier companies as well as industry-related services are increasingly under pressure—and are collapsing in many areas.

Pressure Beneath the Surface 

At first glance, the German banking sector still appears stable. Industry giant Deutsche Bank increased its pre-tax profit in Q3 2025 by 8% year-on-year to €2.4 billion. The bank saw growth across all business areas—from traditional lending to investment banking to asset management.

The situation is different for cooperative banks. Volks- und Raiffeisenbanken already suffered a 25% drop in profits last year compared to the previous year. Further revenue declines are expected for 2025. The main reasons are the persistently weak economy, rising geopolitical tensions, and higher risk provisions in the face of growing credit default risks.

Germany’s once stable three-pillar banking model—private large banks, public-sector institutions like savings banks and state banks, and cooperative banks—still shows outward growth. But beneath the surface, deep cracks are forming: years of low interest rates have sharply squeezed bank margins, and the abrupt interest rate reversal is weighing on both businesses and consumers. Added to this is the problematic close entanglement between cooperative banks and politics.

For example, the agricultural cooperative BayWa in Bavaria nearly went bankrupt after engaging in global renewable energy investments—leaving a €100 million loss.

This example illustrates the risks of political steering of the banking sector through public institute credit guarantees like KfW. Nowadays, billions are channeled annually into the climate economy and the military sector—keeping a zombie economy afloat that could never survive in a free capital market.

Examples of the emerging banking crisis are multiplying: VR-Bank Dortmund Nordwest suffered losses of €280 million from risky real estate fund investments, requiring a bailout from the Cooperative Protection Fund (BVR).

VR-Bank Bad Salzungen-Schmalkalden lost a similar amount in dubious real estate deals two years ago and also called on the BVR for rescue. These cases show that banks, facing a declining credit business with the Mittelstand, are forced to move outward on the risk curve to generate operational profits.

The effects are tangible: a BaFin analysis shows that last year, about 1.9% of savings bank loans and 2.2% of cooperative bank loans were non-performing. This corresponds to a volume of €36.5 billion—a 25% increase from the previous year. Consequently, banks are forced to increase credit risk provisions—freezing more capital and making new loans harder to grant.

Branch Closures and a Mortgage Crisis on the Horizon 

Raiffeisenbank Hochtaunus recently fell into serious financial trouble after making €500 million in value adjustments to its real estate portfolio.

Creaking sounds are coming from all corners of the German economy. It is expected that the economic crisis will translate into a crisis of regional banks’ mortgage portfolios, alongside private insolvencies. Stress in the banking system is increasing quarter by quarter.

Banks are responding to growing pressure with tough measures. Over 1,000 bank branches are closed annually in Germany. The local Sparkasse may soon become a thing of the past. This not only makes personal consultations harder for older customers but also hits bank clients in rural areas. Small and medium-sized enterprises, craft businesses, bakeries, and local retailers who rely on personal financial advice increasingly find fewer direct contacts and a trusted banking environment.

Balance Sheet Damage Becomes Visible 

Bank balance sheets reflect the overall economic situation. At the same time, they are influenced by financial and fiscal policy developments. Years of elevated loan defaults erode the financial substance of banks just as much as the globally high sovereign debt, which has caused significant devaluations of bond holdings on balance sheets.

In short: the longer the crisis in the private economy persists and the more it is exacerbated by fiscal undiscipline and growing government debt, the lower the lending potential of the banking sector.

This is precisely the crux of monetary policy. The European Central Bank can lower interest rates and private sector financing costs all it wants. Lending in the real economy is determined by the interaction between private companies and credit-granting banks.

Unless Germany’s economic outlook brightens considerably—which, under current political conditions, is unlikely—lending will significantly slow on the one hand, while defaults accelerate on the other. This would be further evidence that the German economy is continuing to sink deeper and deeper into a contraction phase.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Tilak Doshi via Substack,

As the year drew to a close, the guardians of climate orthodoxy once again unleashed their ritualistic howls of indignation at the actions of the Trump administration. Last week’s op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—attack dogs of the alarmist establishment—likened the US government’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to tyranny, “paid for” by fossil fuel interests. Their op-ed opens with the astonishing claim that the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “would have understood and even appreciated” Trump’s actions.

They accuse President Trump of suppressing climate science, evoking the spectre of Lysenkoism, that infamous episode where ideology trumped empirical inquiry under Stalin’s regime. The irony is exquisite even if lost on its progenitors. Here are two figures who have spent their careers calling for the cancelling of dissenters, now projecting their own sins onto a political leader intent on liberating science from ideological captivity.

An Orwellian Malignancy

This latest salvo is no aberration but a symptom of a deeper malaise. The climate alarmist narrative, much like its twin in the COVID-19 hysteria, relies on a censorship complex that brands any deviation as “misinformation.” Ward, a fixture in the environmental NGO circuit, has long specialized in ad hominem attacks on respected academics like Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, dismissing their peer-reviewed critiques as heresy. Mann, infamous for his “hockey stick” graph that conveniently erased historical climate variability to fabricate a crisis, has faced courtroom rebukes for his litigious zeal. In his defamation suits, judges have accused him and his legal team of misleading tactics, underscoring the fraudulence of his claims. Yet, in the pages of The Guardian—that reliable echo chamber for green ideologues—the pair inverts reality, portraying Trump’s defunding of activist institutions as censorship, when it is precisely the opposite.

Consider the economic and institutional realities underpinning this charade. NCAR, after over five decades, has devolved into a taxpayer-funded propaganda mill, churning out models that predict apocalyptic futures while ignoring the stubborn facts of atmospheric physics and human adaptation. The Trump administration’s move to shutter it aligns with a broader push to restore scientific integrity, as outlined in the president’s “Gold Standard Science“ executive order. This directive mandates transparency in federally funded research, ensuring that models and data are replicable and free from the biases that plague alarmist projections. Far from Stalinist suppression, this is a reclamation of science from the clutches of unelected bureaucrats and their NGO allies, who funnel billions into “climate education” grants that invariably promote one-sided advocacy. NOAA, for instance, routinely awarded multimillion-dollar sums to nonprofits peddling green dogma, all under the guise of environmental stewardship.

The parallels with the COVID-19 debacle are striking, revealing how the misinformation label serves as a blunt instrument for silencing debate across scientific domains. Just as climate skeptics are tarred as “deniers,” COVID dissenters were branded spreaders of falsehoods. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, a leading epidemiologist, recently highlighted this hubris in a post on X: the notion that a cabal of bureaucrats and activist scientists can infallibly discern truth from error on complex matters is not just arrogant—it’s delusional. Bhattacharya himself endured censorship orchestrated by Anthony Fauci who among others in the medical establishment pressured social media platforms to throttle views challenging lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union’s censorship regime under European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen exemplifies this technocratic overreach. The unelected Eurocrat boasts of safeguarding free speech against “harmful and illegal activities” online with its Digital Services Act. It aims to restrict media platforms which host “disinformation” and critical views on mass immigration, the Ukraine conflict, or the ruinous costs of the green agenda in Europe.

In a rant that would impress Orwell, Ms. Von der Leyen speaks about how “pre-bunking” is preferable to “de-bunking” alleged untruths and where alleged “misinformation” is a virus:

“…we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation, because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus—instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that is debunking—it’s much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated.”

Where have we heard that vaccination/inoculation story before? Perhaps we should not digress into Ms. Von der Leyen’s missing SMS phone messages which sealed the EU’s deal for 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” costing €35 billion negotiated with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went further, declaring government sources the sole arbiters of COVID truth, effectively criminalizing legitimate critiques from sceptical doctors and scientists upholding their Hippocratic oath. This Orwellian stance—where state-approved narratives are sacrosanct—mirrors the climate arena, where questioning net-zero fantasies invites professional ruin.

The Trumpian Pushback

The EU’s Digital Services Act plans to coerce social media giants into suppressing content that challenges Brussels’ orthodoxies, leading to a chilling effect on open discourse throughout the world. Earlier in the month, the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X $140 million for “failing to comply” with regulations. But it is now a Trumpian world which frustrates Eurocrats to no end. America’s commitment to First Amendment principles clashes with Europe’s slide into regulatory authoritarianism. The US house judiciary committee describes the digital regulations as censorship which is “largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives.”

The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shot back last week:

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship. Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”

The U.S. state department’s sanctions on NGO leaders and a former EU official involved in these efforts underscore the geopolitical rift. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers detailed the individuals and the reasons why they have been barred. On the US state ban list are Imran Ahmed (Centre for Countering Digital Hate), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg (HateAid), Thierry Breton (former EU Commissioner) as well as Clare Melford (Global Disinformation Index).

Let’s go through each of these censors.

Thierry Breton was a key architect of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he issued a letter to threaten Elon Musk ahead of his live stream interview with candidate Trump who was campaigning for his second term. The hubris of an EU functionary to warn Mr. Musk that his platform could be charged for amplifying harmful content in the EU can only be described as bizarre.

Undersecretary Rogers accused the UK citizen Imran Ahmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on December 23rd, writing that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that spurred a campaign to de-platform those questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines including the current Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. .

“Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ’trigger EU and UK regulatory action’ as priorities…The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.”

It is interesting and not coincidental that Imran Ahmed’s CCDH was founded by Morgan Sweeny, Kier Starmer’s chief adviser. Clare Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, another British NGO that vigorously pursues anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers

Anna Lena von Hodenberg is the leader and founder of Hate Aid, a German NGO founded after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups such as the AfD. Ms. Anna and her NGO is an official “trusted flagger” under the EU’s digital services act. Clare Melford. Ahmed is the CEO of The Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, both two entities extremely active in anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers,

Morally Bankruptcy of the Eurocrats

Von der Leyen’s pronouncements on “inoculated information” ring hollow amid Europe’s deindustrialization, where energy policies driven by climate ideology have shuttered factories, spiked power prices, and eroded competitiveness. Germany’s Energiewende, once hailed as a model, now stands as a cautionary tale of economic self-harm, with manufacturing output shares plummeting and GDP growth stagnating.

At the heart of this EU-led censorship complex lies a modern Lysenkoism, where ideology masquerades as science. Today’s climate Lysenkoists similarly dismiss empirical inconveniences: satellite data showing no acceleration in sea-level rise, historical records of globally warmer periods like the Medieval Warm Period, or the economic models demonstrating that net-zero targets would cost trillions while yielding negligible climate benefits. But Eurocrats will condemn as “misinformation” self-evident arguments that cheap, reliable energy is the bedrock of human welfare. Witness Asia’s ascent, where coal, oil and gas have fueled GDP growth rates averaging 7% over decades, slashing poverty from 60% to under 5% in regions like East Asia.

The institutional incentives behind climate alarmism are pernicious. Multilateral agencies like the IMF and World Bank, alongside green lobbies, perpetuate myths of “fossil fuel subsidies“ that distort markets, penalizing hydrocarbons while subsidizing intermittent renewables to the tune of $1.3 trillion annually globally. In Africa, the push for “renewable leapfrogging“ ignores the continent’s dire need for baseload power, condemning millions to energy poverty under the banner of climate justice. Western elites, insulated from the consequences, preach degrowth while developing nations in BRICS+ reject such masochism, opting for pragmatic energy mixes that prioritize growth over virtue-signaling.

The contradictions of the censors of “misinformation” are glaring: alarmists decry “misinformation” while propagating doomsday scenarios that fail to materialize—recall the 50 years of apocalyptic predictions. Europe’s precipitous industrial decline exposes the folly of subordinating energy policies to ideology. In the U.S., the virtue signalling ESG investment drive — pushed by BlackRock’s Larry Fink among others — which funnelled trillions into underperforming green assets, is unravelling as returns lag and lawsuits mount over fiduciary breaches.

A New Year’s Gift

Yet, there is cause for optimism in this twilight of technocratic hubris. President Trump’s re-election signals a pivot toward evidence-based policy, unshackling science from the misinformation inquisition. By defunding activist enclaves like NCAR and enforcing transparency via executive order, the administration paves the way for genuine inquiry. Imagine a world where debates on climate sensitivity, the role of solar cycles, or the costs of adaptation are conducted openly, without fear of cancellation.

As Jay Bhattarcharya reminds us, free speech and replication as the standard of truth are necessary conditions for science to flourish. We need rational argument and data, not the censorship of state-defined “misinformation”. The US state department censoring the censors is good news as the New Year beckons.

Oil remains one of the most strategically important resources in the global economy. It powers transportation systems, underpins industrial activity, and continues to shape geopolitics and trade flows. While renewable energy is growing, oil still plays a dominant role in meeting global energy needs.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks countries by the size of their proven oil reserves at the end of 2024.

The data for this graphic comes from OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin 2025. Figures represent proven oil reserves as of year-end 2024 and are measured in billions of barrels. The data includes conventional crude oil as well as oil sands.

Four Countries Dominate Global Oil Reserves

Global oil reserves are highly concentrated.

Venezuela ranks first with an estimated 303 billion barrels of oil reserves. However, turning this vast resource base into economic and geopolitical power has proven difficult, as ongoing U.S. sanctions and the recent seizure of Venezuelan oil shipments under the Trump administration continue to limit the Maduro government’s ability to export crude and fully monetize its reserves.

Saudi Arabia follows the South American country with 267 billion barrels. Iran, Canada, and Iraq round out the top five.

The Role of OPEC and the Middle East

Many of the world’s largest oil reserves are held by OPEC members, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates anchor the region’s dominance.

These countries benefit from low extraction costs and large, easily accessible reserves. As a result, Middle Eastern producers are expected to remain critical suppliers even as global demand growth slows.

Oil Sands and Non-OPEC Producers

Canada stands out among non-OPEC countries, ranking fourth globally with 163 billion barrels of reserves. The majority of Canada’s reserves come from oil sands, which are more expensive and carbon-intensive to extract. Russia and the United States also rank among the top 10.

Taken together, the data highlights how unevenly oil resources are distributed and why oil-rich nations continue to have significant economic and geopolitical power.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Charted: Global Grid Investment by Country (2020–2027F) on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

SpaceX will move about 4,400 Starlink satellites to a lower orbit this year to better control risks and improve safety, the company announced Friday.

Michael Nicholls, vice president of Starlink engineering, posted the news on X, saying the adjustment would increase space safety in several ways.

Elon Musk’s Starlink system contributes more than 9,000 satellites to an increasingly crowded Earth orbit. Of those in the Starlink system, only two are not functioning, according to Nicholls.

Nicholls also noted that the atmospheric changes brought on by solar activity can affect satellite operations. An active sun causes a thicker atmosphere, which can bring spacecraft down faster.

Low solar activity, such as during the solar minimum after 2030, can have an opposite effect.

The number of debris objects and planned satellite constellations at the lower orbit—below 500 kilometers from Earth—is smaller, which reduces the likelihood of collision, Nicholls stated.

If a satellite does fail in orbit, Starlink wants to remove it as quickly as possible, improving the safety of the rest of the satellite constellation, Nicholls said.

Starlink also announced Thursday it had lost contact with one of its satellites and that it would work with NASA to monitor it.

“On December 17, Starlink experienced an anomaly on satellite 35956, resulting in loss of communications with the vehicle at 418 km,” Starlink posted on X.

The satellite was largely intact, tumbling, and is expected to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere within weeks. It poses no risk to the orbiting Space Station or its crew, the company stated.

“As the world’s largest satellite constellation operator, we are deeply committed to space safety. We take these events seriously,” the post said.

Starlink has seen explosive growth in the past five years, expanding into a global internet provider with millions of subscribers and challenging traditional satellite and terrestrial broadband internet providers.

The company connected more than 4.6 million users, according to its 2024 year-end report.

In five years, SpaceX has activated internet for more than 2.8 billion people around the world, including in some of the most remote parts of the planet, according to the report.

The U.S. Air Force is also conducting research to consider integrating Starlink into its Ghostrider gunships or heavy-lift cargo planes. Air Force Special Operations Command published a notice Tuesday requesting information on Starlink and its military version, Starshield.

As December BGE bills arrive after a cold winter, many Harford County residents say soaring energy costs are leaving them frightened and overwhelmed, according to Fox Baltimore.

Jenny, who lives in a 1,000-square-foot home and keeps her thermostat in the mid-60s, is facing a bill of about $400 despite working full time and spending most of the day out of the house.

“The fear of being turned off, especially with it being you some mornings in the teens, the being fearful,” Jenny said. “Can I afford groceries this month, or do I pay this BGE bill and go to food pantries?”

“Nothing in my life has actually changed. I still work full time. I’m out of the house all day working, and I just think that these rates are outrageous,” she added.

Across town, Teresa Stepp received a bill exceeding $1,200.

“Everybody uses more gas and electric for heat in the winter that is not uncommon. It is the norm, so with that being said, still it seems excessive,” Stepp said.

BGE reports that for the 30-day period ending Dec. 21, 2025, electric heating customers used 11% more energy than last year, while gas customers used 13% more, driven by colder weather. Higher distribution rates, rising supply costs across the PJM region, state-driven fees, and limited in-state energy generation—Maryland now imports about 40% of its power—have also pushed bills higher.

“What do you pick and choose? I have to have car insurance. I have to get to work. It’s just a lot. It’s very stressful,” Jenny said.

Fox Baltimore writes that recent rate changes add further pressure. A new increase raises the average residential electric bill by $1.07 per month and gas by $2.65. Beginning in February, an additional PSC-approved increase adds 72 cents for electric customers and $1.95 for gas customers each month through 2027.

While lawmakers approved limited relief last year, residents say it falls short.

“And then they say, “Okay, well, we’re going to give you a bit of a rebate,”” Stepp said. “It was $40, so the impact is I have medical bills, and those are astronomical. My husband had a stroke last year. We’re still bailing out of that. The food bills have tripled. The cost of my car registration has tripled.”

“My message is, you’re forcing us to leave,” she added.

“You are forcing people that have been native to Maryland, that the people that have paid their way, paved the way as a part of the economy for years and years that you’re saying we can no longer afford to live here. I can’t.”

A BGE spokesperson said the company is working to balance affordability with the need to provide safe electric and gas service and noted customers can seek payment assistance at BGE.com/billhelp.

“Please make changes, the governor, BGE, whomever, please change this immediately, because it’s affecting all of us,” Jenny said. “It’s not okay,”

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury issued guidance on Wednesday regarding the deduction for car loan interest payments made by taxpayers.

A statement from the IRS said that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, includes a provision regarding auto loan interest paid by car owners.

The provision allows owners who bought vehicles with final assembly in the United States to deduct up to $10,000 in car loan interest from their taxable income for 2025 through 2028.

The deduction applies to interest paid on vehicle loans incurred after Dec. 31, 2024, for the purchase of new, made-in-America vehicles, the IRS said. The tax benefits apply to taxpayers who take the standard deduction and to those who itemize deductions.

The newly issued guidance provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for such deductions, including qualifying loans, the amount of interest paid, and whether the vehicle is bought for personal use.

For instance, the guidance states that in addition to requiring the final assembly of vehicles to be in the United States, a vehicle must meet other conditions to be eligible for interest deductions, such as a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 14,000 pounds, and that the original use of the vehicle must have commenced with the taxpayer.

For determining whether final assembly occurred in the United States, a buyer can check the vehicle identification number at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website.

As for the $10,000 max deduction limit, it only applies to federal tax returns, the guidance clarified. “If two taxpayers have a Federal income tax return filing status of married filing separately, the $10,000 limitation would apply separately to each taxpayer’s return.”

If the modified adjusted gross income of a taxpayer for a year exceeds $100,000, the deduction limit decreases by $200 for every $1,000 in extra income. For married taxpayers filing a joint return, the cuts in deductions start once income exceeds $200,000.

The guidance clarified that while eligibility for loan interest deduction requires that the vehicle be used for personal purposes, there is no insistence that a vehicle be purchased “exclusively” for personal use.

“Requiring taxpayers to make a determination regarding the exact amount of expected personal use and non-personal use is not administrable and may result in a considerable burden to taxpayers, ” the guidance said.

Regarding deceased owners, some estates, formed to hold a deceased owner’s property for their heirs, may purchase new vehicles. These estates qualify for the loan interest deduction, the guidance said, adding that certain trusts, like qualified funeral trusts, may never be eligible.

Tariffs and Vehicle Sales

In a July 15 post, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy had suggested that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s car loan interest deduction would not completely offset the higher auto prices triggered by the Trump administration’s tariffs on these items.

The administration had instituted 25 percent tariffs on auto imports in April, followed by 25 percent tariffs in May on the import of auto parts in a bid to protect American manufacturing and counter the unfair trade practices of its trading partners. The rates have been adjusted for certain nations based on trade negotiations.

“The deduction would offset only 36 to 43 percent of tariff-induced price increases for working-class families while buyers with higher incomes could see offsets ranging up to 85 percent,” the institute said.

“On a $40,000 vehicle, the net price increase would range from $201 to $879 for eligible claimants and would be $1,363 for car buyers ineligible for the deduction.”

However, recent estimates show no decline in car sales in the country despite the implementation of higher tariffs.

According to a Dec. 17 post by industry expert Cox Automotive, new vehicle sales are expected to close 2025 up 1.8 percent year-over-year per estimates from Kelly Blue Book. New vehicle sales for the year are estimated to be 16.3 million, making 2025 the “best sales year since 2019,” it said.

Despite a flurry of politically charged violence and a number of Islamic and left-wing motivated terror attacks, 2025 also experienced the largest single-year decline in homicides in US history.  The plunge brings official US homicide rates to near-record lows.

Based on a sampling of preliminary crime statistics from 550 U.S. law enforcement agencies, the year is expected to end with a roughly 20% decrease in homicides nationwide, Jeff Asher, a national crime analyst, told ABC News. 

“So, even taking a conservative view, let’s say its 17% or 16%, you’re still looking at the largest one-year drop ever recorded in 2025,” said Asher, co-founder of AH Datalytics and a former crime analyst for the CIA and the New Orleans Police Department.  

The drop comes after what many law enforcement analysts call the “Pandemic Surge”, the Biden era explosion in homicides and overall crime was considered endemic to Democrat controlled cities across the US.  Though, Democrat leaders claimed throughout Biden’s term that no such surge was taking place.  

The spike in murders was the largest since the early 1990s at the height of the gang violence era.  However, criminal data collection was incomplete during the Biden years due to a sudden change in the FBI’s Summary Reporting System (SRS).  Starting in 2021, the FBI began transitioning to a new method called the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). 

This transition was officially slated to take up to five years to complete and during the changeover a large percentage of US cities were not required to submit complete crime stats.  Meaning, as bad as the pandemic surge was, the real crime rate was likely much higher than reported.  

By the end of 2024, crime data coverage returned to around 95% of the population.  This is rather convenient for Democrats given they had a convenient excuse to suppress true crime rates through lack of reporting; then, the reporting system went back to normal as soon as Donald Trump returned to office. 

If the stats are accurate for 2025, this means the Trump Administration has overseen the largest ever drop in homicides in the US in it’s first year without the benefit of incomplete FBI data.  This is impressive.

But there as some lingering concerns about the accuracy of blue city crime rates.  For example, Washington DC officials have been caught in the midst of active suppression of crime data, using intimidation of precinct commanders as a means to rig arrest records and downgrade offenses while progressive prosecutors and judges keep conviction rates low. 

The exposure of this fraud (due to law enforcement whistleblowers) led to the resignation of D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith and an ongoing congressional investigation.

The question is, how many other blue cities are involved in the same kind of crime stat suppression and is this the real cause of the drop in criminal activity.  Or, did Trump play a substantial role in cutting down homicides?  Perhaps the mass deportations along with National Guard deployments in place like DC and LA have had a meaningful effect on urban violence. 

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

Coal India Limited, the biggest coal producer in the world’s second-biggest coal user, opened this year its online coal supply auctions directly to buyers in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, as Indian coal supply has swelled amid weaker-than-expected demand in recent months. 

Amid an oversupply of coal and weaker demand, India and its top state coal producer are looking to optimize domestic supply and monetize exports to neighboring countries.
Until 2026, only middlemen could bid in Coal India’s online supply auctions. This has now changed with the new policy. 

“In a first, effective January 1, 2026, CIL has permitted coal consumers located in the neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal, who wish to import coal from India, to directly participate in the Single Window Mode Agnostic (SWMA) auctions conducted by the company,” Coal India said in a statement on Friday, as carried by The Economic Times.

“Opening SWMA e-auctions to foreign buyers reflects CIL’s calibrated approach to market expansion while fully safeguarding domestic coal requirements. This step enhances transparency, competition and global market integration,” a senior company official told the publication. 

Opening the e-auctions directly to buyers sent Coal India’s shares rallying by 7% on the local stock exchange at close on Friday. 

Coal-fired power generation and capacity installations in India continue to rise and coal remains a key pillar of India’s electricity mix with about 60% share of total power output.

Despite booming renewable capacity additions, India continues to rely on coal to meet most of its power demand as authorities also look to avoid blackouts in cases of severe heat waves.

Coal will still be a key part of India’s power system for the next two decades, Rajnath Ram, adviser for energy NITI Aayog, said in September. 

“We cannot be subjective about coal. The question is how sustainably we can use it,” the official noted.  

2026 started with a bang for proponents of the human right of armed self-defense, as a US appeals court on Friday ruled that California’s de facto statewide ban on openly carrying firearms violates the US Constitution. However, there’s reason to think it will flip the other way as the litigation proceeds to the next phase. For now, though, leftists are recoiling. California governor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom said “Republican activists on the Ninth Circuit” want to “return to the days of the Wild West.” 

As with other recent victories for gun rights, this one springs from the test prescribed by the impactful 2022 US Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the court said firearm restrictions are only permissible if they are consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The three-judge panel ruled against the open-carry ban in a 2-1 ruling, overturning a lower-court judge’s interpretation. As Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote in the majority opinion: 

“The historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly protected at the time of the founding and at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation… for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California.”

California law forbids open carry in any county with a population of more than 200,000 people, a threshold that covers 95% of the population. In practice, however, it’s a 100% ban. Technically, Californians in sparsely-populated counties are allowed to apply for a license to carry openly in their home county, but, as noted in the 98-page ruling, “California admits that it has no record of even one open-carry license being issued, and one potential reason is that California has misled its citizens about how to apply for an open-carry license.” 

The opinion also points to the 19th century, which saw plenty of concealed carry restrictions but few on open carry (and those that did exist were usually struck down) pic.twitter.com/0yvJqiTU6B

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) January 2, 2026

The sole judge in the minority, George W. Bush-appointed N. Randy Smith, said the ban passed constitutional muster because California lets residents carry concealed firearms, if they can get a permit. “A state may not prohibit the public carriage of firearms by eliminating both open and concealed carry, but a state can lawfully eliminate one manner of carry to protect and ensure the safety of its citizens, as long as they are able to carry in another manner,” he wrote in his dissent. 

The majority opinion skewered California’s strained attempt to find some tangential way to characterize the open-carry ban as consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” and thus pass the Bruen test:   

“Open carry remains open carry, just as it was at the Founding. And concealed carry remains concealed carry, just as it was in 1791. To get around that reality, the analogical argument that California would have us adopt really boils down to the idea that today a state can ban all open carry because some other states regulated some other things at the Founding in some other ways. That is too sloppy a fit. Bruen requires a closer relationship between “how” and “why” a historical regulation burdened the right to bear arms and “how” and “why” a modern analogue burdens that right.”  

The victory will likely be short-lived, according to Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation. “With near certainty, it will be en banc’d and reversed,” Moros wrote in a thread on X in which he analyzed the ruling. Pointing to a previous, dubious ruling, he said, it’s “hard to see how the Ninth Circuit would ever let this ruling stand.” 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Undercover investigators with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are going to check whether stores are complying with new restrictions on food stamps, the department said in a new notice to state and regional officials.

The USDA’s Office of Retailer Operations and Compliance carries out federal oversight of retailers that accept funds from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as food stamps. The office “initiates and conducts undercover investigations to determine if a retailer is complying with program requirements,” the USDA said in the Dec. 30, 2025, notice.

Once new SNAP restrictions take effect in states, investigators “will incorporate attempts to purchase restricted items according to the state’s SNAP Food Restriction policy, beginning 90 days after the implementation date,” the notice states.

Retailers that are not in compliance will initially receive a warning letter advising corrective action. If retailers are found to be out of compliance again, then officials will revoke their authorization to keep accepting SNAP.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins in 2025 approved requests from 18 states to diverge from normal SNAP operations and impose various restrictions on which items participants can buy.

The first five states—Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia—began restricting purchases on Jan. 1. The next restrictions take effect in Idaho, Louisiana, and Oklahoma in February. Restrictions in other states may not start until as late as Oct. 1.

Many of the states have targeted soda and other soft drinks. Some have barred SNAP funds from being used for energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts.

Some 42 million Americans participate in SNAP. Eligibility is primarily based on household income.

Federal law says SNAP’s main purpose is to “safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households.”

The waivers “further that purpose, as part of broader state and federal government efforts to fight the obesity epidemic and Make America Healthy Again,” Patrick Penn, a USDA official, told state and regional officials in the new notice.

Each waiver has definitions of restricted items. Due to the varying definitions and implementation dates, close coordination between state agencies and retailers is needed, Penn said. Retailers have to take steps such as updating equipment and training employees.

Penn also said that the USDA plans to approve additional waivers in the future.

The Food Industry Association, whose members include retailers, said in a statement it appreciated that USDA clarified there is a 90-day grace period before the agency will enforce the new restrictions, and guidance from federal and state officials.

“While receiving this guidance and assurance of a 90-day grace period is critical, our members have additional questions and need assurance that ‘involuntary withdrawal’ following a second offense mentioned in the guidance will be limited to retailers knowingly and intentionally not following the restriction, not an accidental error on one of 21,000 or more products that must be coded as restricted in each state,” Jennifer Hatcher, an association officer, said.

The National Grocers Association, a trade group representing independent supermarkets, said in a statement on Dec. 22, 2025, that the waivers present challenges because they mean that SNAP funds can no longer be spent on tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of items.

That will force grocers to reprogram systems, track items, retrain workers, and talk to customers, the group said.

“These regulatory burdens have the potential to disrupt store operations and slow checkout lines as retailers work in good faith to implement and enforce the new rules,” the association said. “For SNAP reforms to Make America Healthy Again, policymakers must provide clear, consistent definitions and a realistic implementation timeline. Independent grocers are proud economic drivers, creating local jobs and generating tax revenue, but they need certainty and common sense, not more costly red tape handed down by bureaucrats.”