Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) will not be outdone again.

Recently, Swalwell was outvoted in Congress by a colleague who had died months earlier. 

Now, he is ensuring that, when it comes to violating the Constitution, no one is even close. This week, Swalwell pledged that, if elected California governor, he will arrest ICE officers and take away their driver’s licences.

On MS NOW’s “All In,” Swalwell was asked by host Jason Johnson:

 “What would you do if you are able to be elected as governor of California? … What would you bring to the table as a governor of California?”

Swalwell responded:

“Well, you have immense powers as governor of California and your responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in the state. So if the president is going to send ICE agents to chase immigrants through the fields where they work, what I’m going to do is make sure that they take off their masks and show their faces, that they show their identification. And if they commit crimes that they’re going to be charged with crimes, if it’s falsely imprisoning people, if it’s kidnapping, if it’s assault battery, they’re going to be held accountable. I also think if the governor has the ability to issue driver’s licenses to people in California, if you’re going to wear a mask and not identify yourself, you’re not going to be eligible to drive a vehicle in California. There’s a lot you can do, but most importantly, you have to go on offense. Otherwise, the most vulnerable in our community will always be on defense.”

Democrats appear to be morphing into predecessors like Gov. George Wallace (D., Ala.), pledging to defy federal authority and bar federal agents from their states. Wallace also reportedly threatened to arrest federal officers (and then later backed down when he was threatened with court action).

In an “age of rage,” the most irate and irrational reigns supreme.

From demanding that any Democratic nominee pledge to demolish the new Trump ballroom to opposing parental rights in schools, Swalwell has struggled to find traction with far-left California voters.

However, he is now promising to violate the Constitution. That did not take long. We do not even have a clear idea of who will be the frontrunners in the election. It is like a game of chicken where Swalwell immediately drives off the cliff before anyone gets into their cars.

Ironically, it is precisely what he has accused Donald Trump of doing: disregarding the Constitution when it suits his political agenda.

In case it matters to anyone left in California, he cannot do this. Seizing federal agents sort of went out of constitutional style after the Civil War. The “immense powers as governor of California” do not include dictating what federal officers can wear on their faces or bodies.

The first tiny barrier to Swalwell’s antebellum policies is the Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” United States v. Washington (2022). Since McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, the Supreme Court has consistently struck down state laws that impede federal enforcement.

Moreover, immunity under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) bars criminally charging officials who are properly carrying out their lawful federal duties. For example, in 1890, the Supreme Court ruled In re Neagle that a U.S. Marshal had immunity when a state tried to charge him with murder after he shot and killed an individual attacking a justice.

While the Supreme Court has also stressed that federal immunity does not afford federal employees carte blanche to violate any and all state laws, it has made clear that such state limits must be incidental and nonintrusive. In Johnson v. Maryland (1920), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained:

“It very well may be that, when the United States has not spoken, the subjection to local law would extend to general rules that might affect incidentally the mode of carrying out the employment — as, for instance, a statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets. Commonwealth v. Closson, 229 Mass. 329. This might stand on much the same footing as liability under the common law of a state to a person injured by the driver’s negligence. But even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States. Ex parte Neagle, 135 U. S. 1.”

None of this really matters to Swalwell. He is moving from democrat to demagogue in pledging unconstitutional acts to be sure that no one is farther to the left in the California race. It is the same “politics of contempt” that he has displayed as a member of Congress. Swalwell has always distinguished himself by doing things that few others could stomach, such as mocking a female senator over the death threats that she was receiving from irate liberals.

He also may be right about California voters. While others are struggling to come up with ideas for a state that is facing a crushing debt crisis and top taxpayers fleeing the state, Swalwell is promising chest-pounding theatrics…more jester than governor. He will entertain and distract with measures that will be struck down in courts.

It is the modern equivalent of the Roman games, promising combat with federal officers to thrill the crowd. From California and New York, there is an insatiable appetite for lawfare and disruption. Swalwell will promise chaos and confrontation … and many California voters will love him for it.

The weird saga of the US-sought third tanker off Venezuela which was nearly boarded by US forces before fleeing into the Atlantic continues, after US officials have newly revealed more information.

US attempts to intercept the oil tanker Bella 1 in the Atlantic have been complicated after the ship’s crew painted a Russian flag on its hull. It has avoided and evaded the US Coast Guard for more than ten days after refusing to comply with an interception near Venezuela on December 21.

Reports based on US officials describe that the crew got creative in their evasion efforts, as they’ve added a Russian tricolor to the side of the vessel and so are now claiming it is operating under Russian jurisdiction.

This has created new complications, given Washington had secured a court order authorizing the ship’s seizure due to its alleged involvement in transporting Iranian crude. But now with the newly displayed flag Russian flag, this has made enforcement more difficult under international maritime law.

The tanker was traveling toward Venezuela without any cargo at the time that US Coast Guard forces tried to board it – and then it fled into open sea, after which US assets continued shadowing the ship.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, authorities are allowed to board vessels that are flying false flags or lack proper registration – but in the scenario that Russia has officially registered the Bella 1, a forced boarding could risk diplomatic fallout and an international incident.

The tanker in question has been under US Treasury sanctions since 2024, as it has long been accused of transporting Iranian oil on behalf of Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The vessel is owned by Louis Marine Shipholding Enterprises, which is based in Turkey, and most of the crew are believed to be Russian, Indian, and Ukrainian.

The now apparently stymied attempt to apprehend the vessel comes soon on the heels of President Trump having ordered the US military to enforce a two-month “quarantine” of Venezuelan oil, signaling an intensification of gunboat diplomacy aimed at fostering regime instability in Caracas, with potential spillover effects that could ripple across the Caribbean into Cuba.

“While military options still exist, the focus is to first use economic pressure by enforcing sanctions to reach the outcome the White House is looking (for),” a US official told Reuters earlier this month.

The oil tanker Bella 1 is fleeing U.S. forces after the U.S. Coast Guard tried to intercept it in the Caribbean.

During the pursuit, the crew painted a Russian flag on the ship and now claim Russian status.

The tanker is under U.S. sanctions for carrying Iranian oil and was… pic.twitter.com/WOAMA35aRp

— Clash Report (@clashreport) December 30, 2025

“The efforts so far have put tremendous pressure on Maduro, and the belief is that by late January, Venezuela will be facing an economic calamity unless it agrees to make significant concessions to the U.S,” the U.S. official told Reuters.

According to analytics firm Kpler, Caracas has shipped nearly 900,000 barrels per day this year and relies on 400 dark-fleet tankers to transport the crude, much of which is bound for China. 

Authored by Isaac Orr & Tom Pyle via RealClearEnergy,

Americans are anxious about their utility bills – and with good reason. Three quarters of U.S. residents are concerned about their electricity and gas bills rising this year, and 80% feel powerless over how much they are charged for utilities. For nearly two-thirds of U.S. billpayers, simply keeping the lights on has become a growing source of financial stress.

Those concerns are grounded in reality. U.S. electricity prices rose 27% during the Biden administration and another 11% between January and September 2025. Yet despite a national narrative eager to blame President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the real drivers of high electricity prices are far closer to home.

Electricity affordability is shaped primarily by state policy choices, and states choosing the most expensive path are overwhelmingly blue. So, blue-state residents are experiencing the pain much more than those in red states.

A new report from Always On Energy Research and the Institute for Energy Research finds that 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 and 2024. In contrast, 80% of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red. That’s not a coincidence. Those high prices reflect a consistent pattern of state-level energy policies that dictate emissions reduction targets at the expense of affordability, reliability, and physics. 

States have the exclusive power to decide which resources supply their grids under the Federal Power Act. Governors, legislatures, and public utility commissions – not the White House – decide whether to impose renewable portfolio standards (RPS), enforce Net-Zero mandates, or prematurely retire reliable power plants. Those decisions directly determine how much families and businesses pay for electricity.

Today, 28 states enforce an RPS, requiring a certain percentage of retail electricity sales to come from renewable sources, and 16 states have 100% clean energy standards (CES) or carbon-free mandates. Many of these policies compel utilities to overbuild intermittent generation, such as wind and solar, thereby requiring significant investments in transmission, grid-scale storage, and backup generation to maintain reliability. The result is a higher total system cost, which is passed onto ratepayers in the form of higher electricity rates.

Consider that the U.S. average electricity price between January 2025 and August 2025 was 13.54 cents per kilowatt-hour. Each of the five most expensive states mandates 100% of their electricity come from renewable or carbon-free sources in the coming decades. Eight of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2020 and 2024, and seven of the 10 don’t have renewable or carbon-free mandates.  

New York is a prime blue state example, where electricity prices were 58% higher than the national average during the same period. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) found that New York experienced the second-fastest increase in electricity prices nationwide, with residential customers suffering a 36% increase between 2019 and 2024. PPI points to “the immense capital investment required to transform the grid and specific policy choices that increase the cost of energy production,” as well as the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant. 

It’s clear that Governor Kathy Hochul knows exactly which policy choices are driving up electricity costs — because she’s scrambling to roll them back. Ms. Hochul has delayed implementation of the state’s cap-and-tax mandates under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which includes a substantial renewable energy mandate requiring 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% carbon-free energy by 2040.

The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation defended the delay, arguing in court that the regulations would impose “extraordinary and damaging costs upon New Yorkers.” Ms. Hochul has approved two major natural gas pipelines and delayed implementation of the state’s ban on gas stoves in new buildings – a tacit admission that reliability and affordability still matter in New York.

California, however, remains committed to the most expensive path in the country with the fastest rate increase, now double the national average. For years, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California legislature have imposed on ratepayers a carbon-emissions reduction mandate, renewable mandates, solar cost-shifting through net metering, nuclear reactor closures, and EV charging subsidies.

For all of his climate-friendly posturing, Mr. Newsom signed a bill to ramp up oil drilling in Kern County, and his Energy Commission has delayed its plan to penalize refinery profits for five years. These reversals underscore a central truth: ideology will take a back seat to cost and reliability.

There’s a silver lining, however. While states can choose to raise electricity costs for their residents through bad policies, they can also choose to lower costs through good policies. For instance, Florida is the second-largest electricity producer in the country, behind only Texas. Residents require air conditioning for its hot, humid summers and heating in its mild winters. However, Florida delivers electricity at prices 2% below the U.S. average—mainly because it generates 75% of its power from imported natural gas. It has avoided aggressive climate mandates and delivers below-average electricity prices despite frequent hurricanes that require ongoing investment in the grid. 

Louisiana and Kentucky have also invested in wise policies. Louisiana posted the third-lowest electricity rates in the U.S. in 2025, and Kentucky had the lowest rates east of the Mississippi River. Nearly three-quarters of Louisiana’s electricity is generated from natural gas, leveraging its abundant natural gas production and robust pipeline network. Kentucky, similarly, leverages its coal resources to generate 67% of the state’s electricity, with another 26% by natural gas. Neither has pursued aggressive carbon emissions reduction or renewable energy mandates.

Pinning the blame on the federal government and President Trump, as Democrats have been eager to do, ignores the vital role that states play in delivering affordable, reliable electricity. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recognizes the same, stating on Fox News that “Electricity prices have risen very fast in blue states with restrictive renewable portfolio standards.” 

The Department of Energy and President Trump can set the tone, but they don’t dictate the composition of state grids or the bills consumers receive each month. Those decisions rest squarely with governors, legislators, and regulators. Ultimately, it’s up to the states to prioritize reliable, affordable, dispatchable generation and drive down electricity prices.

High electricity rates aren’t an unavoidable consequence of modern life or federal policy. They are the predictable outcome of state-level choices that ignore reliability, undervalue dispatchable generation, and impose rigid mandates regardless of cost. Americans deserve leaders who recognize that keeping the lights on at a modest price isn’t optional. The states keeping electricity affordable today offer a roadmap for those willing to learn.

Isaac Orr is vice president of research at Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit energy modeling firm.

Tom Pyle is President of the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit energy research organization.

Last month Reuters revealed that roughly 10% of Meta’s annual revenue, or $16 billion, comes from advertising scams and banned goods – as the company only bans advertisers when its systems detect a 95% probability of fraud, while charging higher ad fees to suspicious buyers – a system critics describe as “pay to play.”

Data from fraud-reporting firm SafelyHQ shows Facebook is cited in 85% of scam reports that identify a platform, with more than 50,000 verified complaints collected so far, which CEO Patrick Quade suggests an implied victim count in the “tens of millions.”

Now, internal documents reviewed by Reuters indicate that Meta developed tools to both reduce scam advertising, and to limit regulators’ visibility into said ads after governments threatened measures that could severely cripple advertising revenue by forcing the company to reveal the identity of advertisers.

The efforts began last year after Japanese regulators highlighted a surge of scam advertising on Facebook and Instagram. The fraudulent ads included fake investment opportunities and artificial-intelligence-generated celebrity endorsements. Fearing that Japanese authorities might impose strict verification and transparency requirements that would materially affect its advertising business, the company launched an enforcement push aimed at reducing the number of fraudulent ads. At the same time, the documents show, the company focused on how those ads appeared to regulators.

The Ad Library and “Prevalence Perception”

Meta’s remedy centered on its ‘Ad Library,’ a public database designed to allow users to search for ads running on Facebook and Instagram. Meta employees realized Japanese regulators were using keyword searches in the library as a simple measure of the company’s effectiveness at tackling scams.

To improve performance on that measure, Meta staff identified the keywords and celebrity names most frequently used by Japanese Ad Library users. They then repeatedly ran those searches themselves, deleting ads that appeared fraudulent from both the Ad Library and Meta’s platforms.

Internally, the documents describe this work as managing the “prevalence perception” of scams. The stated objective was to make problematic content “not findable” for “regulators, investigators and journalists.”

The tactic produced rapid results. Within weeks, Meta staff reported finding fewer than 100 scam ads in a week, followed by several consecutive days in which searches returned none. A Japanese legislator publicly praised the apparent improvement, and Japan ultimately did not impose the advertiser-verification rules Meta had feared.

From Local Response to Global Strategy

Given their success in dealing with Japan, Meta incorporated the approach into what internal documents describe as a “general global playbook” for responding to regulatory scrutiny worldwide. The same techniques – scrubbing Ad Library search results and reducing the discoverability of scams – were later deployed in markets including the United States, Europe, India, Australia, Brazil and Thailand.

This was all part of a broader strategy for delaying or weakening regulatory action, according to the report – with the playbook guiding Meta officials to offer voluntary measures, requesting time to assess their impact, and resisting universal advertiser verification unless laws leave no alternative.

Former Meta fraud investigator Sandeep Abraham, who left the company in 2023, said the approach distorts the transparency the Ad Library was meant to provide. Rather than offering an accurate view of advertising on Meta’s platforms, he said, it presents a curated picture optimized for regulatory review. Abraham described the tactic as “regulatory theater.”

Meta disputes that characterization. Company spokesman Andy Stone told Reuters that removing scam ads from the Ad Library is not misleading because the ads are removed from Meta’s systems overall. Fewer scams appearing in the library, he said, indicate fewer scams on the platform.

“To suggest otherwise is disingenuous,” Stone said. 

Yet, the best solution would be costly – as Meta has long recognized that universal advertiser verification would significantly reduce scam activity. Internal analyses indicate the company could implement such a system globally in less than six weeks – yet the company has repeatedly balked at the cost. Executives estimated that universal verification would require roughly $2 billion to implement and could eliminate up to 4.8% of total revenue by blocking unverified advertisers. Despite generating $164.5 billion in revenue last year, nearly all from advertising, the company chose not to proceed.

Internal data show that unverified advertisers account for a disproportionate share of harm. One 2022 analysis found that 70% of newly active advertisers were promoting scams, illicit goods or low-quality products.

Instead of adopting verification, Meta chose what documents describe as a “reactive only” stance, accepting universal verification only where mandated by law.

Whack-a-Mole

Despite Meta’s playbook, Taiwanese regulators dropped the hammer – threatening steep fines for unverified financial scam ads. Meta rushed to comply with new rules requiring advertiser verification, which authorities said coincided with dramatic reductions in investment and impersonation scams.

Meta’s own analyses, however, showed that much of the blocked fraudulent advertising was rerouted to users in other countries, displacing both revenue and consumer harm rather than eliminating it. Unless verification was enforced globally, staff warned, Meta would be relocating scams rather than eradicating them.

Even then, the documents show, the financial costs to Meta have remained small. Meta’s own tests showed verification immediately reduced scam ads in those countries by as much as 29%. But much of the lost revenue was recouped because the same blocked ads continued to run in other markets.

If an unverified advertiser is blocked from showing ads in Taiwan, for example, Meta will show those ads more frequently to users elsewhere, creating a whack-a-mole dynamic in which scam ads prohibited in one jurisdiction pop up in another. In the case of blocked ads in Taiwan, “revenue was redistributed/rerouted to the remaining target countries,” one March 2025 document said, adding that consumer injury gets displaced, too. “This would go for harm as well,” the document noted. -Reuters

Hong Kong is another example – where Meta lobbyists moved quickly in 2024 to blunt a proposal by financial regulators that would have required verification of advertisers promoting investment products. To preempt stricter rules, Meta staff helped regulators draft a voluntary “anti-scam charter” and coordinated with Google to present what one lobbyist described internally as a “united front.” The final language, the documents note, imposed no new verification requirements or product changes. In an internal message celebrating the outcome, a Meta lobbyist wrote that regulators had relaxed measures that would have forced identity checks for financial advertisers, adding that officials expressed “huge appreciation” for Meta’s participation. Hong Kong regulators later said advertiser verification was only one of several tools available to platforms and emphasized that they lacked authority to mandate such requirements, while urging social media companies to do more to detect and remove fraudulent content.

In a statement, Hong Kong financial regulators said that “advertiser verification is one of many ways social media platforms can protect the investment public.”

In light of these findings, Meta has assigned scam handling its highest internal risk rating for 2025, citing regulatory, legal, reputational and financial exposure. One internal estimate warned that potential liability in Europe and Britain alone could cost as much as $9.3 billion.

Meanwhile, regulatory scrutiny has intensified – with European authorities having formally requested information about Meta’s handling of scam ads, and two U.S. senators urging federal agencies to investigate the company. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands has sued Meta, alleging it knowingly profited from fraud. Meta has said it strongly disagrees with the allegations.

For now, the documents suggest Meta believes its approach is working.

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Everybody’s buzzing about that Minnesota Medicaid mess with Gov. Tim Walz. Some are even calling it the largest fraud scandal ever. If only.

Blue-state fraud is undoubtedly a problem, and Walz should be held accountable if he did indeed look the other way. But what happened in the land of 10,000 lakes is tiny compared to the fraud in California under Gavin Newsom.

Heck, it makes Minnesota look like pocket change.

A fresh 92-page bombshell from the California State Auditor lays it all out.

“This latest report was issued by the state auditor, and that’s a nonpartisan position; that state auditor now puts eight state agencies on the high-risk list of agencies to watch out for, for things like fraud and mismanagement as well as waste,” Newsmax correspondent Heather Myers revealed last week.

“Here’s a look at that 92-page report. Newly added to the high-risk list is California’s food stamp program. If the state doesn’t get the improper payments under control, it could cost an extra $2.5 billion. Also on there is the Department of Finance, which was tasked with giving out COVID relief funds. Critics say $32 billion of that was taken by fraudsters. Then there are infrastructure issues like California’s deteriorating dams, and also the high-speed train that’s already cost taxpayers 18 billion without a single section of track complete.”

But wait, there’s more!

“Other reports cite $24 billion spent on the homeless issue that critics claim the state lost track of. More recently, there’s a report that says California cell phone users paid a surcharge for years to upgrade the state’s 911 system,” she added.

Tallied all up, California taxpayers lost $70 billion to fraud.

But here’s where things get really interesting. While pressure is on in Minnesota to get to the bottom of the state’s fraud, California seems to be under the radar.

Now get this. Right in the middle of the fraud apocalypse, a new ballot initiative seeks to impose a one-time 10% wealth tax on billionaires’ assets.

“Billionaires are threatening to leave California, and it’s all because of a possible new ballot initiative in the state. It’s a wealth tax. A healthcare labor group is behind this push, calling for a one-time tax on billionaires equal to 10 percent of their assets. And right now, it does not have enough signatures to get on the ballot,” CNN’s Abby Phillip reported Monday.

“These are big numbers, just to let people know what we’re talking about here. Larry Page, for example, he’s worth $258 billion. His estimated tax would be $12 billion. Peter Thiel, worth $27 billion. His estimated tax would be $1.2 billion. That’s not $1.2 in your pocket. It’s billions of dollars. So, I mean, should they or should they not?”

CNN’s Scott Jennings torched the whole scheme; it’s about covering up the fraud.

“And it is not for the public benefit,” he pointed out.

“In California, the state auditor just found $70 billion in fraud going on in the state. The reason they need a wealth tax is to cover up the fraud. The hole in the budget in California is due to fraud. That’s why they’re trying to tax people.” Boom. Panelists flipped out. Jennings doubled down. Why 5%? Why billionaires? Arbitrary envy tax to paper over Sacramento’s black hole. Imagine handing more cash to the clowns who blew $24 billion on tent cities.”

Make no mistake about it, he’s right. Newsom is going to run for president in 2028. Something tells me that $70 billion in fraud on Gavin’s watch is the kind of thing that won’t sit well in a primary, much less the general election.

Oil futures are gaining in early U.S. trade, but on track to end the year substantially lower.

As Dow Jones reports, the unwinding of OPEC+ output cuts, along with higher non-OPEC production, fueled oversupply concerns in 2025, while U.S. sanctions and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, Russia-Ukraine and more recently Venezuela led to frequent price spikes.

“The crude supply surplus will acquire greater transparency than was the case through most of the fall period as floating storage gradually finds its way into onshore facilities,” Ritterbusch and Associates says in a note.

But away from the geopolitical chaos, domestic supply and production remain key…

DOE

• Crude -1.934mm

• Cushing +543k

• Gasoline +5.845mm

• Distillates +4.977mm

Crude stocks fell for the 3rd week in the last 4 while product inventories saw their 8th straight weekly build in a row…

The US Crude Oil Total Inventory (excluding Strategic Petroleum Reserve) fell to 422,888 thousand barrels in the week ending Dec. 26, 2025, lowest since Oct. 31, 2025… decoupling from the crude price…

US crude production remains near record highs as the rig count has continued to slide all year…

Oil headed for its steepest annual loss since the start of the pandemic in 2020, in a year that has been dominated by geopolitical risks and steadily rising supplies across the globe.

OPEC+ roiled markets earlier this year by reversing its longstanding policy of defending prices and raised output, seeking to reclaim market share as countries including Brazil and Guyana boosted supply and the US pumped at record levels. The producer group is expected to hold off on output hikes during talks this weekend.

A punishing surplus is expected to weigh on prices in 2026 – Global oil markets have been been oversupplied this year.

“The oil market is set to remain oversupplied into 2026, with strong non-OPEC production from the US, Brazil, Guyana and Argentina outpacing uneven global demand,” said Kaynat Chainwala, an analyst at Kotak Securities Ltd. Prices should stay range-bound between $50 and $70, with risks over Venezuelan or Russian supply remaining supportive, she added.

Both the International Energy Agency and the US government see production exceeding consumption by just over 2 million barrels a day in 2025 and that surplus worsening in the coming year.

Stocks are ending a third straight year of double-digit gains in subdued fashion as an expected seasonal rally fails to gain traction. Silver’s volatile ride extended to another session, with the metal tumbling after the CME hiked margins for the second time in three days. As of 8:15am ET,  S&P 500 futures fell 0.1% and well off session lows, after a stretch of post-Christmas losses pared the benchmark’s advance for 2025 to 17%, just shy of the 20%+ gains 2021, 2023 and 2024. Nasdaq 100 contracts were down 0.3%.Both indexes have drifted lower for the past three days amid a rotation out of growth and momentum stocks and into value and quality names in seasonally. Silver plunged as a run of price moves of 5% or more entered a fourth day. The dollar is steady as it heads for an annual decline of about 8%, the steepest since 2017. Treasury yields are ticking lower after Tuesday’s FOMC minutes offered nothing to shake expectations rates will be left unchanged when policymakers meet again in January, with further cuts likely later in the year. The only economic data on today’s calendar is the weekly initial claims which printed far below expectations at 199K (est.218K).

In premarket trading, Mag 7 stocks were mostly lower (Nvidia +0.4%, Tesla +0.3%, Microsoft -0.1%, Apple -0.2%, Amazon -0.1%, Meta -0.1%, Alphabet -0.3%). With a 66% year-to-date rally, Alphabet leads the group in 2025.

• Nike (NKE) is up 2.6% after CEO Elliott Hill reported the purchase of about $1 million in shares.
• Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) jumps 21% after the biopharmaceutical company said the US FDA has approved Nereus (tradipitant) for the prevention of vomiting induced by motion.

In corporate news, Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. plans to once again reject a takeover bid from Paramount Skydance Corp., according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. Among the board’s concerns, Paramount has yet to increase its offer, which Warner Bros. earlier rejected as inferior to Netflix’s offer. Michael Burry, the money manager made famous in The Big Short, denied betting against Tesla shares, despite calling the company “ridiculously overvalued” earlier this month. 

Investors have reaped strong returns this year in a market that has been powered by optimism about the vast economic potential of artificial intelligence. Of course, as Bloomberg notes, it hasn’t been a smooth ride, though, with traders weathering swings triggered by US trade policies, geopolitical tension and concern over lofty valuations. And while many expected a Santa rally, the year’s momentum faded in the final days of December, as traders delay big decisions until after the holiday period, having already banked strong returns. The post-Christmas losses pared the S&P’s 2025 advance to 17%, just shy of the 20%+ gains 2021, 2023 and 2024. 

“After an excellent year in equity markets, and with positioning close to highs in late November, portfolio and fund managers may have been closing their bets and realigning them to benchmark,” said Roberto Scholtes, head of strategy at Singular Bank. “Our base case is for the bull run to continue, albeit with more volatility and resulting in mid-single digit returns.”

While things remain subdued in equities, silver’s gyrations continue. Wild price swings are prompting CME Group to raise margins on precious-metal futures for the second time in a week. After an almost unstoppable rise, the two metals have recorded a series of swings in December and erased some gains as investors booked profits. Both commodities remain on track for their best year since 1979.

Elsewhere, Xi Jinping said China is set to meet its economic targets for 2025, with growth expected to reach “about 5%” even though in reality it is a fraction of that. China also blasted Western criticism of its most intrusive military drills ever around Taiwan as its armed forces appeared to wrap up the maneuvers.

The end of 2025 also means that Warren Buffett’s famed tenure as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is officially coming to a close, as the 95-year-old hands over the reins to successor Greg Abel into the new year.

In Europe, the CAC 40 is down 0.6% while the FTSE 100 drops 0.2%, with both indexes set to close early. Bourses in Germany and Italy are shut all day. Mining and technology stocks are leading declines on the Stoxx 600.

Asian equities wrapped up their best year since 2017 on a more hesitant note. Most regional indexes are under pressure, with Hang Seng Tech and ChiNext leading the retreat. Taiex is a bright spot following an almost 1% rally. Several markets are already shut for the year, including Japan and South Korea. 

In FX, the dollar is steady as it heads for an annual decline of about 8%, the steepest since 2017, rattled first by Trump’s tariffs then by Fed rate cuts. The recent advance did little to prevent the greenback from heading toward its worst annual retreat in eight years, with investors saying more declines are coming if the next chief of the Federal Reserve opts for deeper interest-rate cuts than currently expected. The kiwi is the weakest of the G-10 currencies, falling 0.4% against the greenback

In rates, treasuries weakened after of the final economic data release of 2025, with the 10-year yield rising 3 basis point to 4.15% after earlier falling 2bps. Applications for US unemployment unexpectedly tumbled to  just 199K in the week ended Dec. 27, far below estimates of 218K.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin traded near $88,800. The digital currency has settled into a range of roughly $85,000 to $95,000 following a crash in October that has put it on pace for a first annual loss in three years. After kicking off 2025 with a rally that was spurred by optimism about the crypto-friendly policies of the second Trump administration, Bitcoin was hit by the uncertainty surrounding US tariffs.

In commodities, silver drops 6% to around $72/oz after the CME Group said they will raise margins on precious-metal futures for the second time in the space of a week. Gold falls 0.7%. Oil headed for its steepest annual loss since the start of the pandemic in 2020, in a year that has been dominated by steadily rising supplies across the globe. Brent steadied close to $62 a barrel, with traders’ near-term focus on an OPEC+ meeting at the weekend, a bearish US industry report and American policies toward Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Market Snapshot

• S&P 500 mini -0.3%
• Nasdaq 100 mini -0.4%
• Russell 2000 mini -0.3%
• Stoxx Europe 600 -0.2%
• CAC 40 -0.6%
• 10-year Treasury yield -1 basis point at 4.11%
• VIX +0.6 points at 14.88
• Bloomberg Dollar Index little changed at 1204.03
• euro -0.1% at $1.1733
• WTI crude +0.3% at $58.14/barrel

Top Overnight News

• OpenAI Is Paying Employees More Than Any Major Tech Startup in History: WSJ
• Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure from Trump: RTRS
• Xi Touts China’s AI, Chip Wins In Triumphant New Year’s Speech:  BBG
• Xi Declares China’s Economy Set to Hit 5% Growth Goal in 2025: BBG
• From battleships to buildings: Trump’s name is everywhere: RTRS
• Bankers Are Gearing Up for Another Onslaught of Monster Deals in 2026: WSJ
• Meta created ‘playbook’ to fend off pressure to crack down on scammers, documents show: RTRS
• US Virgin Islands sues Meta over ads for scams, dangers to children: RTRS
• Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China to safeguard billions in revenue: RTRS
• World’s Richest Added a Record $2.2 Trillion in Wealth This Year: BBG
• Oil Tanker Pursued by U.S. Seems to Claim Russian Protection: WSJ
• Boston Went Big on Luxury Condos. The Buyers Didn’t Show Up: WSJ
• Finland Takes Control of Ship Suspected of Undersea Cable Damage: BBG
• Trump’s Latest Venezuela Tactic: Revealing a Secret Strike to the World: WSJ
• Palestinian Authority Sparks Fury by Cutting Prisoner Payments: BBG

US Event Calendar

• 8:30 am: Dec 27 Initial Jobless Claims 199k, est. 218k, prior 214k
• 8:30 am: Dec 20 Continuing Claims 1866k, est. 1901.74k, prior 1923k

As we detailed earlier in the week, the immediate catalyst for silver’s sudden slump was not a single factor but a multitude that cracked the massively overbought precious metal (including export restrictions, US and China margin hikes, ETF flows, etc).

Many, including us, warned that during the holiday period, traders could experience bouts of extreme volatility given the lower liquidity, but prices were expected to rise overall.

That ‘volatility struck over the weekend with Monday’s big price retreat:  silver prices did take a significant downward presumably because of another increase in margin levels at the CME during a very illiquid time of year, and positions being adjusted, with initial margins jumping $3,000/oz from $22,000/oz to $25,000/oz.  This followed an increase on Dec 12th, 2025, with a 10% increase in margins to the $22,000/oz level.  

And overnight we saw more volatility (downside price pressure) for silver as CME Group raised margins on precious-metal futures for the second time in the space of a week following a volatile period of trading that saw prices spike then retreat.

Margins for gold, silver, platinum and palladium contracts will increase after the close of business on Wednesday, the group said in a statement dated Dec. 30. The decision was made based on a review of “market volatility to ensure adequate collateral coverage,” it said.

The hikes mean that traders need to put up more collateral when they trade precious-metals futures to ensure they can meet their obligations. Earlier, higher margins kicked in from Monday.

Finally, as we detailed earlier in the week, China is set to tighten controls on silver exports from Thursday, expanding restrictions on the once-ordinary metal critical to the U.S. industry and defense supply chains.

But, the rules are not new. China’s Commerce Ministry first announced the new measures in October to strengthen oversight of rare metals, on the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in South Korea. At the time, Beijing agreed to a one-year pause on certain rare earth export controls, while the U.S. rolled back tariffs.

As CNBC reports, earlier this month, China released a list of 44 companies approved to export silver under the new measures in 2026 and 2027. The new rules in 2026 also restrict exports of tungsten and antimony, materials dominated by China’s supply chain and widely used in defense and advanced technologies.

While China hasn’t explicitly announced a blanket ban on silver exports, the state-run Securities Times on Tuesday cited an unnamed industry insider, who said the new policy formally elevates the metal from an ordinary commodity to a strategic material, placing its export controls on the same regulatory footing as rare earths.

Nevertheless, the imminent change has prompted hectic scenes of physical demand in China…

A glimpse of 15 kg SGE #Silver slabs selling at the Shuibei (水贝) Shenzhen Luohu District China’s premier gold and jewelry hub. pic.twitter.com/mjvzVpxuTR

— Eric Yeung 👍🚀🌕 (@KingKong9888) December 30, 2025

While there has been much talk of Silver being in a bubble, SocGen explained here why they disagree with the ‘models’, and we now note that silver no longer officially ‘overbought’…

In conclusion, Alasdair Macleod warns that the derivative difficulties advertised so loudly in silver contracts tell us that there is a wider and larger commodity pricing problem. Baskets of other commodity and raw material categories are also telling us that if they are to normalize, their dollar prices will rise dramatically in 2026-2027.

It is the currencies which are the problem. Meanwhile, there is nothing likely to stop silver prices rising much further. We can only hope it happens in an orderly fashion.

For now, the decline is stable and hardly indicative of a herd rushing for the exits. But a thin liquidity holiday-shortened week could exacerbate any moves.

The number of Americans filing for jobless claims for the first time plummeted last week to 199k – the lowest since the Thanksgiving week plunge and pretty much the lowest since

Source: Bloomberg

Sub-200k levels are rare and go back to 1969 lows…

Source: Bloomberg

Continuing jobless claims also dipped last week and is below the 1.9 million Maginot Line…

Source: Bloomberg

The ‘no hire, no fire, no quits’ labor market continues.

“Big Short” investor Michael Burry revealed on X that he is not shorting Tesla stock, despite calling Elon Musk’s car, robotics, battery storage, and AI company “ridiculously overvalued” in a separate post.

Early Wednesday morning, Burry posted on X about a prior credit default swap trade he made with Bill Ackman. In response, an X user asked, “Would you short Tesla here?”

Burry replied: “I am not short.”

On Tuesday, Burry posted a screenshot on X of a Bloomberg article covering Tesla delivery estimates from sell-side analysts that showed continued gloom. He added, “Tesla is ridiculously overvalued.”

Burry may be correct on valuation, but many investors appear to be looking beyond near-term vehicle deliveries and instead focusing on robotaxis, humanoid robots, AI, and battery storage.

In late November, Burry deregistered his hedge fund, Scion Asset Management, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, moving his trading into stealth mode after criticism from X users.

Michael Bury is arguably the worst investor of our generation. Here are 12 of his most smooth brained predictions.

Jan 2017 – Predicted a global financial collapse and WW3 were imminent.

Sep 2019 – Claimed index funds were the next CDOs, ready to implode like 2008.

Dec 2020 –… pic.twitter.com/KyWEyWBe6J

— RJC (@RJCcapital) November 12, 2025

“I am still running my money and active in markets,” Burry said at the time, later telling a Bloomberg reporter that he was managing capital only for “friends and family.“

Tesla shares are up 12.5% year to date as of Tuesday’s close. The stock has broken above a four-year lateral trading range, with $400 now the key level to hold.

Recall that Burry previously wrote, “On to much better things Nov 25th,” which, for now, appears to include not shorting Tesla.