Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via Substack,

The term “The K-Shaped Economy” has entered the lexicon to describe the divergence of the top tier of earners and owners of capital from the lower tiers, as the trajectory of the first is up and that of the second is down.

While the “The K-Shaped Economy” offers visual clarity, it’s ultimately an abstraction. Longtime correspondent Harvey D. recently offered a more accurate term, The Bifurcation Economy, which describes (as he put it) the reality that 50 miles outside major US cities, the precarity and quality of life is Third World. I modified his term to Bifurcation Nation, to express that the widening divide isn’t just financial, it describes everything from healthcare to social / political power.

I’ve assembled a few charts to illustrate the range of this Bifurcation between the top tier and the rest.

Here is the S&P 500 (SPX) stock market index, representing the wealth of corporations and the top 10% who own their shares, rising at a 45-degree angle, and consumer sentiment, representing the real-world economy, sliding down a 45-degree angle.

Here is employment hiring by large corporations–up–and small business employment–down.

Here is the share of income going to the top 10%–up (for illustrative purposes, not to scale)–and the share going to the bottom 90%: down.

As the total financial wealth of US households has soared, the share owned by the bottom 50% has fallen by 28.6% since 1990 while the share owned by the top 1% has risen 42%. As the pie got bigger, the percentage going to the top 1% got bigger, too. The rising tide didn’t raise all boats equally, it widened the gap between the top 1% and the rest.

Here is the share of consumer spending of the top 20%–up–and the bottom 80%–down.

One causal force that receives little attention is what I’m calling “The TINA Economy”: there is no alternative when it comes to paying higher prices for essentials and taxes, and so the share of income left to spend on what’s still a choice shrinks.

Everything that is necessary to participate in the economy at a level above abject poverty is concentrated in monopolies and cartels who use their control of production, supply chain and the politically geared regulatory structure to set what’s available on the market and what isn’t, and to raise prices and degrade quality and quantity to increase profits not by offering competitive advantages but by TINA coercion.

As the essentials go up in price, the sum of household income left to spend elsewhere (discretionary income) declines. The sectors of the economy that depend on discretionary spending are the only parts of the economy with any real competition: dining out, entertainment, leisure and travel, aspirational / status-enhancing spending, etc.

Many of these sectors are dominated by a handful of corporations: pizza chains, travel sites, airlines, short-term vacation rentals, rideshare services, hotels and resorts, and so on.

The sectors of the economy that aren’t yet dominated by cartels and quasi-monopolies–the small businesses that depend on discretionary spending–are the bricks and mortar enterprises that give towns, neighborhoods and cities their character and desirable quality of life.

As discretionary income is squeezed by relentless increases in rent, healthcare, auto and home insurance, food, childcare, vehicle repairs, subscriptions for digital services and software, all required to earn a living and maintain an abode better than a cardboard box on the sidewalk, there is less income available to spend on non-essentials, which are generally provided by local small businesses.

Households that have maintained discretionary spending by borrowing money are being eaten alive by rising debt service--the interest and principal due on credit cards, auto loans, student loans, installment payments, etc. Eventually their discretionary income is consumed by debt service.

Small businesses have shared interests, but they’re diffuse and distributed over numerous sectors and physical locations. There is no way they can match the billions of dollars a corporation can devote to lobbying, campaign contributions, PR campaigns, etc. Small businesses don’t have the advantages of scale, or the ability to leverage their market power to get better deals on taxes, rent and other expenses.

A corporate pizza chain, for example, can draw upon corporate deep pockets to offer discounts that no local pizza shop can match. So the local pizza shops all close and the residents are left with a choice of corporate pizza outlets–ultimately not much of a choice at all.

Left unsaid in the corporate/financial media’s coverage of the K-Shaped Economy is what happens to towns, neighborhoods and cities when shrinking discretionary income and soaring costs sink the bricks and mortar small businesses, leaving only sanitized, homogenized corporate outposts: the empty storefronts gut the local economy and strip the character from everything that was once unique or interesting.

Corporate coffee shop, empty storefronts, corporate pizza shop, empty storefronts, and a new luxury apartment complex developed and owned by corporations with zero interest in the locale other than harvesting soaring rents and then selling the property to global investors.

Left unsaid is the interest of monopolies and cartels begins and ends with extracting the maximum possible from all who have no alternative in an economy in which a handful of corporations control the majority of essentials, from healthcare insurance to banking to beef distribution to digital services. As for government, regardless of who you vote for, property taxes and fees go up.

Monopolies and cartels have zero interest in the quality of our lives; they only care about friction that reduces their net income and obstacles to their expanding extraction. They have no interest in how the bottom 90% are faring, and only marginal interest in the top 10% who generate 50% of consumer spending.

This is the problem with financializing an economy and society: the logic of maximizing profits by any means available inevitably leads to capital corrupting politics to protect monopolies and cartels, as these are the ideal platforms for maximizing extraction / coercion and thus profits.

In a financialized economy, there is no alternative to the eventual domination of monopolies and cartels, because in the logic of financialization, these are the only logical outcomes.

The quality of life in the TINA Economy is one of erosion, as the foundations of a high quality of life are hollowed out, either homogenized and commoditized (what I call Ultra-Processed Life) or left to decay.

Note that this decay is in a “booming economy” of soaring corporate profits and rising GDP. When the inevitable recession slashes profits, spending, employment and income, the small businesses struggling to survive in the competitive discretionary sectors will slide into oblivion, as the costs of essentials will continue rising while their revenues collapse.

Discretionary spending is now dependent on the top 10% drawing on the temporary wealth of credit-asset bubbles. Once these bubbles pop (and all bubbles pop), the top 10% spending will collapse along with the bubble’s phantom wealth.

Corporate monopolies and cartels won’t care until their corralled customers stop paying en masse. But then it will be too late to change the outcome. The same can be said of local governments that can’t print / borrow money to sustain their spending: as tax revenues plummet, there will be no way to reverse the endgame.

The endgame of a fully financialized, coercive TINA economy and society is Bifurcation Nation stumbling into the abyss of Depression with an economic profession and leadership class that are themselves homogenized and commoditized, unable to recognize Model Collapse, much less admit their failure, which is the first step in successful adaptation.

Left-wing unrest in Minneapolis and elsewhere across the country – whether protests or riots over the past few weeks or over the last decade targeting President Trump and the America First agenda – is being framed as a color revolution operation fueled by dark-money-funded NGOs, and that narrative is now reaching a wider audience.

Democrats are uneasy that this framing is gaining traction after the left-wing revolution was most recently discussed on The Joe Rogan Experience, where host Joe Rogan and guest Andrew Wilson, a conservative podcaster, discussed it.

Rogan discussed how, shortly after Nick Shirley’s investigation into alleged large-scale Somali-linked daycare and autism fraud, there was an immediate “narrative shift” that appeared to coincide with what he described as a coordinated pressure campaign on the ground against federal agents – something Rogan characterized as a “color revolution.”

“For people that don’t, it’s a coordinated effort to cause chaos, and this is a very coordinated thing,” Rogan said.

He continued, “The idea that this is an organic protest, these riots are organic, is nonsense. It’s probably nonsense because now they have access to the Signal chats.”

From the beginning, we have framed much of the left-wing pressure campaigns as far from organic, pointing instead to dark-money-funded NGOs supporting activist groups on the ground opposing federal deportation operations. It was not until “Signal Gate,” however, that the nation could see how heavily coordinated these efforts allegedly were…

Now these left-wing NGOs are seeking spring protests, as they have riled up young people to carry out their anti-ICE agenda.

They also plan to launch campaigns nationwide:

• NYC Socialists Prepare Mass Mobilization Of 4,000 Anti-ICE Army

As well as targeting critical economic chokepoints.

• Left-Wing NGOs Transition To Targeting ‘Critical Economic Chokepoints’ In Minneapolis

The chaos in Minneapolis is part of the left-wing’s protest industrial complex that moves from one high-profile news event to another – from George Floyd protests to pro-Palestinian demonstrations – mobilizing activists with aims at revolution.

There is good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat down with journalist Christopher Rufo earlier this month to discuss plans to investigate dark-money-funded NGOs sowing chaos nationwide.

EXCLUSIVE: Treasury ⁦@SecScottBessent⁩ tells me that the Trump Administration will launch investigations into left-wing nonprofits that serve as a front for violent protests and criminal obstruction of ICE operations. It’s time to stop left-wing terrorism in America. pic.twitter.com/roorsk4XLA

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@christopherrufo) January 9, 2026

Let’s remind readers about retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s comments in late November:

• General Flynn Calls For National Address From Trump On Color Revolution Threat

As warmer weather approaches, the protest industrial complex will be operating at full steam. Rogan’s characterization of the chaos in Minneapolis as resembling a color revolution presents optically displeasing headlines for Democrats, as that framing increasingly circulates to wider and wider audiences.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Shahid Butt, a 60-year-old Muslim activist with a conviction for conspiring to bomb the British consulate in Yemen, is now gunning for a seat on Birmingham City Council. 

Yes, really.

Convicted in 1999 and sentenced to five years in a Yemeni prison, Butt was found guilty of forming an armed gang to target the consulate, an Anglican church, and a Swiss-owned hotel.

‘Can you see what’s happening to our country!’@PatrickChristys reacts to Shahid Butt, an activist running for election in Birmingham, who’s been convicted of terrorism.

Go to https://t.co/CVTl2Q2qvb to get 75% off ExpressVPN. #ad

ExpressVPN terms and conditions apply. pic.twitter.com/PZYRo0lqRz

— GB News (@GBNEWS) January 28, 2026

Butt claims the charges were bogus, insisting he was forced to confess and that they weren’t terrorism-related. Yet reports link him to an armed Islamist jihadi group that kidnapped 16 Westerners in 1998. In the early 1990s, he headed to Bosnia as an “aid worker” before joining a foreign fighters brigade in the Bosnian army. Back in Birmingham during the 1980s, he racked up trouble with a notorious gang and even served prison time for violence.

Now, as a pro-Gaza independent candidate in the Sparkhill ward—where around 80% of residents are Muslim—Butt is openly urging the city’s Muslim youth to “work out at the gym and learn to fight” in preparation for potential attacks. He calls for Muslims to “stand together and hold their ground” against “disbelievers” of other faiths.

‘It should disqualify you from standing for election.’

Reform UK Councillor Russell Quirk believes that Shahid Butt should not be allowed to stand in the Birmingham council elections due to his previous terrorism conviction. pic.twitter.com/P6ClldcqCQ

— GB News (@GBNEWS) January 28, 2026

Victims of Islamist attacks aren’t buying the redemption story. Groups representing terror survivors slammed the candidacy as making “a mockery of our political system,” according to The Telegraph. 

One source told the paper: “Allowing someone with this history to run for office undermines everything we stand for in fighting extremism.”

Convicted terrorist Shahid Butt is standing for election in the UK

He’s a convicted terrorist and hates non-muslims

“Don’t take Christians and Jews as your friends; non-believers cannot be trusted. Stick with the Muslims.”

Welcome to the UK ???? pic.twitter.com/DQzk6FS2PE

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) January 30, 2026

GB News host Patrick Christys tore into the development, asking: “Are you mental?!” in a blistering monologue. He highlighted Butt’s past, from the Yemen plots to his calls for Muslims to arm up against non-believers.

‘Under UK law, there is no disqualification for an individual who holds any kind of past terrorism-related conviction.’

Emma Schubart explains how convicted terrorist Shahid Butt can legally stand for election in England. pic.twitter.com/FfoIK6FYrv

— GB News (@GBNEWS) January 29, 2026

This isn’t an isolated case of the UK rolling out the red carpet for radicals. Just last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer personally celebrated the release and return of British-Egyptian extremist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who has a track record of praising Osama bin Laden, denying the Holocaust, and calling for violence against Jews and police. Starmer called it a “top priority” for his government.

Meanwhile, ordinary Brits face the full force of the law for far less. Take Lucy Connolly, who served time for a heated tweet about immigration after the Southport attacks and now faces re-imprisonment for sharing a satirical joke about Starmer. 

The contrast couldn’t be starker: extremists with bomb plots and hate-filled rhetoric get platforms and welcomes, while native Brits get jail cells for memes and jokes. 

Birmingham’s council elections in May could mark another win for sectarian politics, fueled by unchecked migration and a government more interested in appeasing radicals than protecting its own citizens.

As communal tensions rise, with anti-Israel protests turning violent and Jewish groups raising alarms, allowing figures like Butt to run exposes the rot in Britain’s system.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Building on Goldman analyst Brian Singer’s comparison of the AI data-center buildout to the U.S. shale boom, where AI remains in the early “appraisal phase” of the innovation cycle, a stage historically most bullish for infrastructure spending and equity multiple expansion, fresh commentary earlier this week from UBS CIO Americas reinforces the view that bubble conditions have not yet been met.

Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, CIO of Global Equities at UBS Global Wealth Management, spoke at the Latin America Investment Conference, where she said AI remains underhyped in the near term.

Ulrike continued:

AI is underhyped and underappreciated in the short term, and it is one of the biggest investing opportunities in human history, Ulrike Hoffman Burchardi, UBS CIO Americas, said at the Latin America Investment Conference.

She said there are three things needed to be successful in AI:

1) AI algorithmic talent – it is very important to have strong AI researchers;

2) energy to power computers; and

3) chips.

Previously, she was focused on the picks and shovels, or what she calls the AI 7 (three chip companies and four hyperscalers), but now it’s time to move into the application layer of AI – the companies using AI to their benefit.

She said that for AI to be in a bubble, three conditions would need to be met:

1. loose financial conditions,

2. a transformational narrative, and

3. prices becoming reflexive.

She doesn’t think the third box is checked yet, especially not in public markets.

Ulrike noted that valuations are extended, but this is not the key thing to focus on.

On the other hand, she said private markets are bubblier, and that investors need to do a lot of due diligence there.

Circling back to Singer’s note on the shale innovation cycle, that cycle lasted from 2003 to 2020, roughly 17 years.

Read the note here.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Russia’s agreement to this format represents a significant policy shift.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the second round of the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks in Abu Dhabi will be held on 1 February.

There haven’t been many leaks from the first round so observers can only speculate about the subject and significance of this new format.

Nevertheless, it’s still possible to intuit some insight into this based on what’s known and has been reported, thus enabling folks to obtain a better understanding of this latest development. What follows are five important points:

1. Territory Is Reportedly The Last Remaining Issue

Putin’s top aide Yuri Ushakov said on the eve of the first round of talks that “bringing about a lasting settlement would be unlikely without addressing the territorial issue based on the formula as agreed in Anchorage.” This was followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that “The one remaining item … is the territorial claim on Donetsk.” Prior reports about Russia demanding Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass might therefore be true.

2. A Post-Conflict NATO Deployment Is Being Discussed

Rubo also told them that discussions over “security guarantees basically involve the deployment of a handful of European troops, primarily French and the UK, and then a US backstop”, which would require Russia’s consent. The US is still debating the wisdom of “be[coming] committed potentially in a conflict, in a future conflict”, however, despite Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner earlier signaling their country’s support for NATO troops in Ukraine. The second round will therefore likely involve this issue too.

3. A Quid Pro Quo Might Be In The Cards

The Financial Times reported that US security guarantees for Ukraine are dependent on its withdrawal from Donbass, while the New York Times reported that this Kiev-controlled part of that region could then become either a demilitarized zone or host neutral peacekeepers. A quid pro quo might therefore be in the cards whereby Ukraine withdraws from Donbass in exchange for US security guarantees and a NATO deployment, which Russia might agree to if neutral peacekeepers stand between them.

4. Trump Has Eschewed Publicly Pressuring Zelensky

For as promising as this potential quid pro quo might appear to be, at least in terms of achieving a ceasefire at minimum (provided that Russia reverses its formal opposition thereto), Zelensky remains defiant about withdrawing from Donbass. Trump has also eschewed publicly pressuring him to do so under pain of tangible consequences like irreversibly suspending arms sales to the EU that are destined for Ukraine, which therefore suggests that there are real limits to what the US will do in pursuit of a deal.

5. The US’ Diplomatic Role Is Now Indispensable

Despite these limits, the US’ diplomatic role is now indispensable as proven by Russia’s agreement to trilateralize its bilateral talks with Ukraine, which represented a significant policy shift. Russia therefore seems to believe that the US is sincere about negotiating a deal between it and Ukraine even though it won’t do everything in its power to that end. Now that the Russian-Ukrainian talks include the US, they’re unlikely to revert to the bilateral format until after Trump 2.0 if the conflict is still raging by then.

The five insights that can be intuited about the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks strongly suggest that Putin is considering far-reaching compromises on his maximum goals in the special operation as stipulated at its onset.

It’s premature to jump to conclusions about why that might be, but if such an outcome is officially enshrined in a legal agreement (whether a ceasefire, armistice, or peace treaty), then it’ll surely be analyzed to better understand why Putin would believe that it benefits Russia.

Venezuela’s US-backed and CIA-installed interim president Delcy Rodriguez has unveiled a sweeping amnesty bill that could pave the way for the release of hundreds of detainees, in a first major political move since former President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were ousted and whisked off to New York earlier this month.

“We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day,” Rodriguez announced Friday. She issued her address before a who’s who of government figures, including judges and federal magistrates, that the National Assembly would take up the bill “with urgency”. There are believed to currently be at least 700 inmates deemed political prisoners nationwide.

“May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fueled by violence and extremism,” Rodriguez said in the televised address.

“May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans,” she added.

Rodriguez has also declared the closure of El Helicoide, the notorious Caracas detention center run by the intelligence services, long accused by former inmates and independent rights groups of torture and systemic abuse.

The plan is to change it into a sports, social, and cultural complex serving nearby neighborhoods – though surely the country will still maintain its necessary and regular prison system.

Hopefully, Caracas and the US are also being somewhat selective on who they let walk free, given there could be hardened violent criminals and assassins in the mix.

A little over a week after the US incursion into Venezuela and change of government, the head of the country’s National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, had first announced the release of a “significant number” of political prisoners.

Under Washington pressure, one prominent name among those freed was the following:

Rocío San Miguel, a vocal critic of Maduro and a defense expert, was the first prisoner confirmed to be freed. Her family told the New York Times that she was taken to the Spanish embassy in Caracas.

Arrested in 2024, she was accused of being involved in a plot to kill the then-president and faced charges of treason, conspiracy and terrorism. Her arrest shocked human rights activists and, because her whereabouts were unknown, was labelled as potential “enforced disappearance” by the UN Human Rights Office.

Rights groups have so far tallied that just over 300 prisoners have been released under Delcy Rodriguez – a small number which again suggests they are likely being selective about it. This new bill means hundreds are set to follow.

Authored by Alastair Crooke via LewRockwell.com,

As so often these days, a decisive attack on Iran – comes down in the final analysis to Trump’s psychology, and his need to dominate the attention of everyone around him.

He understands that for however much his maximalist pronouncements look — and are — crazy, they nonetheless do usually default to a ‘strong man image’.

Trump’s career has been founded on the predicate that his base loves the ‘strong guy’ and any sign of weakness detracts from the illusion of strength. It is the thing that has generally worked for him.

European élites however, find this difficult to digest – perhaps understandably – and slide into paroxysms of outrage.

The key, as Trump-watcher Michael Wolff has suggested, is that after days with Trump saying that ‘this or that’ is going to be done, either “the easy way; or the hard way”, the tipping point usually comes when he has to manoeuvre to exit his maximalist positions, whilst always claiming it was all an ‘Art of the Deal’ success – the outcome being just what he had from the beginning intended.

On Iran, Trump’s messaging is again ultra-maximalist: Accept my conditions, or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle entirely your [Iran’s] political system. Trump’s envoys reinforce his stance that ‘every option remains on the table’ at every opportunity (though this rhetoric has become nothing more than an overworked cliché).

Trump’s threats towards Iran however, have triggered paroxysms of anxiety in the region, with leaders — even Netanyahu — fearing a long war with unpredictable and bloody consequences.

Trump’s conception of war is built around a fantasy that he can manipulate some lightening ‘in-boom-out’ stunt – one in which the U.S. loses no soldiers and its military infrastructure remains untouched. Reports from those regular ‘phone buddies’ of Trump say that he still says he wants a ‘guaranteed’ decisive outcome in Iran – a short, violently sharp, decisive war. He does not want casualties – especially American casualties. Neither does he want mass casualties or a long drawn-out conflict.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson explains that decisive is a military term of art. It means you’ve hit the enemy so hard they’re unable to respond. Or, in other words, it hints that Trump would like a ‘stunt’ like that of seizing Maduro.

Nothing is guaranteed in war, of course. And the insurrection in Iran fomented by externally-trained rioters drawing on the earlier Management of Savagery playbook failed.

The US had not deployed massively for this January episode because, in their (flawed) analysis, they had thought they might be able to simply ‘assist’ the rioters trying to overthrow the government – assistance that would not require much military muscle.

Well, that all fell apart. They had bought into the propaganda that Iran was a ‘house of cards’, destined to implode under the impact of the extreme violence of the rioters intended to sear into place the image of a crumbling, burning edifice with its leaders and occupants scrambling to escape.

It seems that in the wake of the ‘coup’ failure – yet still wanting to be pleasing to an exigent President – the Pentagon has come around to justifying and explaining the failed coup saying — in General Keane’s words –“We [have] had to bring in all this firepower”, (because they initially had thought they could manage with less).

So, now we have the narrative that “the U.S. has now deployed more forces to the Middle East than it did in the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined” – which US military expert Will Schryver derides as “absolute ridiculous nonsense”.

Schryver notes: “I have yet to see a military buildup in the region that would permit anything remotely approximating a ‘decisive’ strike against the Iranian military and its government”.

“A squadron of F-15s, a few tankers, and a couple dozen C-17 shipments of ordnance and/or AD systems has been sent to Jordan. That’s a modest defensive shield against drones and cruise missiles, at best. It’s certainly not a potent strike package … even with the carrier USS Gerald Ford in the mix … In total, the Navy could probably launch ~350 Tomahawks. But against a huge country like Iran, even if all 350 hit “something”, it’s not going to come close to disarming the Iranians”.

Schryver concludes:

“The US Navy is absolutely NOT going to venture into the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman. And it would be extremely high risk to fly refuelling tankers in Iranian airspace. So that is going to limit carrier strike aircraft to their fully loaded combat radius of ~600 miles — not nearly far enough to hit targets deep in Iran. And even if they flew a half-dozen B-2s, and a dozen B-52s / B-1Bs … t just doesn’t add up to much in the context of a one-off strike package. It’s just a few dozen more stand-off cruise missiles thrown into the mix”.

A short, violent decisive ‘win’ (as reported by the WSJ) that Trumps wants — and which ‘plays well’ at home — simply is not an option. Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi, more realistically, has warned:

“An all-out confrontation will certainly be messy, ferocious, and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House”.

Inside Iran, notes Ibrahim Al-Amine, “the leadership is operating on the assumption that the confrontation may reach its most extreme form. Preparations are unfolding along two tracks: strengthening defensive capabilities against a large-scale assault and tightening internal security to prevent domestic destabilization. This posture is now visible across the country”.

So, could it be that Trump will back out once again (i.e. TACO – ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’)? Schryver argues that Iran is not Venezuela. It is not a ‘tariffs and trade’ financial war. It is not some coup de théâtre in which Trump ‘chickening out’ can be explained away as another win, as part of his clever ‘Art of the Deal’ approach.

Actual full-on military conflict (not a Maduro stunt) by contrast, is ‘out there for all to see’, notes Will Shryver, and would be much harder to explain away should it go awry. Adding more fire-power will not eliminate the risks. Trump’s best option is to find himself an alternative ‘distraction’.

Israel, too, seems to be having second thoughts. Ronan Bergman, in Yedioth Ahoronot, reports Israeli Intelligence reports saying that “a week and a half ago the protests reached their peak throughout Iran … [since when] the scale of the protests and demonstrations has decreased dramatically … the security establishment and the intelligence community do not believe that the regime is currently in danger, certainly not in immediate danger … The central question is whether Trump missed the momentum – and if there was any momentum at all …”.

“[Nevertheless] suppose all the armed forces that the US is now transferring to the Persian Gulf were fully deployed … and suppose Israel were to join in with its firepower … Then what? Would they overthrow the government …? What is the optimistic scenario for such an event … without soldiers on the ground, but only air strikes? … In practice”, Bergman concludes, “such a regime has never fallen through external intervention”.

Recall that Trump’s disapproval rating, according to NY Times poll this week, now stands at 47%.

Quite apart from the strategic military calculus of Iran’s response to any attack, Trump certainly doesn’t need a messy war. He likes his ‘initiatives’ to be short and clean ’standout’ wins.

Last weekend, as the Greenland bruhaha tumbled into threats and counter threats of tariffs, the US bond market moved to the verge of collapse (as it so did on Liberation Day, with the tariff announcements). The ‘way out’ from developing bond market crisis was Trump going ‘TACO’ on the Greenland-linked tariffs on European states who did not support his Greenland takeover.

Is Trump getting the message that an Iran ‘win’ is not ‘Slam Dunk’? – in which case he might decide on a TACO, accompanied by bone-crushing economic threats to Iran – (possibly).

Despite trillions of dollars slated for global data center buildouts, power grid upgrades, and other artificial intelligence infrastructure expansion through the end of the decade, there remains very limited investor discussion about the next-generation physical security architecture required to defend these increasingly critical and high-value infrastructure nodes, including data centers, power plants, and grid transmission chokepoints.

Protection of data centers from suicide drone swarm attacks is currently assessed as a lower risk at the moment, while the Trump administration, particularly following last year’s “Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty” executive order, is primarily focused on counter-UAS measures to secure stadiums and related venues against drone attacks ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

In recent weeks, U.S. military, federal agencies, and local authorities gathered for a two-day summit near U.S. Northern Command headquarters, bringing together federal agencies, 11 U.S. host committees, and FIFA’s security heads to prepare for matches across the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

“We’re never going to not worry about a dirty bomb,” Miami-Dade County Sheriff Rosanna Cordero-Stutz, who participated in the planning session, told Politico. “But we also recognize that there’s a lot of other things that we need to worry about as well.”

“You can’t just give counter-UAS mitigation equipment to law enforcement that hasn’t learned how to use it yet,” said White House FIFA World Cup Task Force Andrew Giuliani, who coordinated the federal government’s role in tournament preparations and addressed the drone threat at the summit.

Trump’s counter-UAS EO last June, combined with heightened drone-threat concerns ahead of FIFA World Cup events, underscores the urgent need for low-cost, rapidly deployable kinetic interceptor counter-UAS systems that could be repurposed to defend high-value infrastructure and critical assets beyond the soccer tournament.

Beyond the FIFA World Cup and back to the data center buildout story, Morgan Stanley’s Vishwanath Tirupattur forecasts that nearly $3 trillion of global data center spend will occur through 2028, comprising $1.6 trillion on hardware (chips/servers) and $1.3 trillion on building data center infrastructure, including real estate, build costs, and maintenance.

Wall Street analysts largely end their analysis at the financing and construction of next-generation data centers, with limited discussion regarding the modern security architecture required once these facilities are built and become instant high-value targets for non-state actors or foreign adversaries; traditional perimeter measures such as metal chainlink fencing and standard surveillance systems are rendered useless in the world of emerging AI threats, including coordinated autonomous drone or swarm-based attacks enabled by advances in AI and low-cost unmanned systems.

The deployment of low-cost kinetic counter-UAS intercept systems from the US could soon become a reality in Ukraine and be field-tested on the front lines, where tons of operational data would be gathered to help developers refine these systems ahead of future deployment to protect stadiums, data centers, and other high-value assets from drone threats across North America.

Cameron Rowe founded counter-UAS intercept startup Sentradel, which builds autonomous turrets to detect, track, and destroy FPV (first-person view) drones that can be easily modified with explosives. The low-cost interceptor uses a rifle that fires low-cost 5.56 bullets at incoming FPVs, versus current systems that use missiles and may cost tens of thousands per interception, where the economics of war aren’t there.

Meet Sentradel’s low-cost kinetic interceptor counter-UAS system:

Watch 

Company Update #robotics #drones @sts_3d @camrrowe pic.twitter.com/0JoVSeYkpI

— Sentradel (@sentradel) December 2, 2025

There’s growing interest from the Trump administration that these counter-UAS intercept systems will be guarding high-value assets, perhaps not stadiums immediately, but likely data centers in the future, especially as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently warned that attacks on data centers are only a matter of time. Readers can see the full story here.

Via American Greatness,

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has introduced the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act that would strip citizenship from individuals who commit serious crimes within 10 years of their naturalization.

According to Schmitt, the legislation would expand the grounds for beginning the denaturalization process to include welfare fraud, aggravated felonies and joining a terrorist organization, including gangs and cartels.

Fox New reports that the SCAM Act would create a 10-year window, post-naturalization, which would lower the threshold for federal authorities to strike an individual’s citizenship and to begin deportation proceedings.

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) just filed legislation REVOKING the citizenship of legal migrants who commit fraud and serious felonies, including the Somalis in Minnesota

GET IT PASSED! 🔥

The SCAM Act applies to serious crimes after being naturalized: “It’s evidence… pic.twitter.com/IvTiCuhfml

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 19, 2026

Schmitt alluded to the welfare fraud that has been uncovered in Minnesota as a “wake-up call” and stated, “American citizenship is a privilege, and anyone hoping to be a part of our great nation must demonstrate a sincere attachment to our Constitution, upstanding moral character, and a commitment to the happiness and good order of the United States.”

Prosecutors investigating the growing Minnesota fraud scandal have charged dozens of native-Somali residents in connection with the fraud and estimate that there are upwards of $9 billion in stolen funds.

Schmitt went on to say, “ People who commit felony fraud, serious felonies, or join terrorist organizations like drug cartels shortly after taking their citizenship oaths fail to uphold the basic standards of citizenship.”

The SCAM Act also anticipates court challenges to the legislation with a built-in mechanism to switch out the 10-year window to a 5-year window, if found to be unconstitutional.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and President Trump’s Homeland Security advisor says the White House is backing Schmitt’s legislation, saying, “The Somali fraud scandal is one of the greatest financial scandals in American history. All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported.”

Miller added, “We applaud Senator Schmitt for his leadership.”

The SCAM Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate but has not yet received a hearing.

Authored by Jenna McCarthy via Jenna’s Side Rocks,

Dear ICE Protestors,

It’s been a rough few months out there. You’ve shown up. You’ve resisted. You’ve rallied. You’ve organized. You’ve made signs. So. Many. Signs. You’ve launched illegal fireworks, damaged property, blocked traffic, broken the law, bashed in windows, assaulted agents, and berated scores of strangers simply for doing their jobs. You must be exhausted. I see you. I feel you. I am in awe of your stamina.

So let’s pretend, for argument’s sake and to give you a desperately-needed break, you win.

Let’s pretend all the chanting, the honking, the whistling, the street-blocking, the papier-mâché puppets, the Sharpie signs, the interpretive screaming, and the celebrity Instagram threats finally break the will of the federal government and ICE collapses under the sheer weight of your moral outrage.

Congratulations. Please enjoy a festive evening of vegan hors d’oeuvres, pronoun-affirming drum circles, and self-congratulatory chanting. You’ve earned it.

Go on, party it up!

After you shake the ethically-sourced, biodegradable confetti out of your hair, I just have one question: Now what?

No, seriously. What’s your plan?

Because tragically, our towns are teeming with dangerous, law-breaking repeat offenders—many of them wanted for horrific, unspeakable crimes here and in other countries. Blaming ICE for trying to remove them would be like blaming the home inspector for finding asbestos in the dream house you just fell in love with.

These bad actors are here. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it. (I know! Objective reality isn’t really your thing. But try.) So what do we do about them? Do we ask a bunch of fugitives to kindly turn themselves in to the nearest Department of Feelings & Hugs? Do we hand big red “PLEASE STOP, YOU’RE BEING NAUGHTY” paddles to community volunteers? Do we just leave the child rapists, domestic abusers, drug smugglers, home invaders, human traffickers, carjackers, murderers, and violent felons exactly where they are and hope they find God without a map or a moral compass?

Hahahaha, I mean, okay.

Because here’s the part you seem to have left out of the ICE-free utopia you imagine: federal immigration officers aren’t hunting down gardeners, grandpas, or the kid who overstayed her student visa because she adopted a Labradoodle. In one 24-hour period alone this week, ICE arrested five illegal immigrants charged with heinous crimes including rape by force, aggravated assault, and sodomy of a minor. You know, the sort of atrocities Netflix makes eight-part documentaries about.

And you’re… protesting that?

Let’s run your victory scenario one more time: You kick ICE to the curb. Strip the agency of every drop of federal funding. Fire every last evil, horrible, power-hungry agent. Finally! Nobody is arresting or removing violent offenders anywhere in the country. Phew! Except… now those violent offenders stay in your city. In your neighborhoods. Near your kids. Near your friends. Near you. What happens when one of them abducts a toddler from the preschool playground? Or robs you at knifepoint in the Trader Joe’s parking lot. Or breaks into your neighbor’s home and murders a mother of three. Who do you call? Katy Perry? The police? Oh, wait. You want to defund them, too.

You’re probably not a regular reader of my column, so you may not know that immigration enforcement isn’t even a Trump invention. Nope. It’s happened under every administration since presidents wore wigs. In fact, your boy Barack deported more illegals than any American leader in history.

(Go ahead. Go lie down for a spell. It’s not your fault CNN never told you that.)

Look, I get it. ICE has terrible branding. The name sounds like a villain straight out of a Marvel movie. Truly, someone at DHS should have workshopped it harder. If they had called it the Department of Removing Child Predators and Machete-Wielding Lunatics From Your Neighborhood, you’d all be crocheting them honorary sashes. But because the acronym sounds cold, or mean, or insufficiently infused with social-justice aromatherapy, thousands of you are sprinting around Minneapolis hurling rocks at officers who just removed a convicted child rapist from an elementary school’s zip code.

I realize that there have been two extremely high-profile deaths involving ICE recently. In fact, since Trump deployed the agency last year, there have been five lost lives—each of them tragic (and arguably avoidable). Shockingly—not—most states don’t record immigration status in arrest or conviction data. And mainstream media is historically allergic to reporting on violent migrant crime. Social media, however, is not.

There are so, so many more, but I suspect you get the gist.

“We are Renee Good,” you chant. Yes, yes you are. You swarm the streets, interfere with lawful operations, ignore police orders, and charge at armed federal agents, and then everyone around you is shocked—I’m talking downright flabbergasted—when you get hurt. Exactly what, respectfully, did you think was going to happen? There’s a reason the saying isn’t, “If you play with fire, you’ll come out refreshed and rejuvenated.”

“But illegal immigrants statistically commit fewer crimes than white Americans,” you insist. And rattlesnakes kill exponentially fewer people than cobras do… but I’m still calling animal control if I find one curled up on my pillow. (Also, and I know you hate hearing it, but we’re talking about people who are in violation of U.S. law before the story even begins here. Sorry, but that part matters.)

I can concede that our current immigration enforcement system is far from perfect; can you concede that something needs to be done? Can you muster an ounce of sympathy for the souls whose lives have been destroyed or taken at the hands of monsters who are here unlawfully? Or do they not matter to you because there’s no colorful I STAND WITH VICTIMS OF FOREIGN PREDATORS ring you can put around your Facebook photo?

If you really want that warm, fuzzy, ethically-superior glow, here’s a wild idea: channel your rage into something that’s remotely productive. By all means, push for greater accountability. Demand body-cams, clearer use-of-force rules, unbiased investigations, and better training. Drop off kombucha for the oversight committee. Knit them a throw. Truly, knock yourselves out. But “ABOLISH ICE” isn’t a reform; it’s a tantrum. If you want your activism to actually protect people instead of endangering them, try aiming at their flaws instead of their existence. It’ll give you the same dopamine hit with far fewer funerals.

I know. Smashing things and yelling obscenities is so much more satisfying. But until your side comes up with an alternative that magically removes ruthless foreign criminals from American cities without ICE having to do it, your entire movement amounts to: “We hate this necessary thing because Trump.”

And that’s not public policy. That’s group therapy with a banner budget.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply,
Jenna 💋