Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Leftist revolutionaries have long been in the habit of reworking the calendar so as to make it easier to force the population into new habits and new ways of life better suited to the revolutionaries themselves.

The French revolutionaries famously abolished the usual calendar, replacing it with a ten-day week system with three weeks in each month. The months were all renamed. Christian feast days and holidays were replaced with commemorations of plants like turnips and cauliflower.

The Soviet communists attempted major reforms to the calendar themselves. Among these was the abolition of the traditional week with its Sundays off and predictable seven-day cycles.

That experiment ultimately failed, but the Soviets did succeed in eradicating many Christian traditional holidays in a country that had been for centuries influenced by popular adherence to the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion.

Once the communists took control of the Russian state, the usual calendar of religious holidays was naturally abolished. Easter was outlawed, and during the years when weekends were removed, Easter was especially difficult to celebrate, even privately.

But perhaps the most difficult religious holiday to suppress was Christmas, and much of this is evidenced in the fact that Christmas wasn’t so much abolished as replaced by a secular version with similar rituals.

Emily Tamkin writes at Foreign Policy:

Initially, the Soviets tried to replace Christmas with a more appropriate komsomol (youth communist league) related holiday, but, shockingly, this did not take. And by 1928 they had banned Christmas entirely, and Dec. 25 was a normal working day.

Then, in 1935, Josef Stalin decided, between the great famine and the Great Terror, to return a celebratory tree to Soviet children. But Soviet leaders linked the tree not to religious Christmas celebrations, but to a secular new year, which, future-oriented as it was, matched up nicely with Soviet ideology.

Ded Moroz [a Santa Claus-like figure] was brought back. He found a snow maid from folktales to provide his lovely assistant, Snegurochka. The blue, seven-pointed star that sat atop the imperial trees was replaced with a red, five-pointed star, like the one on Soviet insignia. It became a civic, celebratory holiday, one that was ritually emphasized by the ticking of the clock, champagne, the hymn of the Soviet Union, the exchange of gifts, and big parties.

In the context of these celebrations, the word “Christmas” was replaced by “winter.” According to a Congressional report from 1965,

The fight against the Christian religion, which is regarded as a remnant of the bourgeois past, is one of the main aspects of the struggle to mold the new “Communist man.” … the Christmas Tree has been officially abolished, Father Christmas has become Father Frost, the Christmas Tree has become the Winter Tree, the Christmas Holiday the Winter Holiday. Civil-naming ceremonies are substituted for christening and confirmation, so far without much success.

It is perhaps significant that Stalin found the Santa Claus aspect of Christmas worth preserving, and Stalin apparently calculated that a father figure bearing gifts might be useful after all.

According to a 1949 article in The Virginia Advocate,

at children’s gatherings in the holiday season … grandfather frost lectures on good Communist behavior. He customarily ends his talk with the question “to whom do we owe all the good things in our socialist society?” To which, it is said, the children chorus the reply, ‘Stalin.’

Commerce Scretary Lutnick appeared on Fox News, discussing new energy for data centers.

As we have noted previously, energy prices continue to spike near data center facilities across the US. Lutnick claimed data centers are going to provide additional power generation and capacity to the grid along with the construction of their facilities to lower the energy prices, but so far this has not been the case.

The additional costs of infrastructure to the wider grid that come with higher demand are not covered in the higher rates paid by the hyperscalers. Many of the costs extend to equipment outside of the immediate vicinity of the new power consumer, such as upgrades and maintenance to upstream transformers and powerlines. Maybe the rest of the US should copy what Texas does…

Make “behind the meter” mandatory https://t.co/ZEcmX5Ge0e pic.twitter.com/bCBnwx2E5g

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 24, 2025

And while multiple companies and developers are working on solutions for on-site, “behind-the-meter” power for AI data centers – with little practical success to date – one power developer has formally proposed an idea that has been informally discussed for years. 

HGP Intelligent Energy, a Texas power developer, is proposing to use reactors from US Navy submarines and aircraft carriers to power a data center project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The company claims redirecting two retired naval reactors could produce about 450-520 MW of power in what would be the fastest way to add new baseload power to the grid while the commercial nuclear industry struggles to get back on its feet.

The likelihood of this proposal being accepted by the US government is extremely low. The idea that the government will allow a private company, even with deep coordination with the DoE/DoW, to own or operate one of the most strategic assets in the US government’s arsenal, is absurd. Naval reactors have multiple differences compared to traditional commercial reactors, most notably the extremely high enriched uranium content, which is over 90%, compared to traditional reactors which are less than 5%.

In addition to concerns about proliferation of weapons grade uranium, there are also concerns of how the reactors can operate after they are removed from their submarines or carriers. The reactors are removed from their vessels and decommissioned due to no longer being able to operate as designed at their old age. There are likely multiple concerns with safely operating the reactor in its aged status with respect to reactor physics and material integrity. You can’t just stick lower enriched fuel inside a reactor designed for highly enriched fuel, the geometry of the core alone will likely not allow for proper operation.

Still, the recommendation of involving the nuclear navy with the reinvigoration of the nuclear industry does hold value. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is the most successful nuclear program in history, with over 7500 reactor years of safe operation. Their expertise with reactor plant construction and operation would likely benefit the commercial nuclear industry in multiple ways.

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

In January 2006, ABC’s John Stossel’s brutally honest documentary, “Stupid in America,” first aired. At the time, he referred to it as “a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America’s public schools, and it’s about time we face up to it.”

Stossel exposed the ineffectiveness of many government-run schools. But now, 20 years later, things are even worse.

Test scores from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), released this year, show that 33% of 8th graders—a higher percentage than ever—are reading at the “below basic” level.

Additionally, only 22% of high school seniors are proficient in math, down from 24% in 2019, and 35% are proficient in reading—the lowest score since NAEP began in 1969—down from 37% in 2019. Also, a record-high percentage scored at “below basic” levels in both math and reading compared with all previous assessments.

The results of the latest NAEP U.S. history and civics tests, administered in 2022, were atrocious. The scores show that just 13% of 8th-graders met proficiency standards in U.S. history, meaning they could explain key themes, periods, events, people, ideas, and turning points in the country’s history. Additionally, about 20% of students scored at or above the proficient level in civics. Both scores are the lowest ever recorded on these two tests.

The most recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), a test administered to 650,000 4th and 8th graders in 64 countries, reveals that average U.S. math scores declined sharply between 2019 and 2023, falling 18 points for 4th graders and 27 points for 8th graders. Internationally, this places the U.S. 22nd of 63 education systems for 4th-grade math and 20th of 45 education systems for 8th-grade math.

Furthermore, average U.S. math scores for 4th- and 8th-grade students reverted to 1995 levels, the first year the TIMSS assessment was administered.

Could a lack of spending be the problem?

Hardly. According to Just Facts, which researches and publishes verifiable data on the critical public policy issues of our time, the U.S. spent about $1.4 trillion on education in 2024. The bulk of the spending, $946 billion, goes to elementary and secondary education, while $277 billion is spent on higher education and $130 billion on libraries and other educational services. This total breaks down to $10,237 per household in the U.S., 4.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product, and 13% of the government’s current expenditures.

Would smaller class sizes help?

Again, no. Nationally, class size has been shrinking over time. Since 1921, the student-to-teacher ratio has fallen from 33:1 to 16:1. The subject was analyzed extensively by Hoover Institution senior fellow Eric Hanushek, who examined 277 studies on the effects of teacher-pupil ratios and class-size averages on student achievement. He found that 15% of the studies showed an improvement in achievement, 72% saw no impact, and 13% found that reducing class size had an adverse effect on achievement. While Hanushek admits that children might benefit from a small-class environment in some cases, he says there is no way “to describe a priori situations where reduced class size will be beneficial.”

If schools aren’t emphasizing the basics, what are they teaching instead?

Sex and gender nonsense, for one. The Heritage Foundation discloses that 16 states force transgender lessons on children. The organization’s “Gender Ideology as State Education Policy” report highlights the education standards and frameworks of states that encourage gender ideology, defined as “the subordination or displacement of factual, ideologically neutral lessons about biological sex with tell-tale notions such as ‘gender identity,’ ‘sex assigned at birth,’ and ‘cisgender.’”

The National Education Association, which holds enormous power over the nation’s teachers and students, plays an outsized role in sex indoctrination. At its most recent national convention in July, the NEA instructed teachers on the nuances of so-called “neopronouns and xeopronouns,” while also instructing them on ways to subvert conservative “villains” and their own “internal oppression.”

In Seattle, schools ask students as young as ten years old probing questions about gender identity, according to internal documents obtained by National Review. “The survey results are then shared with a group of third-party organizations for research purposes, including Seattle Children’s Hospital Research Institute and the local county government. Other regions of the country distribute similar surveys under various names.”

Forcing left-wing politics on students is also fashionable. A report by the Goldwater Institute, released in January, shows how politically skewed our schools are. The organization reports that about 25% of American classrooms use Marxist Howard Zinn’s work.

Zinn’s best-selling book, A People’s History of the United States, which is used in conjunction with the online “Zinn Education Project,” misinforms students and borrows from Karl Marx to present American history as a “conflict between capital and labor,” Goldwater discloses.

The question then becomes, what do we do about decaying, perverted, and far-left government-run schools?

The best scenario would be the total privatization of education, but that will never happen. Short of that, parental choice is best, which, as I noted last week, is expanding rapidly.

Today, more than 1.5 million students across 34 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico participate in 75 programs. The momentum behind school choice stems from families seeking alternatives to government-run schools.

But with about 54 million school-age children in the U.S., the vast majority still attend public schools.

For real change to happen, parents need to step up. In states without a private choice program, the best option for parents is to educate their children at home, just as they provide food, clothing, and shelter. In fact, homeschooling continued to grow across the United States during the 2024-2025 school year, with an average increase of 5.4%. This is nearly three times the pre-pandemic growth rate of about 2%.

Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’” Too many children are miseducated these days, and to turn things around, we must stop looking to the government for solutions.

Being stupid in America doesn’t have to be an ongoing condition, and for the sake of our children and the country’s future, things need to change—ASAP!

Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardian.org,

The global disruptions we have seen in recent years are frequently presented as a chaotic sequence of events: a ‘pandemic’, inflation, energy shortages and war.

Little wonder that most people are confused. However, a structural analysis reveals a more deliberate controlled demolition of the 20th-century social contract.

We are witnessing a transition from a productive capitalist model, which required a healthy mass labour force, to what Yanis Varoufakis calls a techno-feudalist order.

The engine of this transition was a desperate financial stabilisation strategy carried out by means of a public health event. As identified by Professor Fabio Vighi, the global financial system reached a point of terminal instability in late 2019, evidenced by the collapse of the US repo market (where banks lend to each other).

By freezing the real economy through lockdowns, central banks performed massive liquidity injections to save the banking-finance tier. If that money had entered a functioning economy, it would have triggered hyper-inflation. By keeping the population at home, the elite performed a stealth bailout that preserved the dominance of the financial class by sacrificing the productive middle class.

However, a geopolitical reset also had to take place. For decades, Germany’s economy relied on three pillars: cheap Russian gas, high-tech exports to China and a US security umbrella. By late 2025, all three have been fractured. As Prof Michael Hudson notes, the ‘sabotage’ of the Nord Stream pipelines was a structural necessity for the Western financial elite.

If Germany continued to integrate with Russia and China, it would have created a power pole independent of the US dollar. The conflict in Ukraine served a purpose: it resulted in Germany replacing Russian pipeline gas and being forced into a massive build-out of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure and reliance on LNG from the US. Unlike pipeline gas, LNG must be super-cooled, shipped and re-gasified, a process that is inherently 3–4 times more expensive.

The result is that, in 2025, German industrial output is at its lowest since the 1990s. Heavy industries like BASF (chemicals) and ThyssenKrupp (steel) are relocating to the US or China. Meanwhile, Germany is pivoting from an industrial giant by betting on creating jobs in the likes of the green energy sector (including becoming a ‘hydrogen hub’), semiconductors and microelectronics, robotics and biotech and diverting its capital into a €150 billion annual defence spend.

At the same time, while Germany collapses, the City of London thrives on global volatility. Among other things, the City is the global hub for war risk insurance and energy brokerage. When a pipeline is destroyed or a strategically important shipping lane is threatened, the price of war risk insurance triples. The London insurance market (Lloyd’s) extracts these ‘risk premiums’ from the global economy.

The City’s brokers treat geopolitical instability as a volatile asset class. Even as British households are crushed by energy bills, the financial centre remains profitable by extracting wealth from the very chaos that foreign policy helps to manufacture.

Moreover, the City of London has secured its position as the indispensable middleman of the transatlantic energy pivot. While the physical gas originates in the US and is consumed in Europe, the financial and legal architecture of this trade is almost entirely managed in London.

Commodity brokers and exchanges like ICE (Intercontinental Exchange) in London have seen record volumes in LNG futures and derivatives. These are financial bets on the future price of gas. As volatility increases, the fees and commissions extracted by London-based traders and clearinghouses skyrocket.

More than 90% of the world’s marine insurance, including the specialised, high-premium coverage required for LNG tankers, is underwritten through Lloyd’s. By enforcing strict war risk premiums on any ship entering European waters, London effectively imposes a private tax on every molecule of gas that replaces the lost Russian pipeline supply.

This ensures that while European industry is struggling with high energy costs, the City’s financial firms extract a massive toll from the logistics of the replacement supply.

Of course, the structural readjustment of economies leads to huge social tensions.

This is where the ‘Russian threat’ comes in. It has been elevated to an all-encompassing internal narrative used to manage domestic dissent and to galvanise the public to rally behind the flag. The bogeyman serves a vital psychological function by converting the growing anger of the impoverished into a patriotic duty to endure hardship.

Under this regime of ‘permanent emergency’, any industrial action, protest or systemic critique can be branded as malign foreign influence or subversion, allowing the state to use new, expansive policing powers to suppress internal friction.

To justify the redirection of billions in tax revenue away from failing public services and into the military-industrial complex to create ‘growth’ in a failing economy (a desperate attempt to revive a collapsing neoliberalism—see chapter two here), the state must maintain a high-decibel level of existential fear. In the UK, the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 explicitly frames militarisation as an engine for growth, using the spectre of a Russian invasion to legitimise a state-subsidised transfer of wealth to high-tech defence contractors.

By manufacturing a permanent state of war-footing, the elite ensure that a main pillar of the economy is the one that directly serves the security of the state, while the population is told that their dwindling healthcare and pensions are a necessary sacrifice for national survival.

In this respect, we also see the changing status of the human being. In the industrial era, the state ‘subscribed’ to the working class, investing in the NHS and education because it required a fit population to drive production. Artificial intelligence, robotics and economic decline increasingly make much of this labour force redundant.

As capital may no longer find the reproduction of labour desirable or profitable, the state withdraws its subscription. The visible rot in the NHS is the result of deliberate divestment. (The UK private health insurance market has surged to a record £8.64 billion, a nearly 14% year-on-year increase.)

If the worker is no longer required for production, the state views healthcare as a ‘non-performing cost’ to be liquidated.

When a population is no longer an asset but a fiscal liability, the state moves from care to managing exit. It’s no accident that we have seen calls for the rapid legalisation of assisted suicide across the West. It might also help to explain the prescribing of midazolam and do not resuscitate orders in care homes during the COVID event. Data shows that the UK government purchased vast quantities of midazolam (two years’ worth of stock in just two months) in early 2020.

In 2025, official impact assessments noted that legalising assisted dying would result in “considerable cost savings” for the NHS and state pension system—estimated at up to £18.3 million within a decade for pensions alone. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Impact Assessment (May 2025) officially quantified the ‘benefits and pensions’ impact. It estimated that by year 10, the state would save roughly £27.7 million per year in unpaid pension and benefit payments due to assisted deaths.

By accelerating the ‘offboarding’ of the non-productive elderly (whatever happened to the COVID era marketing slogan of ‘saving granny’?), the system wipes billions in future pension liabilities off the state balance sheet.

Moving forward, what can we expect? We will see the elite continue to rollout the narrative of permanent emergency under the guise of climate crisis and Russian threat to provide the ideological discipline required to justify a boosted austerity.

Meanwhile, digital ID and central bank digital currencies will create a system of total surveillance. In this emerging system, the citizen is replaced by the ‘managed subject’, whose access to the economy is contingent upon a social credit score.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration’s plan to divert Homeland Security funding from states that fail to assist with certain federal immigration efforts.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy’s ruling on Monday sided with a coalition of 12 attorneys general that sued the administration this year after being informed that several states would receive reduced federal grants as a result of their sanctuary jurisdiction statuses.

The order affects funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had cut more than $233 million from Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. These funds are part of a $1 billion program tied to risk assessments and primarily go to local law enforcement and emergency services.

The group of a dozen attorneys general included those from California, Illinois, and New Jersey, who all wanted to participate in challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.

In her 48-page ruling, McElroy ruled that the government’s funding decisions wrongly took into consideration states’ positions on immigration enforcement.

“What else could defendants’ decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round numbered amounts—including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums—be if not arbitrary and capricious? Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result,” McElroy wrote.

The judge then ordered DHS to reinstate the previously announced funding allocations to the plaintiff states.

“Defendants’ wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is particularly troublesome given the fact that they have been entrusted with a most solemn duty: safeguarding our nation and its citizens,” McElroy wrote. “While the intricacies of administrative law and the terms and conditions on federal grants may seem abstract to some, the funding at issue here supports vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs.”

McElroy highlighted the recent Brown University attack, where a man killed two students and injured nine others, as an instance where the $1 billion federal program would be crucial in responding to such a tragedy.

“To hold hostage funding for programs like these based solely on what appear to be defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful,” the Rhode Island-based judge stated in her ruling.

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said the department will fight the order.

“This judicial sabotage threatens the safety of our states, counties, towns, and weakens the entire nation,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “We will fight to restore these critical reforms and protect American lives.”

The White House did not return a request for comment.

The lawsuit dates back to September, when 11 states and the District of Columbia took aim at the administration’s directive to slash funds to sanctuary areas, arguing it violated federal law and was meant to coerce compliance with immigration policies.

A federal judge permanently blocked DHS in October from withholding $34 million for New York City’s transportation security due to its sanctuary status, calling the action “arbitrary, capricious, and a blatant violation of the law.”

An August ruling barred funding blocks to 34 cities and counties over sanctuary policies, extending injunctions against immigration-related grant conditions.

In April, a judge blocked Trump’s broader defunding efforts against sanctuary cities such as San Francisco and Santa Clara, California, following suits against executive orders.

Reuters contributed to this report.

After two poor, disappointing coupon auctions earlier this week, when global yields were surging thanks to the circus that is Japan, we have come to the final note auction of the year, and yes… this one was not quite as bad. 

The sale of $44BN in 7Y notes priced at a high yield of 3.930%, up from 3.781% in November and the highest since July. That said, the auction stopped through the 3.933% When Issued by 0.3bps, and followed 4 consecutive tailing auctions.

The bid to cover was 2.509, up from 2.459 last month and the highest since July, if just below the six-auction average of 2.520.

Unlike the week’s previous coupon auctions, which saw a slide in foreign demand, the internals were stronger and Indirects took down 59.04%, up from 56.65% and the highest since August’s 77.5%. And with Directs rising to 31.6%, just shy of a record high, Dealers were left with just 9.34%, the lowest since July.

Overall, this was a stronger auction than the subpar fare observed earlier this week, which is handy since this was also the final auction of the year, helping push yields down to session lows. Of course, we now have an entirely new year to look forward to and with an onslaught of deficit-funding debt on deck, far more ugly auctions on deck.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to New York’s Green Light Law, upholding the state’s issuance of driver’s licenses to individuals without requiring proof of legal U.S. residency.

U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci (Biden) in Albany determined that the Trump administration, which challenged the law under President Donald Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws, failed to back its claims that the state law usurps federal law or that it unlawfully regulates or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit against the state over the law in February, naming Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, as defendants.

“As I said from the start, our laws protect the rights of all New Yorkers and keep our communities safe,” James said in a statement on Dec. 19. “I will always stand up for New Yorkers and the rule of law.”

Nardacci stated that her job was not to evaluate the desirability of the Green Light Law as a policy matter. Rather, she said in a 23-page opinion, it was to assess whether the Trump administration’s arguments established that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which grants federal laws precedence over state laws.

The administration, she wrote, has “failed to state such a claim.”

The Green Light Law was framed as improving public safety on the roads, as people without licenses sometimes drove without one or without having passed a road test. The state also makes it easier for holders of such licenses to get auto insurance in an attempt to minimize accidents involving uninsured drivers.

Under the law, people without a valid Social Security number can submit alternative forms of ID, such as valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. Applicants must still obtain a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license.” The program does not apply to commercial driver’s licenses.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit sought to strike down the law as “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them.”

It noted a provision that requires the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner to notify people who are in the country illegally when a federal immigration agency has requested their information.

In 2020, during Trump’s first term, his administration sought to push New York into changing the law by preventing anyone from the state from enrolling in trusted traveler programs.

Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo offered to restore limited federal access to driving records, but stated he would not allow immigration agents to see lists of people who applied for the special licenses available to immigrants who couldn’t prove legal residency in the country. The administration restored New Yorkers’ access to the trusted traveler program after a short-lived legal battle.

In the lawsuit thrown out Tuesday, the administration contended that it would be simpler to enforce federal immigration priorities if federal authorities had unhindered access to New York’s driver data. Nardacci, agreeing with a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a county clerk’s prior challenge to the law, stated that such information “remains available to federal immigration authorities” via a lawful court order or judicial warrant.

In December 2019, former ICE acting director Tom Homan, now Trump’s border Czar, called the law an “enticement” that minimizes the illegality of illegal immigration by providing benefits.

“There’s absolutely no reason to give a privilege of a driver’s license to someone who is here in violation of the law,” Homan stated.

In February 2020, a New York sheriff said the law hinders human trafficking investigations by restricting DMV data sharing with federal agents.

“So, if Border Patrol came and said, ‘Hey, we want to look through your records because we’re looking for this guy,’ I can’t share our investigation with them if it has DMV data,” Wayne County Sheriff Barry Virts said.

That same month, the Department of Homeland Security banned New Yorkers from enrolling in trusted traveler programs, with acting Secretary Chad Wolf citing the law’s barriers to DMV data access as the reason.

New York responded with a lawsuit, alleging the ban was punitive and harmed residents.

The Associated Press contributed to this report 

Update (1120ET):

U.S. Coast Guard forces remain in a holding pattern this week, awaiting the arrival of specialized teams to assist in the interdiction and seizure of the Venezuela-linked oil tanker Bella 1.

Reuters reports that the Coast Guard is awaiting one of two specialist units, known as Maritime Security Response Teams (MSRTs), which can board the tanker by rappelling from helicopters under hostile conditions.

MSRT units are called in for non-compliant vessels, hostile crews, or situations involving weapons, sanctions evasion, or national security threats. Regular Coast Guard boarding operations are not equipped to handle such situations.

Earlier this month, President Trump ordered a “blockade” of sanctioned oil shipments to disrupt Venezuela-Cuba-China flows, aiming to pressure and create instability in Caracas that would ultimately lead to further economic ruin across Cuba.

“There are limited teams who are trained for these types of boardings,” Corey Ranslem, chief executive of maritime security group Dryad Global and previously with the U.S. Coast Guard, told Reuters.

The problem with a limited number of MSRT units is that it will complicate President Trump’s gunboat diplomacy, as hundreds of dark tankers are operating to ensure 900,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan crude flows to Asia.

*   *   * 

President Trump’s reposturing of the U.S. military forces toward the Western Hemisphere – effectively Monroe Doctrine 2.0 – reinforced this week by the deployment of additional special-operations aircraft, troops, and equipment into the Caribbean, as U.S. forces apply gunboat diplomacy against Venezuela to disrupt crude oil flows routed through Cuba and onward to China, a campaign that, if successful, could spark regime instability in Caracas, and amplify economic and political stress in Cuba as well.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that a “large number of special-operations aircraft, troops, and equipment” arrived in the Caribbean region early this week – a movement of military assets and personnel confirmed by U.S. officials and flight-tracking data.

According to the WSJ:

At least 10 CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which are used by special-operations forces, flew into the region Monday night from Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, according to an official. C-17 cargo aircraft from Fort Stewart and Fort Campbell Army bases arrived Monday in Puerto Rico, according to flight-tracking data. A different U.S. official confirmed that military personnel and equipment were transported on planes.

It isn’t clear what types of troops and equipment the aircraft were transporting. Cannon is home to the 27th Special Operations Wing, while the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, an elite U.S. special operations unit, and the 101st Airborne Division are based at Fort Campbell. The first battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment is based at Hunter Army Airfield, at Fort Stewart.

The 27th Special Operations Wing and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment are trained to support high-risk infiltration and extraction missions and provide close air and combat support. Army Rangers are trained to seize airfields and provide security for specialized forces, such as SEAL Team Six or Delta Force, during a precise kill or capture mission.

In a separate report, defense and security media outlet Army Recognition, citing open-source intelligence accounts on X, indicated that the U.S. military is ramping up deployments of F-35A stealth fighter jets, intelligence aircraft, and electronic warfare platforms across the Caribbean.

David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, an aerospace think tank, told WSJ that the “prepositioning forces” in the region are “to take action.” He said the movement of such assets indicates that the administration has already decided on a course of action.

“The question that remains is to accomplish what?” Deptula said.

Trump’s gunboat diplomacy – seizing two sanctioned tankers and targeting a third earlier this week – should be viewed as a pressure campaign to disrupt Venezuela-Cuba-China oil flows. It’s always about following the money, and in this case, that oil money props up the Maduro regime.

Jorge Piñón, a Cuban exile who tracks the island’s energy ties to Venezuela at the University of Texas at Austin, told WSJ earlier this week that once crude oil flows are cut, this would act as a domino effect and create regime instability in Caracas, warning that “it would be the collapse of the Cuban economy, no question about it.”

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.

“Venezuela has been remarkably effective at masking both origin and ownership of crude and therefore at evading financial and trade-related controls,” Kpler analyst Dimitris Ampatzidis told Bloomberg. “That’s why Washington has increasingly moved from purely financial measures to physical disruption.”

The military buildup across the region and the use of gunboat diplomacy are clear signals of the U.S. intent to force regime change in Venezuela by disrupting Maduro’s funding lifelines; China responded earlier this week, and Beijing is not pleased about crude oil disruptions.

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Tennessee overseeing the criminal case involving El Salvador national and long-time Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia has canceled a trial date for the human smuggling case, pending a decision on whether to dismiss the case entirely over the defendant’s allegations of vindictive prosecution.

A trial date in the case had been set for Jan. 27, but U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw of Nashville, Tennessee, in a Dec. 23 filing ordered to change the proceedings to an evidentiary hearing for the government to make its case against the allegations at 9 a.m. on Jan. 28, 2026.

From the arguments and evidence made in the proceedings, which could span a few days, Crenshaw will determine whether the case will proceed to trial or be dismissed.

“The Court has already found that Abrego has made such a showing, entitling him to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on why the government is prosecuting him,” Crenshaw wrote in the order.

“Given this, the burden has shifted to the government to ’rebut [the presumption] ”with objective, on-the-record explanations“’ for charging Abrego.”

The indictment in Tennessee against Abrego Garcia came in May, which the defense noted was after a judge in Maryland—overseeing a separate civil case that will determine whether the government can deport the defendant—ordered his return from a prison in El Salvador to Maryland.

Abrego Garcia was indicted by a grand jury and charged with conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens.

The alleged crimes happened during a 2022 traffic stop by Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers, in which he is accused of having worked with co-conspirators to knowingly smuggle illegal immigrants into the United States.

However, an immigration judge in 2019 ordered that, while Abrego Garcia had entered the United States unlawfully in 2011, the government was not allowed to deport him to El Salvador over a credible fear of persecution by gangs in his home country.

While the order did not bar his removal to safe third countries, Abrego Garcia stayed in the United States with a deportation hold for El Salvador.

Despite this hold, the Trump administration did indeed deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s maximum security CECOT prison in March, which the administration later said was an “administrative error.” In April, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

In its appeal, the defense argues that the government only started pursuing charges against Abrego Garcia after his deportation to El Salvador made national headlines. He pleaded not guilty in June, and in August, he rejected a plea deal to be deported to Uganda.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are attempting to have the case dismissed, arguing that the government is pursuing a vindictive and selective prosecution against their client for successfully fighting his removal to El Salvador in the other case.

The Department of Justice has denied the allegations and provided internal emails and an affidavit from acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert McGuire, who said he sought the indictment based on his belief that Abrego Garcia committed a federal crime.

“I received no direction from anyone at the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or any other source on the question of whether to seek or not to seek an indictment in this case,” he said.

The Trump administration maintains that Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant who should face the law if found guilty of human smuggling.

Crenshaw said in a ruling on Oct. 3 that there was a “realistic likelihood that the prosecution against [Abrego Garcia] may be vindictive.” The ruling allowed for the defense to seek discovery and testimony from government officials about their decision to bring the charges.

However, Crenshaw said in the Dec. 23 order that the subpoenas requested by the defense for three high-ranking Justice Department officials—Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh—will only be approved if the case is allowed to proceed to the next step.

The evidentiary hearing will focus on the government’s rebuttal of the defense’s motion to dismiss on grounds of vindictive prosecution.

The government has said it will call on testimony from Supervisory Special Agent John VanWie of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Baltimore, Special Agent Rana Saoud of HSI Nashville, and perhaps McGuire in the hearing.

In the Maryland case, the government continues pursuing the deportation of Abrego Garcia, now to Liberia.

Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis is overseeing that case. Xinis has expressed concern that the country to which Abrego Garcia is deported could eventually send him back to El Salvador. He has requested to be deported to Costa Rica, but the Trump administration is pursuing deportation to a list of countries in Africa.

“If the government were to say today, we’re going to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica,” a defense attorney told a court on Dec. 22, his client is prepared to go “as soon as this afternoon.”

Abrego Garcia remains out on bond in Maryland with his family after being released from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, due to a temporary restraining order that prevents him from being taken into custody while Xinis considers the case.

America finally draws a line in the sand against foreign meddlers…

Modernity.news Steve Watson details below that the Trump administration has slapped visa bans on former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other ‘anti-disinformation’ activists, accusing them of coercing American social media companies to censor viewpoints they dislike.

The move signals a zero-tolerance policy toward extraterritorial censorship, especially after the EU’s recent assaults on Elon Musk’s X.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid it out clearly: “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.”

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…

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 23, 2025

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Sarah B. Rogers stated “These sanctions are visa-related. We aren’t invoking severe Magnitsky-style financial measures, but our message is clear: if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil.”

Today, the United States issued SANCTIONS reinforcing the “red line” I invoked on @GBNEWS. Namely: extraterritorial censorship of Americans.

Today’s sanctions target the censorship-NGO ecosystem.? https://t.co/kaefDo11uh

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

The list includes Thierry Breton, who notoriously threatened Elon Musk over hosting a 2024 interview with Donald Trump on X. Others barred are Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who worked with Democrats like Amy Klobuchar to “kiII Musk’s Twitter”; Joan Donovan, founder of The Critical Internet Studies Institute; Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public; and Jim Davey, co-founder of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

WE’VE SANCTIONED: Thierry Breton, a mastermind of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, while serving as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he published a letter using the DSA to threaten @elonmusk ahead of his livestream interview with President…

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

WE’VE SANCTIONED: Clare Melford. She leads Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a UK-based organization that monitors websites for “hate speech” and “disinformation”. If you question Canadian blood libels about residential schools, you’re engaging in “hate speech” according to… pic.twitter.com/5F3fU4hf4R

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

WE’VE SANCTIONED: Josephine Ballon, co-leader of HateAid, who flags disfavored speech throughout Europe under the Digital Services Act. In addition to her running an official “trusted flagger” body under the DSA, she serves on Germany’s Advisory Council of the Digital Services…

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

Our targets are foreign, but you’ll notice that some collaborated with U.S. bureaucrats on Murthy-style speech suppression. Don’t worry: we’re pursuing transparency, truth, and reconciliation at the @StateDept, too.

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

As @SecRubio has noted, today’s list is illustrative not exhaustive. We stand “ready and willing to expand” it.https://t.co/eS65g6i8OP

— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) December 23, 2025

This retaliation comes amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the EU. As we previously detailed, Brussels hit X with a $140 million fine under the Digital Services Act for refusing to comply with their censorship demands, marking a blatant attack on free expression.

Musk fired back fiercely, declaring the “EU commissars are responsible for the murder of Europe” and calling to “Dissolve the EU and return power to the people.” He highlighted X’s surge in popularity across Europe despite the fine, noting it became the top news app in every EU country.

The broader feud intensified when EU Council President Antonio Costa warned Trump to “keep his hands off Europe” amid the free speech crackdown. Costa condemned U.S. “interference” in European affairs, ignoring the bloc’s own slide into authoritarian control over online content.

Trump himself has blasted Europe’s direction, urging citizens to confront unchecked migration and over-regulation that’s “endangering the continent as we know it.” In interviews, he stressed, “Europe has to be very careful… We want to keep Europe Europe,” and called the EU’s fine on X “nasty” and unjust.

Breton, who left the European Commission in 2024, has slammed the ban as a “witch hunt,” comparing the situation to the US McCarthy era when officials were chased out of government for alleged ties to communism.

“To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is,” he declared on X.

Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back? ?

As a reminder: 90% of the European Parliament — our democratically elected body — and all 27 Member States unanimously voted the DSA ??

To our American friends: “Censorship isn’t where you think it is.”

— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) December 23, 2025

France also condemned the visa ban on Breton, but the Trump team remains unmoved. This action underscores America’s commitment to protecting its tech giants from foreign regulatory harassment, prioritizing sovereignty and open discourse over globalist dictates.

As Brussels doubles down on surveillance tools like the DSA and proposed Chat Control laws, which threaten privacy by scanning private messages, the U.S. pushback exposes the hypocrisy of EU elites preaching democracy while building an Orwellian framework.

With Trump in charge, expect more defense of freedoms against such overreach. This ban on Breton and his allies is a clear message: Attempts to censor U.S. platforms from abroad will face consequences. The era of tolerating globalist bullying is over.

[ZH: To all of this we have one simple response: ]

Hey Imran, f**k you!