President Trump used his time at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to denounce the globalists’ disastrous “Green New Scam” policies that have caused degrowth in parts of the West and helped spark an energy crisis with soaring power prices.

“You’re supposed to make money with energy, not lose money. Here in Europe, we’ve seen the fate that the radical left tried to impose on America,” Trump told the elites in Davos.

The Climate Hoax was created by the WEF Losers and President Trump just called them out to their faces.

“The United States avoided the catastrophic energy collapse which failed every European Nation that pursued the Green New Scam…perhaps the greatest hoax in History…” pic.twitter.com/Pq5mNDUKk6

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) January 21, 2026

Just a few years ago, Davos elites were betting big on solving their made-up climate crisis, which was used to loot taxpayers by diverting public funds into risky green energy companies and climate NGOs. But with Trump restoring common-sense energy policies centered on reliable fossil fuel power generation, and rolling back left-wing green policies that handed China and the East a competitive manufacturing edge, globalists were absolutely furious with the president this week.

Take, for instance, climate alarmist and grifter, Al Gore, on Tuesday booed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during his speech at a VIP dinner in Davos.

The Financial Times reported the dinner “descended into uproar after combative remarks from Lutnick,” with European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde leaving the event early.

Gore’s behavior was just as embarrassing for the United States as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bizarre behavior. The unhinged behavior of both Gore and Newsom – both leftist – in the public domain is merely a sign that Trump is winning against America’s left-wing.

Lutnick responded on X…

Thankfully, we didn’t come to Davos for Al Gore’s praise.

— Howard Lutnick (@howardlutnick) January 22, 2026

Let’s circle back to the so-called “climate crisis” narrative, which was merely an information operation to sway public sentiment polls to pass the controversial Green New Deal into law in 2019, but failed to gain legislative traction. Following that failure, corporate media helped set and amplify the narrative, unleashing what amounted to a broad psyop on the American public about a planet in crisis. Then Democrats were able to push through the Inflation Reduction Act, a massive climate and energy spending package signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022.

As shown in the Bloomberg data below, as soon as the climate bill was passed and taxpayer funds flooded the green industry and NGOs by the tens of billions of dollars, the narrative of the world on fire because of cow farts and Taylor Swift’s private jet almost disappeared.

Earlier today, Trump on Truth Social said, “Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 States. Rarely seen anything like it before. Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain — WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???”

Of course, left-wing corporate media was furious with Trump …

Trump is correct about the climate crisis agenda and how it amounted to one giant “scam.” It served as a vehicle for Democrats to loot the Treasury, and the reckless spending that followed the IRA fueled the worst inflation storm in more than a decade, which Trump is now working to correct through common-sense energy policies that will bridge the power grid until reliable clean nuclear power comes online in the 2030s.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Why is it so important to the Trump administration to take control of Venezuela and encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the Islamic regime?

The link between the two is obviously oil.

Of course, the strategy in Venezuela involves oil, but also includes restricting China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, undermining the BRICS currency, and shutting down Venezuelan drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and other nastiness.

Same for Iran regarding oil. Both are important energy suppliers to China, but especially Iran.

But it’s not the whole picture. President Donald Trump’s broader strategy is about restricting China’s access to cheap, reliable oil at the exact moment it needs that energy to compete with the United States in artificial intelligence (AI).

Venezuela Was a Great Deal—For China

Looking back, Venezuela was as an unbelievable good deal for China. Sanctioned by the United States and shunned by much of the West, Caracas sold heavily discounted crude to Chinese refiners willing to tolerate risk. It wasn’t glamorous oil—but it was dependable and cheap. Venezuela provided about five percent of China’s annual oil needs; not a huge figure, but enough to matter.

Trump’s decision to blockade Venezuelan oil exports and assert control over the country’s oil infrastructure effectively ends that dream deal. With U.S. control, China loses a meaningful slice of supply, about four percent, that helped buffer it from global price swings.

That matters more than it sounds.

As the world’s largest oil importer, even small disruptions force Beijing to scramble for alternatives—often at higher prices, longer shipping distances, or greater political cost.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) speaks during a meeting with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza (L) at the Diaoyutai State Guest House in Beijing on Jan. 16, 2020. Ng Han Guan-Pool/Getty Images

Iran: The Bigger Pressure Point

But the Venezuelan oil flow to China is small potatoes compared to that of Iran.

China is Iran’s largest oil customer, buying the vast majority of Tehran’s exported crude, up to 80 percent, often at steep discounts, and is the life blood to China’s independent refineries, its petrochemical sector, and its power-hungry industrial base. In other words, Iranian oil is critical to China’s continued economic and technological growth.

That fact puts Trump’s renewed pressure on the ruling Islamic regime in Iran in a different light. The tariffs, sanctions enforcement, secondary penalties, and encouraging rebellion by the Iranian people is more than just punishment for Tehran. It puts China in an energy bind.

Should Beijing keep buying Iranian oil and risk broader economic retaliation, or comply and lose one of the cheapest energy sources available?

Either way, Beijing pays more for less reliable oil supplies.

Why Oil Still Matters in the AI Age

There’s a popular myth that AI runs on “clean” digital infrastructure—clouds, algorithms, and software. In reality, AI runs on electricity, and electricity is still largely generated through nuclear power and fossil fuels, i.e., oil, natural gas, and coal. Training large AI models requires staggering amounts of energy, and a single hyperscale data center can consume as much electricity as a mid-sized city. Multiply that by hundreds of facilities, and energy, not chips, becomes the real bottleneck in the AI race.

Beijing understands this. That’s why it continues to approve a record number of new coal plants, expand its gas infrastructure, and secure long-term oil contracts—even while leading the world in renewables.

What’s more, China knows that oil and gas help stabilize power grids that support data centers. Intermittent renewables alone can’t guarantee the always-on power that AI systems require. Plus, AI hardware depends on petroleum-based products—plastics, resins, coolants, lubricants, and advanced composites used in chips, servers, and cooling systems. Oil is a non-negotiable industrial input.

Finally, oil is relatively inexpensive, lowering the cost of training models, which compounds quickly, because whichever nation can train more models faster and cheaper leads the AI race.

Cutting China off from discounted oil doesn’t just raise fuel prices, it raises the cost of intelligence itself.

A worker rides bicycle at an oil refinery of China’s Sinopec in Wuhan, a city in China’s Hubei Province on May 10, 2011. STR/AFP/Getty Images

Energy as a Hidden AI Weapon

This is where Trump’s strategy becomes clearer.

The United States doesn’t need to out-build China in data centers if it can out-price and out-power them. America has abundant domestic oil and gas, expanding LNG exports, and deep capital markets to finance new, energy-hungry infrastructure.

China, by contrast, is vulnerable. It imports over 70 percent of its oil. Much of that comes from politically unstable or sanctioned states. Disrupt those flows, and China’s AI ambitions become more expensive, more fragile, and more dependent on geopolitical goodwill.

In that sense, oil becomes a second-order AI weapon, in that it is not something that directly attacks technology, but something that quietly determines who can afford to scale it.

What This Means for the Global Balance

Yes, Russia still matters in this equation—but more as a background variable than the main event. Lower oil prices and tighter markets can squeeze Moscow’s revenues and complicate its war financing. China’s increased reliance on Russian crude also deepens a partnership that carries long-term risks for Beijing.

But the real target of Trump’s energy denial strategy isn’t Russia. It’s China’s momentum.

Trump’s energy foreign policy is about slowing China’s rise without firing a shot—forcing it to spend more, plan more cautiously, and accept structural disadvantages in the most important technological competition of the century.

The Bigger Picture

AI dominance won’t be decided by who writes the best code. It will be decided by who can power the most machines, the longest, at the lowest cost.

By squeezing Venezuela, pressuring Iran, and reshaping global oil flows, Trump is betting that energy strategy, not algorithms, will decide the winner in the AI-driven economy.

And if that bet is right, the future of AI may be decided not in Silicon Valley or Shenzhen, but in oil fields, shipping lanes, and sanctions that most people aren’t paying attention to.

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

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Whatever the barbarians may be potting, the fact that matters is that China is already deep into the next phase, where it is expected to replace the United States as the world’s primary consumer market.

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

Antonio Gramsci

Davos 2026 was a demented kaleidoscope. The only possible way to wallow through the mire was to put on the headphones and resort to the Band of Gypsys smashing sonic barriers, and drowning a frankly terrifying series of events, including a Palantir-BlackRock connection, Big Tech meets Big Finance; the “Master Plan” for Gaza; and the acute discombobulation in neo-Caligula’s rant, here in the 3-minute version.

Then there was what the fragmented West’s mainstream media erected as a visionary speech: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s mini-opus magnum, complete with a – what else – Thucydides quote (“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”) to illustrate the “rupture” of the “rules-based international order”, which was already a Dead Man Not Walking at least for a year now.

And how not to laugh at the extremely rich notion of a letter by 400 “patriotic” millionaires and billionaires directed to heads of state in Davos claiming for more “social justice”. Translation: they are terrified – in Paranoia Paradise mode – by the “rupture”, actually the advanced collapse of the neoliberalism ethos that enriched them in the first place.

Carney’s speech was a wily, headline-grabbing device to – in thesis – bury the “rules-based international order”, actually the euphemism du jour, since the end of WWII, for total domination by the Anglo-American financial oligarchy. Carney now only recognizes a mere “rupture” – supposed to be sewn up by “middle powers”, mostly Canada and a few Europeans (no Global South).

And there’s the dead give away: the presumed antidote to “rupture” has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty. It’s actually a controlled hedging, a sort of managed ersatz multipolarity – nothing to do with the BRICS drive – based on a fuzzy “values-based realism”, “coalition building” and “variable geometry” mish mash, destined to keep in place the same old monetarist scam.

Welcome to Lampedusa’s The Leopard, remixed: “Everything must change for everything to remain the same.”

And all that coming from a playbook liberal, a former Governor of the Bank of England. Such tigers never change their spots.

The true levers of power – exercised by the City of London and Wall Street – are totally immune to the “rupture” antidote.

The evolving, multi-layered Russia-China strategic partnership already invalidates Carney’s very sophisticated fraud, which fooled a lot of informed people. Same as BRICS – as it advances in the long and winding road of real multi-nodality.

Which brings us to the real message generated by Carney’s trademark limited hangout:

Canada and the European “middle powers” now find themselves not on the table, but on the menu, as neo-Caligula, the ruler of the world, can do to them what NATO has de facto been doing to the Global South over the past 30 years.

“Everything must change for everything to remain the same”

Many of those who now enshrine Carney as The New Messiah – and such a defender of international law – totally ignored or covered for the Zionist genocide of Gaza; demonized Russia to Kingdom Come and keep instigating a Forever War; and now beg on their knees for neo-Caligula to engage in a “dialogue” to solve his self-proclaimed Greenland land grab.

Elon Musk, incidentally, also showed up at Davos on short notice. He is a huge supporter of the Greenland land grab. Musk and other techno-feudalist stars cannot but be seduced by the project of turning that “piece of ice” (neo-Caligula terminology) into the prime hub for digital states, the successors of nation-states, supposed to be ruled by Techno-CEOs posing as Philosopher Kings.

Combine it with the Big Tech-Big Finance connection – at the Palantir-BlackRock table – and we have the Kings of AI leading the way, with financiers following.

The “piece of ice” of course was melting non-stop all across the Davos spectrum. When neo-Caligula announced that he would not do to Greenland what he did to Venezuela, the collective European relief really exploded the Champagne-O-Meter.

It was up to certified NATO poodle Tutti Frutti al Rutti, with that perpetual smile of a withered Dutch tulip, to convince “Daddy” to be lenient, proving once again that the EU is a Banana Republic, actually Union, without the bananas.

Neo-Caligula and withered tulip cobbled together a “framework” for the US to get some Greenland real estate for military base purposes and limited development of rare earth mining, plus the requisite ban on Russian and Chinese projects. Denmark and Greenland were not even in the room when this “deal” was reached.

Still, that may all change in a flash, or in a social media post. Because that’s not what neo-Caligula wants. He wants Greenland splashed in red-white-and blue on a US map.

Still, the most terrifying land grab plot highlighted in Davos had to be Gaza. Cue to that insufferable Zionist dimwit – the brains in the family actually belong to wife Ivanka – presenting the master plan for “the new Gaza”.

Or How to Market The Horror…The Horror (my excuses to Joseph Conrad).

Here we have a mass slaughtering/extermination campaign coupled with grabbing of what’s been reduced to rubble, leading to a high-security containment zone for token, “approved” Palestinians and prime beachfront real estate for real estate scammers and Israeli settlers.

All that managed by a private company, chaired by neo-Caligula for life, now in charge of the annexation, occupation and exploitation of Gaza: a monstruous land grab burying in one go a genocide and what remains of international law – everything fully approved by the EU and a bunch of political “leaders”, some too terrified, others basically hedging to bypass neo-Caligula’s wrath.

The Chinese “rupture”

Some clown by the name of Nadio Calvino, president of the European Investment Bank, actually argued at Davos that the EU “is a superpower”.

Well, History is loath to register as a superpower a set up that is totally dependent on the US and NATO for defense; exhibits zero power projection; harbors no major tech companies (those that still exist are collapsing); is 90% dependent on foreign supplies of energy; and is drowning in debt ($17 trillion in total, equivalent to over 80% of the EU’s GDP).

So in the end, amidst so much – silly – sound and fury, what was the real game-changer at Davos? It was not the “rupture” or even the land grab plots. It was the speech by China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng.

Incidentally, Carney’s “rupture” speech was heavily influenced by his recent trip to China – where he met with He Lifeng, a serious candidate to succeed Xi Jinping in the future.

At Davos, He Lifeng made it very clear that China is determined to become “the world’s market”; and that boosting domestic demand was now “on top of [China’s] economic agenda,” as reflected in the 15th Five-Year plan which will be approved this coming March in Beijing.

So whatever the barbarians may be plotting, the fact that matters is that China is already deep into the next phase, where it is expected to replace the United States as the world’s primary consumer market.

Now that’s what’s called a rupture.

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

The recent U.S. operation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro demonstrated that military power is not only about troop numbers or superior combat technology.

With the successful extraction of Maduro and his wife from a military compound in just 2.5 hours, the extremely effective operation showed how far training, intelligence, and logistics go towards driving military power.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks the world’s most powerful militaries in 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from the Global Firepower Index, which assesses 145 countries.

The World’s Top Military Powers

The index evaluates more than 60 factors, including active military manpower, land, air and naval assets, logistics, natural resources, and geographic considerations.

Importantly, a lower Military Power Index score indicates greater overall strength.

The United States ranks first, with the lowest Military Power Index score and more than 1.3 million active-duty personnel. Its position reflects unmatched global reach, advanced technology, and extensive logistical capabilities.

Russia and China follow closely behind. China stands out for having the largest active military manpower among the top three, with just over 2 million personnel, while Russia combines large troop numbers with extensive land and strategic capabilities.

Manpower Isn’t Everything

While troop numbers matter, they do not tell the full story. Countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, and France rank among the top 10 despite having far smaller active forces than some lower-ranked nations.

Japan ranks highly due to its advanced naval and air forces, including one of the world’s most capable destroyer fleets, modern fighter jets, and strong missile defense systems.

Despite a smaller army, the UK maintains strong air and naval assets and benefits from deep integration with NATO operations. Meanwhile, France ranks among the top militaries thanks to its nuclear arsenal, blue-water navy, and proven ability to conduct overseas operations independently.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Highest Cost of Violence on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Catherine Salgado via PJMedia.com,

It seems long past time for President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

In the chaos and violence following the death of an armed Minneapolis would-be terrorist shot while fighting Border Patrol, another protester has bitten off the finger of a federal officer.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin posted photos on X showing the loathsome protestors who so viciously assaulted federal officers, and also photos of the one officer’s wounded hand and the severed finger.

What absolute scum these protestors and the politicians who encourage them are.

McLaughlin explained, “In Minneapolis, these rioters attacked our law enforcement officer and one of them bit off our HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] officer’s finger. He will lose his finger.”

What a proud victory for Walz and co.! They managed to ruin a brave officer’s life.

Just ponder how deranged and bestial you have to be to seek out a federal law enforcement officer for the express purpose of assaulting him, and then deliberately bite off his finger.

I can’t help but think of Gollum biting off Frodo’s finger at the climax of The Lord of the Rings to obtain the Ring; and the fiction has a parallel to the reality. As Tolkien meant the Ring to represent sin and evil, and as Gollum is destroyed and driven mad by it, so leftist domestic terrorists seem drunk on and driven mad by their lust for violence and revenge.

Indeed, the protestor who bit off the HSI officer’s finger is d*mn lucky he didn’t get shot. One hopes he at least faces some legal accountability, but that seems in precious short supply in Minneapolis.

As for the shooting that triggering the other violence, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem explained that Border Patrol officers were simply trying to carry out the arrest of an illegal alien who was wanted for violent assault.

“During the operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots,” she declared.

“This violence is directly fueled by hateful rhetoric from Minnesota’s sanctuary politicians. It must end now.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz rushed to frame the armed protester as an innocent victim of eeeevil federal goons, raving about a “horrific shooting by federal agents” and labeling them “violent, untrained officers.” 

This is why there is violence. The gunman who died had two magazines of ammunition and no ID on him, indicating he planned to trigger a mass casualty event. Furthermore, he was trying to intervene on behalf of a violent criminal illegal alien — which is in itself a felony (as is protecting illegal aliens, as Minnesota politicians do).

There is no possible way a sane person could be on the side of such a man, and yet Democrats are all on his side. Of course, fully committed Democrats are also insane.

Pray hard for our brave HSI, Border Patrol, and ICE officers in Minneapolis.

Local police are not helping them, local authorities are lying about them, and mobs of protestors are literally out for their blood.

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Though America is beset by increasingly bitter political divisions, there are two convictions that unite Americans across party and demographic lines. Large majorities are certain that Congress isn’t serving the interests of the American people, and that Capitol Hill would become far more virtuous with the imposition of term limits.

Despite their broad appeal to our “throw out the bums” instincts, term limits would probably make Congress even worse than it is now. Even as a proposed policy, the concept does the country a disservice by distracting Americans from the more extreme remedies required for a federal government guiding us along a dangerous path into mounting partisan hostility, unconstitutionally-concentrated power, and obliviousness to coming financial ruin.

According to a 2023 McLaughlin and Associates poll, an overwhelming 87% of US adults favor congressional term limits, a finding that’s consistent with other surveys. Proposals vary. Reflecting a common recommendation, one of the term-limit bills introduced this session would limit House representatives to six two-year terms, and senators to two six-year terms, thus maxing out both varieties of legislator at a dozen years. Notably, members who served before 2023 — including the bill’s introducing sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — would be exempted.

One dynamic that makes term limits appealing is the overwhelming power of incumbency in US electoral politics: Federal incumbents who sought reelection had a 98% success rate in 2024, matching the pace of 2022 and edging the 96% rate seen in 2020.

Jarring as they are, those stats create a false impression of the degree of stagnancy in the House and Senate. That’s because — over the dozen years often floated as a term-limit maximum tenure — a substantial number of legislators already leave on their own. According to the most recent Pew Research calculations, over a 12-year period, 69% of House seats and 62% of Senate seats had different occupants at the end versus the beginning.

With those numbers in mind, Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie — who has backed term-limit bills– cautioned that the idea is not a “silver bullet.” Pointing to the notion that term limits would open more seats to good people since incumbents are otherwise hard to dislodge, Massie noted the substantial churn in seat-holders, and asked, “Where are all the good guys/gals?”

Note that about 84% of congressional seats are “safe seats,” where party control isn’t in question, and the real election happens in the party primary. This incentivizes primary candidates to take positions that maximize their appeal to their party’s extreme, which contributes to polarization in Washington. Term limits wouldn’t change that, other than increasing the frequency of contested primaries, which, if anything, might make the phenomenon slightly stronger.

Cycling more people out of Congress may exacerbate one of the worst dynamics of Washington: the “revolving door” that sees legislators frequently moving on to lobbying posts and board positions, and incentivizing them to cater to lobbyists and corporations before their swing through the door happens. “Mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence,” wrote Casey Burgat at Brookings.

Term-limit proponents are hopeful that bringing new faces into Washington would reduce the power of special interests, lobbyists and the entrenched bureaucracy — the last of which is sometimes called the “Deep State.” However, lacking understanding of complex federal issues and experience with DC’s legislative machinery, wide-eyed, rookie legislators are even more susceptible to outside influences who bring clear guidance sprinkled with money and favors.

Advocates of term limits often envision a warm, fuzzy new era where career politicians are replaced by humble “citizen legislators” who come from all walks of life and professions. However, the great majority of US representatives and senators held some other office before winning their current seat, and there’s no reason to think term limits would do away with the inherent advantages that state and local officeholders have when they seek federal office.

Many champions of term limits are convinced that term-limited federal legislators would spend far less time on electoral politics and fundraising. Don’t bet on it. First, until a legislator’s final term, they’d still be focused on re-election. More importantly, much and perhaps even most of the time and energy that members spend on fundraising isn’t for their own campaigns, but for their parties.

Here, it’s important to spotlight a little-known yet powerful congressional dynamic, one that guarantees that even term-limited legislators would continue spending substantial time on party fundraising: Each party ties committee assignments to how much money a legislator raises for the party.

The numbers are big. “Between 2023 and 2024, Democratic Party members were expected to raise between $100,000 and $30 million per year in dues to the party to move up in the [House] chamber,” wrote Maya Kornberg of the Brennan Center for Justice. It’s the same on both sides of the aisle. Here’s how Republican Massie candidly described the arrangement to Reason’s Matt Welch:

“[Members] have to raise money and give it to the party in order to rent or buy their committee assignments. Literally, the party comes to you, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, and says, ‘if you want an important committee, you’re going to have to pay us this much money,’ not one time, but every election cycle. You can’t go back to your district and ask your constituents at a fundraiser to help you buy a seat on a committee. You get that money from the lobbyists who are in Washington, DC.”

For members striving for plum committee assignments, there’s another major avenue of fundraising, one that turns legislators into glorified telemarketers, calling party donors across the country and asking for donations or inviting them to events that require them. It’s illegal to make such calls from their offices, so legislators walk to nearby party call centers to do it.

“You’re told…don’t even ask for one of these ‘A’ committees unless you’re ready to do the hard work across the street,” said Massie. He refuses to participate, and pays the price via exclusion from powerful committees such as Ways and Means, Appropriations, or Energy and Commerce.

As Florida Democrat and then-congressman David Jolly told CBS News, dialing for dollars is a major part of life on the Hill:

“The House schedule is actually arranged, in some ways, around fundraising…You never see a committee working through lunch because those are your fundraising times. And then, in between afternoon votes and evening votes, that’s when you can see Democrats walking down this street, Republicans walking down that street to spend time on the phone making phone calls.”

Under term limits, the only thing that would change in this bleak picture are the particular faces trudging off to a Red Team or Blue Team call center, or lunching with lobbyists offering fundraising help — rather than learning about any of the infinite issues subjected to federal governance. (Knowing their time on the Hill is limited, legislators will have even less reason to invest their time in building mastery of complex issues.)

In fact, to the extent that term limits manage to put a modest dent in the power of incumbency and render a few more of their seats vulnerable, parties would be even more concerned with raising money to either defend a majority or take it over, and would thus exert more pressure on members to refill the party’s coffers.

There’s one more way term limits would exacerbate the problem of outside influences: With a shortened span on Capitol Hill, more members would be focused on what they’ll do next. Though “citizen-legislator” daydreamers may have quaint visions of a farmer returning to his tractor, most term-limited legislators will be either planning a run for a different office, or looking for a job. Either ambition makes them susceptible to the policy overtures of people outside the chamber promising funding for future campaigns, help getting the inside track on a lobbying job of their own, or maybe a private-sector post in the industry the lobbyist represents.

Term limits would bring many unintended consequences that run counter to their advocates’ noble intentions. However, the concept’s worst attribute is that, even as a mere proposal, it diverts attention from what’s most wrong in Washington. Term limits focus on the frequency with which Washington’s power is exchanged, when the biggest problem is the power itself. For more on that, see the most-read article at Stark Realities: Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist

* * *

Stark Realities: Invigoratingly unorthodox perspectives for intellectually honest readers. Join thousands of free subscribers at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

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

Authored by Alan Mosley via AntiWar.com,

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an $838.7 billion fiscal 2026 defense spending bill, moving one of the largest appropriations measures in US history toward final passage in the Senate. In a 341-88 vote that crossed party lines, lawmakers advanced the sprawling defense and related appropriations package, underscoring persistent majorities in both parties willing to expand military outlays even amid growing concerns about fiscal discipline.

The total exceeds the Pentagon’s original FY 2026 budget request by $8.4 billion but still falls far short of more than $50 billion in additional funds the Defense Department sought after submitting its budget to Congress. That gap reflects, among other things, a stark $26.5 billion in “funding discrepancies” between the Pentagon’s request and the broader reconciliation bill – essentially accounting errors that left vital programs underfunded and were partly addressed by the House’s topline increase.

To fiscal conservatives and critics of Washington’s military spending consensus, those discrepancies signal deep structural problems in defense budgeting: an inability to accurately forecast needs, manage programs, or adhere to prudent fiscal stewardship. Lining up nearly three dozen major weapon systems, force structures, and procurement lines every year, the Pentagon’s budget process has consistently produced overruns and unpredictable spending swings that funnel money to entrenched interests rather than identified national priorities.

Yet the House markup did not merely bridge gaps; it added money to programs that the services themselves did not request – or, in some cases, explicitly asked to cancel. Lawmakers tacked on $897 million for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter program, directed a contract award for engineering and development, and preserved $1.1 billion for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft, which the service had sought to terminate. The Army’s agile funding proposal was rejected, while about $300 million was allotted for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program despite the Army’s call to end it.

Such additions comprise what critics deride as classic “pork-barrel” spending: earmarks and authorizations that serve narrow local or industrial constituencies rather than measurable defense needs. Funding lines for munitions procurement, disparate platforms, and legacy systems balloon irrespective of operational justification, raising perennial questions about legislative oversight and taxpayer value.

Compounding those concerns, the House Rules Committee refused to allow several amendments aimed at reigning in spending or constraining executive war powers to reach the floor. Measures that would have restricted funding for operations in Venezuela and others that would limit the scope of presidential military action were blocked from debate, leaving the core text untouched since its release. To some observers, the procedural closure itself was as significant as the topline figures: despite robust majorities on the floor, substantive policy alternatives were stifled before they could be considered.

Historically, the sheer scale of the defense appropriation reflects decades of incremental growth in U.S. military spending. Annual defense budgets have routinely eclipsed half a trillion dollars for more than a decade, and the FY 2026 package continues a long trend in which appropriators add funds above and beyond executive branch requests. By contrast, civilian programs and domestic discretionary spending have struggled to keep pace, prompting both political and public disquiet about national priorities.

Supporters of the bill defend the scale and scope as necessary to maintain US military readiness, industrial base capacity, and technological edge in an era of renewed great-power competition. They argue that predictable and robust funding deters adversaries and reassures allies, even if some line items exceed Pentagon forecasts. Opponents counter that emboldening the military establishment with ever-expanding budgets encourages intervention abroad and diverts resources from pressing domestic needs.

While the House’s 341-88 vote gives the bill substantial momentum, its journey is not complete. The Senate must act before the end of the current funding deadline on January 30 to avert a lapse in appropriations. Senate debate may give rise to further amendments or adjustments, but the core framework reflects a bipartisan consensus that large and growing defense outlays are politically durable, even as questions about accountability, efficiency, and strategic purpose multiply.

A 37-year-old anti-ICE agitator who was armed with a handgun was shot and killed by federal Border Patrol agents on Saturday morning during what the Department of Homeland Security described as a targeted immigration enforcement operation, sparking immediate political outrage and street protests.

Border Patrol officers were conducting a targeted operation against an illegal immigrant wanted for violent assault. According to the federal agency, a man approached officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Officers attempted to disarm the individual before he violently resisted, leading to an armed struggle. 

🚨 JUST IN: Slowed-down video PROVES the armed man in Minneapolis began to draw his firearm before Border agents took him to the ground

Self defense, case closed, the left lied again.

Probably radicalized by Jacob Frey and Tim Walz. FAFO.pic.twitter.com/MWdqAlqvZK

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 24, 2026

In a press conference, Border Commander Greg Bovino said the agent fired after assessing an immediate threat to officers on the scene. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots,” he said.

According to Bovino, medics provided aid immediately, but the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. He said the suspect was carrying two loaded magazines and had no identification. Bovino described the encounter as a deliberate attempt to inflict mass harm on law enforcement.

“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” he said.

Bovino added that the situation escalated when a large group arrived and began interfering with officers.

“Then, about two hundred rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement,” he said, noting that crowd control measures were deployed to protect the public and officers. Bovino said the investigation remains ongoing.

“The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.”

Despite the lack of complete details, Democrats pounced on the story to once again attack federal law enforcement and President Trump.

Mayor Jacob Frey held a press conference alongside Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara to address the shooting and rapidly growing protests. While O’Hara tried to de-escalate and call for calm, Frey had other intentions entirely.

“I just saw a video of more than six masked agents pummeling one of our constituents and shooting him to death,” he said.

“How many more residents, how many more Americans need to die or get badly hurt for this operation to end? How many more lives need to be lost before this administration realizes that a political and partisan narrative is not as important as American values?”

Gov. Tim Walz also responded to the shooting. 

“I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” he said in a post on X Saturday morning.

“The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

Walz has been accusing ICE agents of being inadequately trained for weeks; however, in a statement responding to the shooting, the Border Patrol Union pointed out that Border Patrol agents “are trained extremely well to protect themselves, their fellow agents, and innocent third parties. When a supposed ‘peaceful’ protester brings a weapon (such as a loaded handgun) and brandishes it, there are going to be severe consequences and repercussions.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) issued a statement accusing federal agents of murdering another member of the community.

“This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement. I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community. It is beyond shameful these federal agents are targeting our residents instead of protecting them,” she said.

“This isn’t isolated or accidental. The Trump administration is trying to beat us into submission rather than protect us. This administration cannot continue violating constitutional rights under the guise of immigration enforcement. ICE and CBP must leave Minnesota immediately. Their presence is terrorizing our communities, violating rights, and taking lives with zero accountability. Minnesota was once a place of refuge, and Trump has turned it into a war zone where unchecked federal forces murder our neighbors.” 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar urged the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to get ICE out of the state immediately. 

However, Vice President JD Vance, who was in Minnesota earlier this week, responded to the shooting by criticizing local authorities for failing to respond to requests for collaboration with federal agents.

“When I visited Minnesota, what the ICE agents wanted more than anything was to work with local law enforcement so that situations on the ground didn’t get out of hand,” he said.

“The local leadership in Minnesota has so far refused to answer those requests.”

President Trump also blamed the lack of police for the violence.

“Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers?” He asked in a post on Truth Social.

“The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves.”

The situation remains fluid, but one thing is clear: a man with a loaded gun and two loaded magazines was clearly looking for trouble, resisted arrest, and put federal agents in a position where they had to defend themselves.

Iran has flatly rejected a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning what it described as the “violent crackdown on peaceful protests” by Iranian security forces, after two weeks of raging economic protests earlier this month, which also included a government enforced total internet shutdown.

Following a closed-door session in Geneva on Friday, 25 council members – including France, Japan, and South Korea – voted in favor of the formal censure.

But there were significant voices among the seven that voted against, including China, India, and Pakistan. Fourteen others abstained.

The council demanded that Tehran halt arrests linked to the protests and take steps to “prevent extrajudicial killing, other forms of arbitrary deprivation of life, enforced disappearance, sexual and gender-based violence.”

UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the council that “the brutality in Iran continued, creating conditions for further human rights violations, instability and bloodshed.”

Tehran blasted the resolution as another display of Western hypocrisy, arguing that the sponsors of the emergency session have never genuinely cared about human rights in Iran.

Iran’s envoy Ali Bahreini pushed back at the meeting, saying as follows:

“It was ironic that states whose history was stained with genocide and war crimes now attempted to lecture Iran on social governance and human rights.”

This past week in Davos for the World Economic Forum, there was an interesting moment where US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent actually openly boasted that US sanctions helped drive the protests, after crippling the economy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues that US sanctions on Iran were intended to cripple the economy so people would take to the streets: “This is economic statecraft, no shots fired”
* I made this argument last week, and was accused of spreading Iranian propaganda… pic.twitter.com/O3Q32WhWhh

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 21, 2026

So Islamic Republic leaders are right to be skeptical when American, Israel, or European officials claims they ‘stand’ with the Iranian people, and seek ‘democracy’. Already, UN officials are invoking historical “genocide” instances and are dubiously comparing them with what’s going on in Iran:

A prosecutor said at least twice more people were killed in Iran in half the time compared with the Srebrenica genocide.

Iran’s Bahreini reiterated some of his government’s official casualty figures from clashes with police and security services, which were initially issued days ago via state sources. He said 3,117 people were killed during the unrest, but he also claimed that 2,427 of those deaths were caused by “terrorists” – covertly funded by enemies of Iran – namely the United States, Israel, and their allies.

Authored by Rob Carpenter via FreightWaves.com,

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy just dropped what I’ve been calling the nuclear option.

In an appearance on Katie Pavlich Tonight Thursday, Duffy made clear that withholding $200 million in federal funding isn’t the end of this fight. If California doesn’t come into compliance on the non-domiciled CDL issue, Duffy said, “we will eventually pull their ability to issue commercial driver’s licenses to anybody in California.”

Not just the 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight. Every single CDL in the state.

I’ve written extensively about this standoff since the FMCSA released its audit findings last September, which showed that roughly 25% of California’s non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued. I’ve covered the $160 million funding hit. I’ve warned about the decertification authority in 49 U.S.C. 31312 and 49 CFR 384.405, which most people in this industry didn’t even know existed.

How We Got Here

This didn’t start with the Trump administration’s September 2025 emergency rule restricting non-domiciled CDLs to certain visa categories. That rule, which limited eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders, has been stayed by the D.C. Circuit since November. The court found that petitioners were “likely to succeed” on their claims that the FMCSA violated federal law in its rulemaking.

The California problem predates all of that.

FMCSA’s August 2025 Annual Program Review found California had been violating federal regulations that existed long before Duffy took office. The state was issuing CDLs with expiration dates extending years beyond drivers’ lawful presence documentation. In one case that still makes my blood boil, California issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with passenger and school bus endorsements that remained valid months after his legal presence expired.

That’s not a new rule problem. That’s a California screwed-up problem.

California agreed in November to revoke all 17,000 improperly issued licenses by January 5, 2026. Then, on December 30, the California DMV unilaterally announced a 60-day extension to March 6, citing the need to ensure it doesn’t wrongfully terminate licenses for drivers who actually qualify.

Duffy’s response on X was blunt: “Gavin Newsom is lying.”

FMCSA never agreed to the extension. California proceeded anyway. On January 7, DOT made good on its threat and withheld approximately $160 million in National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grant funds. That’s on top of the $40 million already withheld over California’s refusal to enforce English language proficiency requirements.

The Nuclear Math

California has more than 700,000 CDL holders. The state is home to the nation’s largest trucking workforce, with over 138,000 truck drivers moving freight through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley, and every retail distribution center feeding the country’s largest consumer market.

Under full decertification, California would be prohibited from issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading any commercial learner’s permits or commercial driver’s licenses until FMCSA determines the state has corrected its deficiencies. Previously issued CDLs would technically remain valid until their stated expiration dates, but here’s where it gets ugly.

Other states could refuse to recognize California credentials during the noncompliance period. FMCSA could issue guidance declaring CDLs issued by a noncompliant state invalid for interstate commerce. The Commercial Driver’s License Information System, which enables interstate verification, could flag every California license.

For the 700,000 CDL holders in the Golden State, decertification wouldn’t just be an administrative headache.

It would effectively ground them from operating in interstate commerce.

I’ve been doing compliance work in this industry for over 25 years. I’ve never seen a federal-state confrontation escalate this fast or this far.

What’s That Look Like? 

The 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight represent just over 9% of California’s for-hire carrier base. I believe that number represents just under half the total increase in CDLs 

This isn’t really about 17,000 drivers anymore.

J.B. Hunt’s analysis suggests that, between non-domiciled CDL restrictions and English language proficiency enforcement, we could see 214,000 to 437,000 drivers removed from the U.S. supply over the next two to three years. FMCSA estimates that 97% of the current 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders nationwide won’t be able to satisfy the new requirements under the September rule, assuming it survives legal challenge.

Transport Futures economist Noël Perry puts the at-risk population even higher when accounting for undocumented drivers and new-hire restrictions: potentially 600,000 drivers, or 16% of the active workforce.

Whether those numbers hold up or not, one thing is clear. The days of states running their CDL programs with what Duffy called “reckless disregard” for federal requirements are ending.

What Happens Next

California is stuck between a rock and a hard place it created for itself.

On the one hand, the federal government is withholding $200 million and threatening to revoke the state’s authority to issue any commercial credential. On the other hand, a class-action lawsuit filed by the Asian Law Caucus, the Sikh Coalition, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP argues that the DMV’s own administrative errors caused the mismatches in expiration dates and that drivers should be able to immediately reapply for corrected credentials.

The lawsuit names five individual plaintiffs and the Jakara Movement, a Fresno-based organization serving the Punjabi Sikh community. An estimated 150,000 Sikh truck drivers operate in the United States, and many of the affected drivers argue they’re being punished for what amounts to clerical errors by the state.

They’re not wrong about the clerical errors. The DMV admitted in correspondence with federal regulators that “shortcomings of its technical systems and processes” led to the mismatched dates.

That admission doesn’t help California’s legal position with FMCSA. It strengthens it.

If California knew it had systemic programming errors that extended CDL expiration dates beyond work authorization periods, why didn’t it fix them before the feds came knocking? That’s the question that should concern every carrier operating in interstate commerce. A CDL issued in violation of federal requirements may not be valid for interstate operation, meaning drivers holding those credentials could face enforcement action in any state, and carriers dispatching them could face significant liability exposure.

Governor Newsom told the press that DOT had agreed to the March 6 extension. Duffy says that’s not true. FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs has been equally clear: “We will not accept a corrective plan that knowingly leaves thousands of drivers holding noncompliant licenses behind the wheel of 80,000-pound trucks in open defiance of federal safety regulations.”

California’s argument that its CDL holders are involved in fatal crashes at a rate far below the national average, and that Texas-issued licenses have a 50% higher rate of fatal crashes, might play well in press releases. It doesn’t address the fundamental regulatory compliance issue.

FMCSA didn’t withhold $160 million because of crash rates. It withheld funding because California admitted to issuing 17,000 licenses in violation of federal requirements and then refused to revoke them on the agreed timeline.

The nuclear option remains on the table, and based on everything I’ve seen from Duffy over the past six months, I wouldn’t bet against him using it.