NY Times Sues Department Of War Over New Media Rules
The New York Times on Friday sued the Department of War over new rules for media outlets which restrict reporters’ movements around the Pentagon, require ID badges, and restrict the solicitation of “criminal acts” (encouraging someone to leak).
“The policy, in violation of the First Amendment, seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done—ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements,” the NYTwrote in its lawsuit which was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The new rules state that soliciting nonpublic information from department personnel or encouraging employees to break the law “falls outside the scope of protected newsgathering activities.”
Journalists will also be denied press passes if they pose a safety or security risk.
The Times and several other outlets took issue with a request from the Department of War to sign papers acknowledging that they had received, read and understood the rules – and that while they may not agree with the policies, signing the paper did not waive any legal rights.
After some outlets declined to sign the acknowledgement, the Pentagon required them to hand over their press passes, resulting in some reporters ceasing to report from the DoW.
Meanwhile, several in the media were later granted passes who had not had them before, including National Pulse EIC Raheem Kassam.
“Legacy media chose to self-deport from this building,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Kingsley Wilson during a Wednesday press briefing, adding ‘we’re welcoming new media outlets that actually reach Americans, ask real questions, and don’t pursue a biased agenda.“
According to the NY Times complaint, “These developments place the purpose and effect of the Policy in stark relief: to fundamentally restrict coverage of the Pentagon by independent journalists and news organizations, either by limiting what kind of information they can obtain and publish without incurring punishment, or by driving them out of the Pentagon with an unconstitutional Policy.
“While Plaintiffs’ enterprising reporting on the military will continue, the Pentagon’s Policy ensures the suppression of certain newsworthy information—information, for instance, gathered by directly questioning officials at press conferences or through routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds,” the outlet continued.
Pentagon chief spox Sean Parnell told the Epoch Times; “We are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court.”
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Dec. 3 that it has launched an investigation into a school that officials said illegally vaccinated a child without parental consent.
HHS did not name the school. The department said it is in the Midwest and acted illegally in part because it ignored a religious exemption for the vaccination that had been filed pursuant to state law.
The HHS Office for Civil Rights will be looking into the matter to ascertain whether the school failed to comply with a requirement under the federal Vaccines for Children Program. The program, which provides vaccines to various institutions, mandates that immunization providers comply with state law surrounding exemptions from mandated vaccines.
“To protect the integrity of the investigation, HHS cannot share additional details at this time,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
Officials also released a letter on Dec. 3 to doctors and others, informing them that they must generally provide parents access to the medical records of children, with limited exceptions. The letter warned that HHS was making access to minor records a priority and that the agency will use tools it has at its disposal, including fines, to ensure compliance.
“Today, we are putting pediatric medical professionals on notice: you cannot sideline parents,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “When providers ignore parental consent, violate exemptions to vaccine mandates, or keep parents in the dark about their children’s care, we will act decisively. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect families and restore accountability.”
Jim O’Neill, deputy HHS secretary and acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the Vaccines for Children Program “should never circumvent parents’ rights.”
The program, which began operations in 1994, sends vaccines to providers to administer to children at no cost. The program “reduces disparities in child vaccination rates, ensuring that any child can access recommended vaccines regardless of income or geography,” the CDC states on its website.
Schools across the country mandate multiple vaccines for school attendance, based on the CDC’s immunization schedule.
Exemptions are granted in all 50 states on medical grounds. Most states also allow exemptions for religious reasons.
HHS officials also said on Dec. 3 that they directed the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is part of the department, to start requiring that grant recipients adhere to both federal and state parental consent laws for any health care services at health centers supported by the administration. That includes obtaining parental consent before a minor receives medical or dental work.
Trump’s New National Security Strategy Stuns Mainstream In Saying Europe Faces “Civilizational Erasure” Within 20 Years
The Trump administration’s just published new National Security Strategy has generated a lot of ‘shock’ and discussion since it appeared online early Friday. One of its more ‘controversial’ elements is the stark contrast in outlook on Europe in comparison with prior years’ national security strategy documents.
It warns that some of America’s oldest allies in Europe face “the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure” as a result of unchecked immigration, as well as the erosion of democratic principles. Alongside calling out irresponsible unchecked EU immigration policies, it further cites the curbing of free speech – also with the support for EU censorship excesses by transnational elite institutions, describing that “should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”
The National Security Strategy even suggests Washington is distancing itself militarily from NATO (but something which should come as no surprise given recent Trump statements related to the alliance’s lagging spending), saying “it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies” to the United States.
It also references a “lack of self-confidence” by Europe which “is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia.” It cited as evidence that Europe should have a clear “significant hard power advantage” over Russia, but now because of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European leaders “regard Russia as an existential threat.” FT notes of this section:
Donald Trump’s first NSS since returning to office blames European officials for thwarting US efforts to end the war in Ukraine and accuses governments of ignoring a “large European majority” who want peace.
The document further highlights that this current reality of European weakness could have certain negative implications for potential for heightened Western escalation with Russia:
“Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states,” the document reads.
Most analysts see the language in the document as opening the door for unapologetic meddling in European affairs.
“Washington is no longer pretending it won’t meddle in Europe’s internal affairs” Pawel Zerka, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, observed.
“It now frames such interference as an act of benevolence (‘we want Europe to remain European’) and a matter of US strategic necessity. The priority? ‘Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations‘,” he concludes.
Holy. Shit.
Trump’s National Security Strategy questions Europe’s future as reliable allies:
“Their economic decline is eclipsed only by the real and stark prospect of civilizational erasure. If present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years.” pic.twitter.com/o0JjuI6eMd
Another one of the more talked about aspects to the 33-page national security document is the laying out of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine…
“The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states.
“The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined,” it adds.
Some expected initial angry reaction out of unelected Eurocrats…
In saying that Europe faces ”civilizational erasure” the Trump 🇺🇸 new security strategy places itself to the right of the extreme right in Europe. Its language that one otherwise only finds coming out of some bizarre minds of the Kremlin 🇷🇺. pic.twitter.com/29vytDp6Hm
This strongly suggests that things will keep heating up in the Caribbean, also as several outlets have been reporting that the Pentagon is getting ready to keep a significant troop presence in the region for years to come.
Major Climate Crisis Study Retracted Over “Inaccuracies” As Doom Narrative Collapses
A widely hyped climate-doom study published in Nature in April 2024, and then amplified by left-wing corporate media outlets (CNN, Bloomberg, you name it), desperate to push the “green” narrative and weirdly obsessed with driving Americans into a state of severe climate shock, has now been embarrassingly retracted.
On Wednesday, Nature retracted the study titled “The economic commitment of climate change“ after economists discovered that flawed data from Uzbekistan had heavily skewed the results.
If Uzbekistan data were excluded, the paper’s eye-popping forecast of a 62% collapse in global economic output by 2100 under unabated emissions would only fall to 23%.
The retraction should intensify the debate over how accurate long-term climate forecasts actually are – and by our estimates, Al Gore, thirty years and counting, is still very wrong.
For 20 months, the study was touted by Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, and countless MSM outlets, and even cited by the World Bank and the OECD. This helped manufacture a wildly misleading narrative of an impending climate catastrophe.
The study’s authors, led by Leonie Wenz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and Maximilian Kotz, a postdoctoral researcher at the institute, wrote in a retraction notice that the issues were “too substantial for a correction,” forcing the paper’s withdrawal.”
The retraction will send shockwaves through the Network for Greening the Financial System, a coalition of central banks and financial supervisors that leaned heavily on the study to shape its outlook.
In recent months, Bill Gates, one of the biggest climate-alarmism offenders, right alongside Al Gore, had to acknowledge that the climate-crisis narrative was mostly fake news.
But why did left-wing billionaires, their networks of NGOs, their allies in Washington, and the left-wing MSM push climate doomerism to such extremes, a propaganda campaign that only really kicked off after Marxist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the “Green New Deal” in 2019?
Because it was never about “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis. It was about looting the U.S. Treasury, which is exactly what they accomplished through the Inflation Reduction Act.
The doctor who led an investigation into deaths following COVID-19 vaccination is now the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top drug regulator, the agency announced on Dec. 3.
Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, who had been a senior adviser to FDA leadership, has been appointed acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
Dr. Richard Pazdur, a longtime FDA official who was head of the center, is retiring, the FDA said this week. Pazdur was appointed in November, after the previous center director resigned after he was accused in a lawsuit of illegally targeting a company by saying its FDA-approved product has “significant toxicity.”
CDER regulates drugs available over-the-counter and via prescriptions, including generic drugs and sunscreens. The center has nearly 5,000 employees; the FDA employs about 18,000 people.
Hoeg has worked in the past with Dr. Vinay Prasad, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which regulates vaccines and other biological products and has about 1,150 workers; and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, including on a 2022 paper that estimated COVID-19 vaccine mandates at universities resulted in more harm than benefit.
After joining the FDA this year, Hoeg undertook an investigation into post-vaccination child deaths and determined that some were caused by a COVID-19 vaccine, Prasad said in a Nov. 28 memorandum. Other FDA staffers independently agreed on at least some of the deaths, he said.
“Dr. Hoeg is the right scientist to fully modernize CDER and finish the job of establishing a culture of cross-center coordination there,” Makary said in a statement. “At CBER, she advanced scientific rigor through her commitment to providing the public with the highest quality of evidence, including our roadmap to reduce and replace animal testing with new technologies.”
Hoeg said in a statement that CDER plays an important role in making sure medicines are safe and effective.
“This is an incredible opportunity to serve my fellow Americans,” she stated. “I am committed to transparency, honesty, and decisions based on rigorous science and ensuring important changes happen efficiently. I am humbled to support the FDA’s work to modernize and strengthen how we evaluate evidence so the public benefits from the best science.”
Hoeg graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts. She obtained her medical degree from the Medical College of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. in public health and epidemiology from the University of Copenhagen. She holds American and Danish citizenship.
As part of her role as senior adviser, Hoeg had served as the FDA’s liaison to a federal committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines. During its most recent meeting, she said the FDA was taking seriously indications that the COVID-19 vaccines are contaminated.
The FDA over the summer withdrew emergency authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines. It then issued updated approvals for three existing shots and a new vaccine for all seniors, as well as younger people who have at least one risk factor that officials say places them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.
The CDC, based on advice from the federal committee, shifted from recommending that most people receive one of the vaccines to saying people should consult with health care professionals and take into account various factors, including whether they have any of the risk factors.
It starts with a call. A sore knee, a lingering cough, a changing mole – nothing urgent – but not quite ignorable. The receptionist is polite, but the first available appointment is three weeks away.
For millions of Americans, health care begins with a wait. For many, walk-in clinics have replaced family medicine.
“People have started to accept that,” Dr. Dorothy Serna, a primary care physician who left traditional practice for a concierge model, told The Epoch Times. “They think, ‘I can’t get my doctor, so I won’t even try. I’ll just go to urgent care. I’ll wait. I’ll Google it.’”
Such scenarios have become the norm rather than the exception. What was once a simple task—seeing your doctor when you need care—has evolved into a complex navigation challenge that requires strategy, persistence, and insider knowledge to overcome.
A Month, If You’re Lucky
More than 100 million people lack a regular primary care provider, a figure that continues to climb each year. New patients wait an average of 23.5 days to see a primary care doctor, often longer in cities. Even existing patients face significant waits, although generally shorter than those of new patients.
The problem continues to grow. A 2025 survey by AMN Healthcare found the average wait for a physician appointment in major metro areas has stretched to 31 days—up 19 percent since 2022 and nearly 50 percent since 2004. In Boston, patients wait more than two months, the longest wait time in the nation.
If this is the situation in cities with the most doctors, rural patients can expect even worse outcomes. Only 9 percent of U.S. physicians practice in those communities, leaving patients to travel farther, wait longer, and often go without care altogether.
The problem is reshaping how Americans access health care. Primary care, traditionally the system’s front door, has become its biggest bottleneck. Routine problems escalate into emergencies, and preventive care gets delayed.
The shortage is structural. Nearly half of primary care doctors are older than 55, and few younger physicians are choosing the field. Only 15 percent remain in primary care five years after completing their training. The United States has 67 primary care doctors per 100,000 people—about half the rate of Canada. While many other wealthy nations devote 7 percent to 14 percent of their health budgets to primary care, the United States spends less than 5 percent.
Preventive medicine is collapsing into fragmented, reactive care, and patients are left waiting while disease advances.
The Specialist Referral Maze
Seeing a specialist presents its own set of challenges. Even after securing a coveted primary care appointment and obtaining a referral, patients face another round of lengthy delays.
Specialist wait times vary dramatically by field and location. New patients wait about two weeks for orthopedic surgery, a month for cardiology and dermatology, and six weeks for obstetrics and gynecology—and often longer in big cities.
The referral process itself creates additional friction. Insurance authorizations can add weeks to the timeline. Paperwork gets lost between offices. Some specialists require specific diagnostic tests before scheduling, adding another layer of delay.
Online patient forums overflow with stories of months-long waits for neurology consultations and gastroenterology appointments that stretch nearly a year.
Whether it’s finding a new doctor, landing a specialist appointment, or just breaking through your provider’s backlog, the challenge is access. Some patients manage access by knowing how the system works. The following tactics won’t fix the shortage, but they can shift the odds in our favor.
Step 1: Finding a Primary Care Doctor or Specialist
Start With People
The fastest way to find a doctor isn’t online—it’s through people. A 2022 study in Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation found that most patients turn to family, friends, or trusted professionals.
Try these approaches:
Ask for Specific Names, Not Just Practices: When you call, mention who referred you: “My friend Maria is a patient of Dr. Green and suggested I call.” Clinics often note these connections, which can move you up the callback list.
Verify Fit Before Booking: Ask about insurance acceptance, after-hours options, and same-day visits. Research shows that these logistics often influence satisfaction more than credentials.
Tap Professional Circles: Pharmacists, therapists, or other doctors often know who’s taking new patients or who communicates well.
Combine Word-of-Mouth With Research: Once you have a few names, check online reviews for red flags rather than perfection. A consistent theme of poor communication is more telling than a few harsh comments.
Keep a Running Short List: Save the contact info of doctors recommended by friends or professionals, even if you’re not looking right now. It can save weeks if you suddenly need care.
Go Digital
Hospital and insurer websites often have hidden scheduling tools—but you have to know where to look.
Start With Your Insurance Portal: Log in and click “Find Care” or “Find a Doctor.” These directories usually show which providers are in-network and, increasingly, whether they’re accepting new patients. Some include direct links to schedule an appointment.
Check Hospital or Health-System Pages: Look for a “Patient Portal,” “Book Online,” or “Schedule a Visit” tab. Large systems such as Mass General Brigham, Cleveland Clinic, or Mayo Clinic sometimes let patients view real-time openings and book directly, often without calling.
Check Official Directories: State medical boards list every licensed provider, and state chapters of the American Academy of Family Physicians or internal-medicine societies often post searchable directories by region or availability. These sources verify credentials and can uncover clinicians not featured on commercial platforms.
Use Third-Party Tools: Zocdoc, Healthgrades, and One Medical integrate with clinic calendars, allowing you to filter by specialty, insurance, and sometimes the soonest available appointment.
Double-Check Listings: Online directories can lag by weeks. Once you find an opening, call or message the office through its portal to confirm.
Expand Your Definition of ‘Doctor’
When appointment backlogs stretch for weeks, the key may be to expand what “care” looks like.
Look for Team-Based Clinics: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can diagnose, prescribe, and manage most common conditions. They’re often easier to book than physicians, and Medical Group Management Association data show practices that rely more on team-based care are better able to keep wait times under control.
Consider Direct Primary Care or Concierge Medicine: These membership models offer longer visits, direct messaging, and same-day scheduling in exchange for a monthly fee—usually $50 to $150.
Explore Integrative or Naturopathic Care: In 26 states, licensed naturopaths can diagnose conditions, order labs, and prescribe medications. Functional-medicine doctors—typically medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine—combine conventional care with nutrition and lifestyle approaches. These options can offer more time and continuity, though insurance coverage varies.
Be Flexible About How–and Where–You’re Seen
When options are limited, flexibility can make the difference between waiting weeks and getting care today.
Try Virtual Visits: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth use by primary care doctors jumped to nearly 50 percent from 5 percent, and many patients plan to keep using it. Virtual visits aren’t a substitute for hands-on exams, but they can bridge gaps until you’re seen in person.
Widen Your Search: Appointment backlogs don’t move in sync from place to place. A 30-minute drive to a nearby town or a different hospital system can sometimes mean being seen weeks sooner.
Step 2: Getting Seen Sooner
Once you’ve identified the provider or practice that fits your needs, the next challenge is securing an appointment. That’s where persistence, flexibility, and a few behind-the-scenes strategies can make all the difference.
Work the System–Nicely: Staff work within limits, but your tone matters. “Create a sense of urgency,” Serna said. “Say, ‘I’m worried and would like to be seen sooner if something opens up.’” A little empathy goes a long way—schedulers often remember polite persistence.
Call Early: Most offices hold a few same-day or next-day slots for urgent needs, but they go fast. Call right when the office opens to improve your chances of landing one.
Join the Cancellation List: Ask the office to add you to their cancellation list—a roster of patients willing to come in on short notice if someone else cancels. Patients who are flexible often get the first call, and a quick weekly check-in helps keep your name visible.
Ask About Virtual Options: For non-urgent issues that don’t require a physical exam, virtual care can be a quicker route. “It saves time for everyone,” Serna said. Many systems offer virtual visits within days, particularly for follow-up appointments or initial consultations.
Bring in Backup: When care stalls, someone has to move it along. “Most people don’t know how to get past the scheduler to the clinical team,” said Serna. She sometimes makes those calls herself, reaching out directly to a specialist when a patient’s referral has hit a wall.
Ask whether your doctor’s office can do the same by contacting the specialist or testing center on your behalf. If that doesn’t work, an outside advocate may help. A 2024 review found that patients with advocates began treatment sooner in 70 percent of cases. The National Association of Healthcare Advocacy and the Patient Advocate Foundation connect patients with professional or nonprofit advocates.
Navigating From Within
The U.S. health care system may be slow and fragmented, but it is not impenetrable. With preparation, patience, and the right questions, it is still possible to find a way through. That might mean asking for multiple referrals, using portals to spot cancellations, or simply knowing how to frame urgency without panic.
These recommendations aren’t shortcuts so much as survival skills—the small, persistent acts patients use to keep the system from shutting them out entirely. It’s about finding agency in a system that often rewards persistence over passivity.
What’s Next: Getting the appointment is only the first victory. Making it count is the next—something we’ll tackle in the following article.
USA Or China: Goldman Breaks Down Who Will Win The AI War
Even after the latest US-China trade truce, the superpower race for technological dominance remains red hot – and will only intensify through the end of the decade.
The battle is over who controls the technologies that will dominate the 2030s: AI chatbots, advanced chips, drones, humanoid robots, clean tech, EVs, satellites, reusable space rockets, hypersonic weapons, next-gen grid power generation, and the critical minerals that make all of it possible.
The latest comments from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer reveal that the Trump administration is pushing for a stable trade environment with Beijing, which makes perfect sense heading into the midterm election cycle.
“I don’t think anyone wants to have a full-on economic conflict with China and we’re not having that,” Greer said Thursday at the American Growth Summit in Washington.
Greer continued, “In fact, President Trump has had the opportunity to use all the leverage we have against China — and we’ve had a lot, right — whether it comes to software, semiconductors or all kinds of things. A lot of allies are interested in taking coordinated action, but the decision right now is we want to have stability in this relationship.”
“For this moment in time, we want to make sure that China is buying the kinds of things from us we should be selling them: aircraft, chemicals, medical devices and agricultural products,” he said. “We can buy things from them that are not sensitive.”
Greer added, “We have to get our own house in order. We need to make sure that we are on a good path to reindustrialization, including for critical minerals.”
Being only a trade truce, the real superpower battle continues to rage behind the scenes.
The latest Goldman Sachs Top of Mind, one of the firm’s flagship research publications edited by Allison Nathan, offers clients a broad framework of why the geopolitical race for technological dominance remains as intense as ever.
Mark Kennedy, Founding Director, Wahba Initiative for Strategic Competition at New York University’s Development Research Institute, told Goldman’s Ashley Rhodes, “It is entirely possible that neither the U.S. nor China emerges as the outright victor in the tech race. I can envision a world in which the U.S. leads in developing the most advanced technologies, while China leads in global installations.”
On the rare-earth mineral front, it’s very clear that while the U.S. is still playing catch-up, China remains years ahead in both mining and refining.
But not all is lost: the U.S. is well ahead on the semiconductors.
Rhodes asked Kennedy:
Who is currently “winning” the tech race?
Kennedy responded:
It’s important to understand that there are four key arenas in this race: technological innovation, practical application of the technology, installation of the digital plumbing or infrastructure underpinning the technology, and technological self-sufficiency. The U.S. is currently leading in most advanced technologies, including semiconductors, AI frameworks, cloud infrastructure, and quantum computing, as well as in attracting global talent. However, China is ahead in areas such as quantum communications, hypersonics, and batteries.
China is also making rapid strides to catch up to and, in some cases, overtake the U.S. in technological application. For example, China deploys robotics in manufacturing on a scale twelve times greater than the U.S. when adjusted for differences in employee income. And while U.S. regulations often limit applications like drone deliveries to your door, China is proactively testing and deploying advanced physical AI and robotics like uncrewed taxis and vertical takeoff vehicles, accelerating their practical adoption.
China is also dominating on the global installations front. It has established a strong presence in the Global South, surpassing the U.S. and other Western nations in building essential digital networks there. And China has made significant strides toward achieving technological self-sufficiency through its dual circulation strategy aimed at reducing its reliance on the West while increasing Western dependence on China. Recent Chinese government measures, such as restricting domestic purchases of Western chips and offering incentives for using domestic alternatives, underscore this push for technological independence. At the same time, China’s vast overproduction capacity in batteries and critical minerals has further increased Western dependence on China’s supply chains. The U.S. has been ambivalent at best as it relates to this aspect of the tech race and remains reliant on China in many ways. So, on net, while the U.S. leads in the development of the technology itself, China is rapidly closing the gap — or even leading — in application, infrastructure installations, and tech self-sufficiency.
Reindustrialization in the U.S. should reverse this…
The U.S. and allies lead on chips.
Dominates in data centers.
But again, not in rare earths.
China leads in nuclear power.
Our takeaway from the Top of Mind note: the U.S. still leads in innovation, software, and frontier AI models, while China dominates in application, infrastructure, critical minerals, and manufacturing scale. The U.S. is the brain of the global economy, while China is the manufacturing powerhouse. The Trump administration is now trying to preserve America’s innovation edge while single-handedly rebuilding its industrial base. All of this continues to point toward a deeply bifurcated world by the 2030s.
The full note can be read in the usual place by ZeroHedge Pro subs. It’s epic and packed with additional conversations from leading experts, offering even more visibility into the superpower race ahead of the 2030s.
I’ve watched two American cities make opposite choices about the same problem.
As a young man, I worked in Memphis: first as a traveling salesman, then as a law student, and finally as an attorney at a Memphis law firm. As an associate lawyer, I dreamed of escaping the daily grind by writing a great American novel. A fellow named John Grisham beat me to it, writing a book called “The Firm,” which was loosely based on my then-Memphis law firm, Baker Donelson. I guess that is why, many years later, I’m still a practicing attorney and John Grisham has written 55 published books.
Although I reside in Springfield, I’ve spent considerable time in Chicago over the past 10 years. While Chicago is bigger than Memphis, the two cities are similar in that I love them both and both are high crime cities. Based on 2024 numbers, Chicago has led the U.S. in total murders for 13 years. Memphis ranked second in homicides per capita among large cities.
I happen to know what it means to be on the wrong end of urban violence. I was held up at gunpoint in Memphis. That experience taught me something that no policy paper ever could: When you’re facing a criminal with a weapon, political debates about federal jurisdiction become meaningless. What matters is whether your city is doing everything possible to keep people safe.
To that end: Memphis said yes to federal help. Chicago said no. The results tell you everything you need to know about what happens when politics overrides public safety.
Memphis Chose Cooperation
In Memphis, the numbers speak louder than any political speech. When the city partnered with federal law enforcement through the Memphis Safe Task Force, murders dropped 48%, sexual assaults fell 49%, and robberies decreased 61% in just 56 days.
Overall crime hit a 25-year low. Murder reached a six-year low. Sexual assault dropped to a 20-year low.
A Memphis resident at a Grizzlies game said what statistics can’t: “It is so peaceful … we’re just enjoying life and it just feels so free.”
Chicago Chose Politics
Chicago took a different path. Mayor Brandon Johnson stated that the city “does not intend to apply for any federal grants that require the city to comply with President Trump’s political aims.”
The cost of that decision? A Chicago nonprofit lost $3.7 million in federal funding for violence prevention. Programs that could have saved lives disappeared because of political positioning.
Meanwhile, only 6% of major crimes result in arrests in Chicago. Less than 20% of murders get solved. For non-fatal shootings, the clearance rate drops to 5%.
The False Frame
Some frame this as a battle between local control and federal overreach.
That’s inaccurate.
Memphis didn’t surrender authority. The city multiplied its resources. Federal agents brought additional manpower, expertise, and the ability to prosecute cases in federal court where sentences carry more weight.
Mayor Paul Young saidefforts were “guided by one purpose: to uplift our community.” The partnership worked because it focused on outcomes, not ideology.
The real question is: Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?
Politics Has a Body Count
Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?
I’ve seen both approaches. The difference isn’t subtle.
In Memphis, people feel safer walking their streets. Crime data confirms what residents experience daily.
Chicago rejected the offer of federal help, and encouraged a rebellion against enforcement of federal immigration law. In the past month, we saw another deadly teen takeover of downtown Chicago, career criminals terrorizing CTA riders, school children beating up a mom with her child, and more gang violence.
You can debate federal policy all you want. But when your city faces a crime crisis, the question becomes simple: Will you accept help or grandstand while people suffer?
Top Obama DEA Official Charged With Laundering Money For Mexican Drug Cartel
A former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official appointed as deputy chief of the Office of Financial Operations during the Obama administration – and who still holds a security clearance – was indicted on Friday on charges of agreeing to launder $12 million for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) – which was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February of this year.
Paul Campo, who oversaw the FBI’s money laundering operations and resigned in January 2016 ahead of Trump’s inauguration, laundered around $750,000 for the cartel by converting cash into cryptocurrency, and agreed to launder far more – totaling over $12 million, according to the indictment.
Campo’s hoome was raided by federal agents on Thursday.
Campo also provided a payment for around 220 kilos of cocaine on the understanding that the drugs had been imported into the USA, the indictment further states.
He was able to do this after spending 25 years at the DEA, rising to a high-level position which he used to sell himself to CJNG as someone who could;
give inside information on DEA operations
help them move drug money
help them avoid detection
and even advise on narcotics logistics
In late 2024, Campo, along with a friend Robert Sensi, began conspiring with an undercover government source they believed was with the cartel. They allegedly discussed using drones packed with C-4 explosives for CJNG operation. When the undercover agent asked what they could do with the drones, Campo allegedly said “We put explosives and we just send it over there,” adding that six kilos of C-4 would be enough to blow up “the whole fucking…” [sentence trails off]
Campo also allegedly told the undercover source that, because of his past work inside DEA’s intelligence and financial units, he still had “connections” within the agency and could advise CJNG on how to evade detection. According to the indictment, he portrayed himself as someone who understood DEA investigative patterns, internal targeting systems, and the vulnerabilities of U.S. financial controls.
Both Campo and Sensi allegedly assured the undercover officer that they could convert cartel cash into cryptocurrency in a way that would appear legitimate, billing themselves as specialists capable of “getting money back” for clients whose assets had been seized by law enforcement.
A series of staged transactions followed
Beginning in early 2025, the DEA source delivered multiple bulk-cash installments to the defendants under the guise of CJNG proceeds—first $200,000 in Charlotte, North Carolina, then additional transfers totaling more than $187,000 over the following days. Campo and Sensi allegedly converted the funds into cryptocurrency and reassured the source that they would charge an 8% commission for future laundering.
According to prosecutors, the two men also repeatedly affirmed that they were prepared to launder significantly larger sums. During one meeting, Campo allegedly said he and Sensi could easily move “millions” for the cartel through real-estate transactions, prepaid cards, and crypto channels that would not be flagged by U.S. financial institutions.
By July 2025, the indictment states, the undercover source delivered an additional $276,000 that the defendants believed to be CJNG drug proceeds. A second cash drop occurred in September. Each time, prosecutors say, Campo pitched the source on expanding their partnership into a long-term laundering pipeline.
The most damning allegation involves narcotics trafficking
In October 2025, the DEA source told Campo and Sensi that a shipment of more than 220 kilograms of cocaine had already entered the United States and required payment. Campo and Sensi allegedly agreed to help facilitate the transaction, with Campo telling the source that once the funds were converted and returned, CJNG would “release the shipment” and continue to work with them.
The indictment asserts that Campo, Sensi, and their co-conspirators were to receive 30% of the proceeds – roughly $1.5 million – for their role in the cocaine deal, and an additional fee for converting the remainder into cryptocurrency. Campo then allegedly urged the undercover source to “move the product now,” signaling they were ready to operationalize the narcotics pipeline.
Throughout these interactions, prosecutors say, Campo and Sensi communicated via encrypted messaging systems and framed their cooperation with CJNG as the beginning of a long-term strategic partnership. After one successful money drop, Sensi reportedly told the undercover source: “Welcome to the fucking cartel!”
India’s Bharat Petroleum Corp. and India Oil Corp. have bought Russian crude from non-sanctioned companies, with Bharat Petroleum ordering a cargo of 2 million barrels of Urals crude for January delivery, from companies other than Rosneft and Lukoil, Reuters has reported, citing unnamed trader sources.
The price tag for the cargo featured a discount of $6-$7 to Brent crude, the sources told Reuters. This is actually slimmer than the futures market difference between Urals and Brent. Brent is trading at a bit over $63 per barrel, while the flagship Russian blend is changing hands for over $54 per barrel.
Rosneft and Lukoil handled around half of Russia’s total oil exports, or around 2 million barrels daily, until November 21, when fresh U.S. sanctions came into effect targeting specifically the two companies. Since then, importers and exporters alike have been looking for—and finding—ways around the sanctions. As many expected, while exports by Rosneft and Lukoil are down, exports of crude by non-sanctioned companies have spiked since November 21.
Matryoshka oil trading:
Goldman Sachs says that oil exports from Lukoil and Rosneft are down ~1.1m b/d, but **simultaneosly** exports from other Russian “non-sanctioned companies” are up 1.0m b/d. (😇🤭)
According to data recently quoted by Goldman Sachs, since the sanctions came into effect, oil flows from Rosneft and Lukoil abroad had dropped by around 1 million barrels daily. However, in the same period, flows from non-sanctioned Russian oil companies to clients overseas have gained half a million barrels daily.
Earlier reports showed that sanctions had prompted a drop in new orders from Indian refiners before the deadline. Even so, Kpler data showed that Indian buyers were on track to import the most oil from Russia since July in November, at 1.855 million barrels daily. This would compare to 1.48 million barrels daily for October.
“Russian supply is expected to be high in November as many refineries tried to fill the stocks prior to the U.S. sanctions deadline and also due to the rule for oil products production for the EU market from non-Russian oil from 2026,” an unnamed trader told Reuters, which cited the Kpler data earlier this month.
