Authored by Joaquim Couto via The Brownstone Institute,

There was a time when debates about determinism and free will belonged to philosophy departments and late-night dorm room conversations.

They were enjoyable precisely because they seemed harmless. Whatever the answer, life went on. Courts judged, doctors decided, teachers taught, and politicians were still—at least nominally—held responsible for their actions.

That era is over.

Artificial intelligence has transformed what once appeared to be an abstract philosophical question into a concrete issue of governance, power, and accountability. Determinism is no longer merely a theory about how the universe works. It is becoming an operating principle for modern institutions. And that changes everything.

AI systems are deterministic by construction. They operate through statistical inference, optimization, and probability. Even when their outputs surprise us, they remain bound by mathematical constraints. Nothing in these systems resembles judgment, interpretation, or understanding in the human sense.

AI does not deliberate.

It does not reflect.

It does not bear responsibility for outcomes.

Yet increasingly, its outputs are treated not as tools, but as decisions. This is the quiet revolution of our time.

The appeal is obvious. Institutions have always struggled with human variability. People are inconsistent, emotional, slow, and sometimes disobedient. Bureaucracies prefer predictability, and algorithms promise exactly that: standardized decisions at scale, immune to fatigue and dissent.

In healthcare, algorithms promise more efficient triage. In finance, better risk assessment. In education, objective evaluation. In public policy, “evidence-based” governance. In content moderation, neutrality. Who could object to systems that claim to remove bias and optimize outcomes? But beneath this promise lies a fundamental confusion.

Prediction is not judgment.

Optimization is not wisdom.

Consistency is not legitimacy.

Human decision-making has never been purely computational. It is interpretive by nature. People weigh context, meaning, consequence, and moral intuition. They draw on memory, experience, and a sense—however imperfect—of responsibility for what follows. This is precisely what institutions find inconvenient.

Human judgment introduces friction. It requires explanation. It exposes decision-makers to blame. Deterministic systems, by contrast, offer something far more attractive: decisions without decision-makers.

When an algorithm denies a loan, flags a citizen, deprioritizes a patient, or suppresses speech, no one appears responsible. The system did it. The data spoke. The model decided.

Determinism becomes a bureaucratic alibi.

Technology has always shaped institutions, but until recently it mostly extended human agency. Calculators assisted reasoning. Spreadsheets clarified trade-offs. Even early software left humans visibly in control. AI changes that relationship.

Systems designed to predict are now positioned to decide. Probabilities harden into policies. Risk scores become verdicts. Recommendations quietly turn into mandates. Once embedded, these systems are difficult to challenge. After all, who argues with “The science?”

This is why the old philosophical debate has become urgent.

Classical determinism was a claim about causality: given enough information, the future could be predicted. Today, determinism is turning into a governance philosophy. If outcomes can be predicted well enough, institutions ask, why allow discretion at all?

Non-determinism is often caricatured as chaos. But properly understood, it is neither randomness nor irrationality. It is the space where interpretation occurs, where values are weighed, and where responsibility attaches to a person rather than a process.

Remove that space, and decision-making does not become more rational. It becomes unaccountable.

The real danger of AI is not runaway intelligence or sentient machines. It is the slow erosion of human responsibility under the banner of efficiency.

The defining conflict of the 21st century will not be between humans and machines. It will be between two visions of intelligence: deterministic optimization versus meaning-making under uncertainty.

One is scalable.

The other is accountable.

Artificial intelligence forces us to decide which one governs our lives.

President Trump’s Western Hemisphere defense posture, including expanded gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean targeting Venezuela and, by extension, Cuba, is disrupting Venezuela-to-Asia oil flows, a U.S. foreign policy move that has angered Beijing. This friction was indirectly signaled by Chinese state media on Friday, which aired a segment featuring People’s Liberation Army wargaming simulations of hypothetical conflict scenarios in the Caribbean theater.

The South China Morning Post reported that China Central Television (CCTV) showed red (PLA) and blue (enemy) forces maneuvering aircraft and warships near Cuba and Mexico, with blue units near Houston before moving into the Gulf of Mexico.

SCMP explained further:

One screen in the report showed red and blue opposing unit “indicators” – represented by aircraft and ships – manoeuvring near the coasts of Cuba and Mexico. Some of the blue side congregated near Houston, Texas, and headed southeast into the Gulf of Mexico, while the red side was seen in the Caribbean Sea.

In a typical PLA drill, the red side usually represents the Chinese military while the blue side is the enemy.

During the CCTV report, a close-up focused on Cuba showed the lines of trajectory of aircraft and ships in the region in what was likely a simulation of a tactical operation. Chinese researchers were seen pointing to the screen and discussing the situation.

The footage was recorded at a PLA wargaming event held in Xuchang, Henan province, which was attended by 20 units from across the military and its academies. Dozens of simulation systems were demonstrated – all of them developed in China.

PLA war games are rarely revealed, and to air on state television is yet another sign Beijing is furious with the Trump administration’s gunboat diplomacy to topple regimes in Venezuela and Cuba. 

Earlier this week, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian criticized the Trump administration for its seizure of multiple crude tankers.

Context is important: China has received much of Venezuela’s seaborne crude exports in recent years, accounting for well over half of total shipments. This is facilitated through a network of “dark fleet” tankers.

PLA’s decision to publicly broadcast wargaming scenarios, an unusually rare event, constitutes an external signal directed at the Trump administration in response to U.S. gunboat diplomacy in the Caribbean. The signaling reinforces the rationale for Trump’s move to secure the Caribbean basin first, thereby preempting potential Chinese naval encroachment. This U.S. military reposturing is best characterized as a shift toward Western Hemisphere defense, a framework we view in play through the 2030s (here’s how to profit).

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When you leave this earth, you want to make sure your loved ones are taken care of and that you leave behind a cherished legacy. But without a plan, you can leave your family with some serious headaches. That’s why it’s important to take some steps today to make sure this doesn’t happen. Let’s take a look at some options.

Consider a Living Trust

Without a proper plan dictating how you’d like your assets distributed after your passing, your estate—that is, everything you own—would need to go through a court process known as probate to determine who gets what. This can take months and even years. And with it can come hefty court fees and other expenses. Plus, it’s all public record.

But you can bypass this with a revocable living trust. As a trust grantor or creator, you can transfer various types of assets into a trust, such as cash, real estate, and investments. In the trust document, you can clearly outline how you’d want your assets distributed and under what terms. As trustee, you can also manage the assets in your lifetime or appoint someone else. In addition, you can appoint a successor trustee to manage and distribute assets based on your direction.

A living trust doesn’t go through probate. And because it removes assets from your estate, it can potentially shield you from the estate tax.

Update Beneficiaries

Certain accounts such as retirement plans can allow for beneficiaries that you may list when you open the account. This holds a lot of weight. In fact, it overrides wills. But as time passes, your intentions may change. Maybe you set your spouse as a beneficiary, but a divorce may have you thinking you’d want to change beneficiaries to someone else, such as your child. But if you don’t act fast, the initial beneficiary designation stays. So you may want to review beneficiary designations periodically to make sure they still align with your wishes.

Set Up a Durable Power of Attorney

Nobody likes to think about it, but anyone can become incapacitated at some point in their lives. This is why it’s important to establish a durable power of attorney. This individual, also called an agent, can step in to legally handle your financial matters should you become mentally incapable to do so. This agent also can oversee assets that don’t typically fit into a trust such as retirement plans.

In the durable power of attorney document, you should clearly outline your agent’s responsibilities, powers, and limitations.

But, overall, you’d have someone competent to continue managing your finances for the benefit of your loved ones.

Write a Will

Although a trust can open the door to a smooth distribution of your assets and avoid probate, a will can still come in handy.

More importantly, it allows you to designate legal guardians for any minor children. It also can provide guidance for personal items or assets unintentionally left out of your trust.

Take Advantage of Gift Tax Exclusions

So far, we’ve discussed passing on assets to your loved ones. But you can always pass on gifts to help your loved ones during your lifetime. In fact, current tax laws give you a lot of freedom here.

For 2025, as an example, you can give up to $19,000 per individual without incurring a gift tax. And married couples can double that limit, up to $38,000. But if you go over those limits, you generally won’t owe a tax. Still, you’d need to file IRS Form 709. And the amount that spills over decreases your lifetime gift and estate tax exclusion of $13.99 million for 2025 or $27.98 million for married couples. Once you go past those limits, you may face taxes.

However, the strategy of gifting substantially can shrink the size of your estate over time and potentially reduce or avoid the estate tax as a result.

Stay Organized

Even if you have the advantages of safeguards like trusts and durable power of attorney, one thing that could force the courts to step in is lack of information.

So, make sure you keep all important digital and physical documents safe and secure. Be sure to list all assets and asset types. Keep all account numbers, pins, passwords, and other crucial data safe and accessible for your agent or a trusted family member. Keep physical documents like financial statements, deeds, and titles in fireproof safes or something just as effective.

The Bottom Line

Without a solid plan, you may leave behind some stress for your family, and your assets may not be distributed as you would have thought fit. But you can take action to prevent this today. You can look into revocable living trusts, durable powers of attorney, wills, and more to create a sound estate-planning strategy. But as these tasks can be complex, it’s crucial that you design your plan with the help of a qualified estate-planning attorney.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2025. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is furious with journalist Megyn Kelly after she accused prominent Jews in the media – Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss – of “making antisemites” through their attempts to censor criticism of Israel.”

(If you don’t care about any of these people, feel free to stop reading here… fair warning) 

To bring you up to speed: Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, podcaster Candace Owens pointed the finger at Israel, suggesting that Kirk’s shifting views on Israel made him a target – and suggesting that Israel and France plotted Kirk’s death. This drew sharp criticism from the Daily Wire‘s Ben Shapiro (Owens’ former boss), journalist Bari Weiss, and the ADL – with Shapiro further accusing Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson of amplifying ‘antisemitism’ by platforming Owens and refusing to condemn her claims, while Kelly says attempts to censor criticism of Israel is in fact ‘making’ people into antisemites. 

So – a lot going on here. Prominent Jews are condemning conservatives who haven’t condemned Candace Owens – accusing them of fueling antisemitism, while Megyn Kelly says that in general, attempts to label conservatives critical of Israeli policy as ‘antisemites’ is actually creating antisemites. 

Tensions peaked at Turning Point USA’s AmFest conference last week, where Shapiro downplayed the 1967 USS Liberty incident in which Israel attacked a US Navy ship that killed 34 Americans – calling it a ‘mistake’ that’s now largely irrelevant because it happened so long ago:

The TPUSA AmFest audience erupted in cheers after a young White attendee questioned Ben Shapiro about Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

Shapiro—who frequently invokes the Holocaust—dismissed the incident as largely irrelevant today because it occurred so long ago.… pic.twitter.com/TkuYLT6scM

— AF Post (@AFpost) December 19, 2025

To which Carlson suggested that Shapiro’s deflection the question vs. debating it wasn’t what the movement should be about: 

Tucker Carlson bashed Ben Shapiro for calling a young man who posed a question about the USS Liberty as a “Hitlerite” moments prior.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/xSEwL5nUr2

— AF Post (@AFpost) December 19, 2025

The next day, Shapiro escalated during a speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he called Carlson an “enemy of the conservative movement” for promoting conspiracies.

Meanwhile, in a concurrent Vanity Fair interview, Megyn Kelly accused Shapiro and Weiss of “making antisemites” by aggressively labeling critics, calling Shapiro “Israel first,” and criticizing their alleged efforts to “cancel” her from the movement. 

To recap the drama:

Moments after Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, opened the conference with a speech calling her late husband a “peacemaker” and urging an end to the squabbling, Shapiro issued a blistering jeremiad that recalled William F. Buckley Jr.’s attempted excommunication of the far right. “The conservative movement is in serious danger,” Shapiro said, “from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile and despair.”

He denounced Candace Owens—a podcaster he once employed at The Daily Wire, the media company he co-founded—who has emerged as the chief purveyor of conspiracy theories about Kirk’s murder. Her videos investigating the killing, infused with all the drama of a true-crime documentary, have been viewed millions of times.

Shapiro extended his criticism to those he said have “refused to condemn Candace’s truly vicious attacks,” naming Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon. A few hours later on the same stage, Carlson fired back. “To hear calls for like, de-platforming and denouncing people at a Charlie Kirk event, I’m like, what?” Carlson said, with an air of annoyed confusion. “I mean, this kind of was the whole point of Charlie Kirk’s public life, and I think that he died for it.” -Vanity Fair

And Kelly’s comments on Shapiro etc. ‘making antisemites’ for quashing criticism of Israel:

“What Charlie and I saw at the same time was that the country is turning,” Kelly said. “And young Republicans are turning on Israel.” 

She argued that figures like Shapiro and Weiss are actually fueling the rise of antisemitism through their attempts to censor criticism of Israel. “They are making antisemites,” she said. “Tucker is not making antisemites. They are.” -Vanity Fair

The ADL replied to Kelly’s in a thread on X (with replies closed to anyone they don’t mention or follow): 

1/ Megyn Kelly’s recent comments cross a dangerous line. Accusing Jews of “making antisemites” blames Jewish people for the hate directed against them—a classic victim-blaming trope. 🧵 https://t.co/OU0JCzYoEf

— ADL (@ADL) December 23, 2025

continued…

3/ Moreover, calling Ben Shapiro “Israel first” invokes the age-old antisemitic dual loyalty trope that has fueled persecution and hatred against Jews for centuries.

ADL has documented time and again how this kind of rhetoric from public figures helps normalize antisemitism and…

— ADL (@ADL) December 23, 2025

Kelly fired back, telling the ADL “Nice try but these labels don’t work anymore,” adding “Instead of attacking me they should listen to me. Or keep on keeping on & create more enemies!”

Nice try but these labels don’t work anymore. The @ADL has defanged itself. Instead of attacking me they should listen to me. Or keep on keeping on & create more enemies! https://t.co/WM6T8lNtvh

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) December 24, 2025

As a somewhat funny aside, pro-Israel accounts are calling Kelly ‘Grandma Groyper…‘

If you read this far, it’s kinda on you at this point. 

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher who flourished during the early second century, said the chief task in life is to separate what is within one’s control from what is not.

“Externals are not in my power; will is in my power,” the famed Stoic said, according to a series of teachings compiled by his student Arrian and known as “The Discourses.” “Where shall I seek the good and the bad? Within, in the things which are my own.”

The philosophy of Stoicism promotes the reliance on reason and logic to determine what is good or virtuous and calls on its adherents not only to make such a determination but to act on it.

Stoic ideas have had a profound effect on Western culture, including in the fields of philosophy, literature, ethics, and even mathematics, and many of the teachings remain popular today.

The word “Stoic” derives from the Greek term “Stoa Poikile,” or “painted portico,” which refers to a colonnade adorned with murals depicting famous battles in the central public hub of ancient Athens. It was along this decorated colonnade that Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, walked with his students, imparting the tenets of his philosophy.

Born into a merchant family during the reign of Alexander the Great, Zeno initially took up his father’s trade. However, after surviving a shipwreck, he went to Athens, where he discovered teachings by Socrates and decided to devote himself to philosophy.

After studying under several prominent Athenian philosophers, Zeno opened up his own school. He taught regularly in the public marketplace for almost 40 years, until his death around 262 B.C., and his ideas became the foundation of what became known as Stoicism.

Although most of the writings of Zeno and the other early Stoic philosophers did not survive, their ideas had a profound influence on the philosophical discourse of the time, in Athens and beyond.

They became especially popular in the early period of the Roman Empire, where Stoic ideas were often part of the educational curriculum and espoused by prominent statesmen such as Cicero and Seneca, and even by the emperor Marcus Aurelius.

Zeno and other early Stoics were undoubtedly influenced by Socrates, and the philosophy of Stoicism shares certain basic ideas with other philosophers in the Socratic tradition.

The four cardinal virtues taught by the Stoics—prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice—were also discussed in the writings of both Plato and Aristotle. Stoics considered these virtues to be the highest virtues, on which all other virtues depend.

Prudence

“It’s not the accident that distresses this person,” said Epictetus, according to a short manual of practical Stoic ideas compiled by Arrian known as “Enchiridion.” “[It] is the judgement which he makes about it.”

Prudence comes from the Latin word “prudentia,” meaning foresight or sagacity. It is described by Stoics as the ability to discipline one’s thoughts and actions through the use of reason.

Stoics taught that each individual has the potential to think and act in accordance with the divine reason of the universe by employing the portion of reason that resides in his or her own mind. By applying the intellect to the impressions created by the universe, one can make logical judgments concerning what is good or virtuous and what is not.

One of the main themes of Stoic philosophy is distinguishing between external factors that one can’t control and internal factors that one can. While many things that occur in the world are beyond our control, what we can control are our thoughts, actions, and reactions.

Fortitude

Roman statesman Seneca, who faced his death at the order of Roman emperor Nero with Stoic calmness, had written in one of his letters: “He who has learned to die has unlearned slavery; he is above any external power, or, at any rate, he is beyond it. What terrors have prisons and bonds and bars for him?”

Fortitude refers not only to patience and endurance, but also to courage and bravery. Stoics pointed to the importance of forbearance, of calmly enduring those things in life that cause pain and suffering, and of accepting those things as part of the world in which we live.

Suffering is an inevitable part of human existence. Though we can’t stop or prevent it, we can control how we react to it. To consider it reasonably and bear it nobly is wisdom.

Yet it is not only suffering that must be faced with courage, but also fear. Whether the fear of battle, loss, poverty, or even death, Stoics believe that it should be overcome with reason and faced with bravery.

According to his student Arrian in “Enchiridion,” Epictetus said, “I must die. If now, I am ready to die. If, after a short time, I now dine because it is the dinner-hour; after this I will then die. How? Like a man who gives up what belongs to another.”

Another theme that recurs frequently in Stoic writings is that of acting in accordance with one’s beliefs. It is not enough to merely attain wisdom; one must act in a manner that conforms to the wisdom one has attained. This is especially true when those actions might bring trouble, condemnation, or even death, as a violation of one’s conscience is worse than all of those.

Temperance

Temperance means self-control or self-restraint, and it was often used by Stoics to refer to guarding against both the indulgence in pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

The early Stoic philosopher Chrysippus described passion, or strong emotions, as a misleading force resulting from a failure to reason. In his treatise “On Passions,” Chrysippus identified the four primary passions to guard against: sorrow, pleasure, fear, and desire.

He referred to sorrow and pleasure as present emotions, while identifying fear and desire as emotions directed at the future. In all cases, he believed these emotions should be constrained by reason whenever they appear in one’s mind.

Stoics did not believe in seeking pleasure, nor in pursuing wealth, fame, or status. They also did not advise avoiding hardship or shying away from difficult, unpleasant, or uncomfortable tasks. They believed in using reason to determine what is right, and in acting on that determination regardless of whatever emotions may arise.

Justice

Cicero, who wrote extensively on Stoic ideas in “On Duties,” deemed justice as “the crowning glory of the virtues” and its primary duty to “keep one man from doing harm to another.”

He said that justice constitutes the common bond of human society and of a virtuous community of life. The Stoic virtue of justice is based on acting in accordance with the highest good.

In other words, justice compels each person to conscientiously perform whatever duties fall to them, and it requires doing what is best for the community in which one lives. Thinking and acting with justice means fulfilling your duties to your fellow man, whatever they may be.

Justice, then, to the Stoic, is not some external system of punishment and reward, but rather a way of thinking and acting.

“Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice,” Cicero wrote in “Treatise on the Commonwealth.” “It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience.”

Enduring Value of Stoic Virtues

These four cardinal virtues of Stoicism—prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice—are interdependent.

Courage without prudence or temperance, or for purely selfish means, is not true courage, and neither is wisdom of any value without the fortitude to act on it. And of course, temperance, prudence, and fortitude are all necessary components of acting in service of the highest good, which is justice.

The virtues of Stoicism still provide guidance to the people living in modern society. The fact that this ancient philosophy has endured throughout the centuries and continues to inspire people around the world is a testament to its inherent value.

“The true felicity of life is to be free from perturbations, to understand our duties towards God and man, [and] to enjoy the present without any anxious dependence upon the future,” Seneca wrote in “Seneca’s Morals of a Happy Life, Benefits, Anger and Clemency.”

“[Rest] satisfied with what we have, which is abundantly sufficient; for he that is so, wants nothing,” he continued. “The great blessings of mankind are within us, and within our reach.”

Concealing missile and rocket artillery launchers, as well as loitering munition swarms, within civilian-style transport platforms such as container ships and commercial trucks is a long-established and well-documented tactic in asymmetric warfare.

Over the years, we have observed a wide range of these concealable missile systems:

• Watch: Hellfire Missile Launcher Hidden Inside Civilian Box Truck

• Ukraine Receives Missile System Disguised As “Ordinary” Shipping Container

• There Are Growing Fears That China Could Be Hiding Missiles In Containerships Worldwide

• Ukrainian Drone Swarm Attack Marks Grim “Inflection Point In History Of Warfare”

The latest example comes from a report published earlier this week by The War Zone, which documents a Chinese commercial cargo ship converted into a heavily armed vessel equipped with containerized weapons and high-tech sensors.

“It appears we are getting at least one installment of this in the form of a medium-sized cargo ship packed full of containerized vertical launchers, along with sensors and self defense systems,” TWZ’s Tyler Rogoway wrote in a note, adding, “The message is clear, China is making it known that it could, and likely will, turn ships from its behemoth of a commercial fleet into not just shooters, but arsenal ships.”

Rogoway noted that one of the most striking features is a deck covered with containerized vertical-launch system modules, providing an estimated 60 large launch cells, approximately two-thirds of the missile capacity of a U.S. Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. This suggests that the vessel will serve as a multi-operational platform. 

One factor that does make me wonder if this whole thing is real, however, is the text on the containers…

If one is able to read Chinese, the text is rather… amusing, for proper PLA projects. https://t.co/gmv3z2Pf1A pic.twitter.com/H6eq5kgDc8

— Rick Joe (@RickJoe_PLA) December 25, 2025

We have long pointed out that weaponized container ships constitute a credible asymmetric threat…

… with Beijing reportedly wargaming scenarios in the Caribbean theater amid elevated tensions over President Trump’s gunboat diplomacy aimed at destabilizing the Venezuelan and Cuban regimes, the big question is how many such ships China has already outfitted with VLS modules.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The worsening of Indo-US ties under Trump 2.0 has been one of the most unexpected foreign policy outcomes of his second presidency thus far, which this analysis here argues is due to him wanting to punish India for refusing to subordinate itself to the US.

Pakistani-US ties have inversely strengthened despite being very troubled under Trump 1.0, so much so that there’s been talk about Pakistan giving the US a commercial port for re-establishing its regional presence, which could have dual military purposes.

This background explains why Trump 2.0’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) was such a surprise for South Asian observers. Pakistan is only mentioned once and just in the context of Trump’s contentious boast of brokering a ceasefire between it and India even though Pakistan has been the centerpiece of this second administration’s regional policy up till this point. India is mentioned three other times in the document, however, with the next one pertaining to the Quad.

In their words, “We must continue to improve commercial (and other) relations with India to encourage New Delhi to contribute to Indo-Pacific security, including through continued quadrilateral cooperation with Australia, Japan, and the United States (‘the Quad’).”

They then proposed that “America should similarly enlist our European and Asian allies and partners, including India, to cement and improve our joint positions in the Western Hemisphere and, with regard to critical minerals, in Africa.”

In connection with that, “We should form coalitions that use our comparative advantages in finance and technology to build export markets with cooperating countries. America’s economic partners should no longer expect to earn income from the United States through overcapacity and structural imbalances but instead pursue growth through managed cooperation tied to strategic alignment and by receiving long-term U.S. investment.”

This can be interpreted as an allusion to India’s allegedly “unfair” trade practices.

The final reference was about “keep[ing] [South China Sea] lanes open, free of ‘tolls,’ and not subject to arbitrary closure by one country. This will require not just further investment in our military—especially naval—capabilities, but also strong cooperation with every nation that stands to suffer, from India to Japan and beyond, if this problem is not addressed.” In other words, building upon the second Quad-related reference, the US wants India playing a more active military role in the South China Sea.

Putting it all together, the US’ NSS sends mixed signals to India.

On the one hand, Pakistan’s conspicuous omission except in the context of Trump’s boast about brokering spring’s ceasefire should please India, provided that it believes that this presages a policy recalibration.

On the other hand, this is apparently conditional on India ramping up cooperation with the Quad, cooperating with the US on African mineral deals, opening its markets to more US exports, and containing China in the South China Sea.

Joint projects in third countries are possible as is India’s lowering of tariffs on US imports, but the Quad’s role has been overshadowed by AUKUS (and its informal NATO-like expansion of AUKUS+), while the incipient Sino-Indo rapprochement makes India reluctant to contain China outside of South Asia.

If the US’ attaches security strings to improving ties with India, particularly if it demands that India contain China in the South China Sea, then India will likely decline this proposal to avoid becoming the US’ proxy.

A federal judge on Monday issued a permanent injunction – ruling that California can’t prevent parents from learning when their children switch genders. 

US District Court Roger T. Benitez (Bush) entered the injunction barring officials from enforcing state policies, writing in in a 52-page decision “The State’s desire to protect vulnerable children from harassment and discrimination is laudable,” but that “the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm: they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse.”

“They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students,” the decision continues. 

Among California’s policies are rules prohibiting teachers from telling parents when their children begin going by a different name and/or gender, and forces teachers to use the child’s chosen names and pronouns when parents are not around. (Homeschooling FTW). 

Lawyers for the state argued that the policies provide a safe learning environment such that children “can learn without fear of being outed to their parents before they are ready.”

In his ruling, Benitez said that the state’s interest is too broad and not narrowly tailored to respect parental rights.

“In articulating their interest, the State Defendants completely ignore the fact that parents of students possess a free exercise right to direct a child’s religious teaching,” he said. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, the permanent injunction includes language that bars any employee in California’s education system from “misleading the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school, whether by: (i) directly lying to the parent; (ii) preventing the parent from accessing educational records of the child; or (iii) using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school.”

Attorneys for the Thomas More Society, who are representing teachers in the case, celebrated the ruling.

“The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the society, said in a statement.

“With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”

The Office of the California Attorney General has not yet released a statement on the decision, and an email seeking comment was not returned by publication time.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Below is a geopolitical map of the Western Hemisphere as I see it today.

The principal geopolitical foes of the US in the Western Hemisphere—Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—are firmly in the China and Russia camp.

Other countries can shift depending on the outcome of recent elections.

Here’s an overview of some of the most geopolitically important countries in the Western Hemisphere to help frame the broader picture.

Venezuela

A military confrontation over Venezuela appears increasingly likely.

Since Hugo Chávez’s rise to power in 1999, Caracas has aligned itself with Russia and China. Venezuela’s vast oil and gold reserves make it a geopolitical prize. The country holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—over 303 billion barrels, around 17 % of the global total—concentrated in the Orinoco Belt. That’s more oil than Saudi Arabia’s reported reserves.

For China and Russia, Venezuela represents a geopolitical foothold in America’s backyard—much like how the US uses Taiwan and Ukraine to do the same to Beijing and Moscow.

Trump’s renewed “war on drugs” is a thinly veiled pretext for the US to advance its geopolitical interests in the Americas.

Further, earlier this year, Washington labeled Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles as “foreign terrorist organizations,” a dramatic escalation without precedent. The designations paved the way for military and covert actions under counterterrorism authorities.

The US has amassed an impressive naval force off Venezuela’s coast in what Trump described as a campaign against “narco-terrorism.”

In reality, this looks more like classic gunboat diplomacy—the drugs-and-terrorism narrative is merely a thin patina of propaganda used to justify the policy. Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer, nor does it play any significant role in fentanyl trafficking.

Venezuela now stands at the crossroads of a changing world order. It’s difficult to imagine the US securing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere while Venezuela remains in its current geopolitical orientation—promoting an ideology that Latin America should be independent of the US.

Guyana

Guyana has quietly become one of the most geopolitically significant states in the Western Hemisphere. Its oil boom, its vulnerability to a long-running territorial dispute with Venezuela, and its growing alignment with the US situate it at the forefront of the conflict over control of the Western Hemisphere.

Washington’s recent deepening of economic and security ties signals recognition of that shift. Meanwhile, Caracas’s legislative and military moves to assert control over Guyana’s Essequibo region reflect a bold challenge—not just to Guyana, but to the US’s hemispheric influence.

Cuba

Cuba may look small on a map, but its position—just 90 miles from Florida—makes it one of the most strategically important pieces on the hemispheric chessboard.

In a world where geography still defines power, Cuba’s proximity to the US and its historic defiance of Washington give it an outsized geopolitical weight.

As the US refocuses on consolidating influence in the Western Hemisphere, Cuba is a challenge.

For Washington, the island’s alignment with China and Russia complicates efforts to assert control over the region.

For Beijing and Moscow, Cuba offers a rare foothold in America’s own backyard—a place to project soft power, intelligence, and potentially even military influence, without crossing direct red lines.

Economically, Cuba’s partnerships with China and Russia help it survive under US sanctions. Beijing has become Cuba’s largest trading partner and a major investor in telecommunications, ports, and infrastructure. Moscow, meanwhile, has pledged more than $1 billion in economic cooperation and continues to strengthen energy and defense ties. These relationships allow Havana to maintain political autonomy and serve as a symbolic anchor for anti-US sentiment across Latin America.

In short, Cuba is more than a relic of Cold War geopolitics—it’s a live variable in today’s multipolar order.

Cuba is also a stark reminder of the limits of the US government’s power. Since 1959, Washington has unleashed covert operations, economic embargoes, and numerous attempts to topple the Cuban regime—and yet it remains.

What new move could the US now deploy that it hasn’t already tried?

Short of a full-scale military invasion—which would itself offer no guarantee of success—I don’t see any viable alternative.

That means the Cuban government is likely to maintain its current geopolitical orientation and continue serving as a thorn in the side of US ambitions in the Western Hemisphere.

Colombia

Colombia has long been one of Washington’s most reliable allies in Latin America. Hugo Chávez famously—and derisively—referred to it as “the Israel of South America.”

That pattern has shifted under the country’s current left-wing president, Gustavo Petro. Earlier this year, he traveled to China and signed a cooperation plan marking Colombia’s formal accession to the Belt and Road Initiative—a move that rattled Washington. In response, Trump announced the suspension of US aid and threatened tariffs against Colombia, accusing Petro’s government of failing to curb narcotics.

The key question now is whether Colombia’s pivot toward Beijing marks a lasting strategic realignment or simply a temporary detour under Petro’s leadership. The direction Colombia ultimately takes will carry major geopolitical implications for the Americas—especially given its position bordering both Venezuela and Panama.

Nicaragua

Nicaragua has firmly aligned itself with China and Russia, positioning the Ortega government as one of Washington’s most outspoken adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.

Economically, Nicaragua has embraced China as a partner in infrastructure and investment, offering Beijing a strategic toehold in Central America. The Ortega administration has actively courted Chinese financing for energy, telecommunications, and port projects—moves that fit neatly into Beijing’s broader Belt and Road ambitions. Relations with the US, by contrast, have deteriorated sharply amid sanctions, trade restrictions, and public criticism of Ortega.

Brazil

Brazil, Latin America’s largest country by size and population, finds itself at a pivotal juncture in the hemisphere’s evolving geopolitical map.

Under former president Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil aligned closely with the US—sharing trade policies and strategic cooperation. That posture shifted with the return of Lula da Silva, who has pushed Brazil toward stronger ties with China.

Tensions with the US erupted recently when Trump imposed a sweeping 50% tariff on Brazilian exports, citing Brazil’s prosecution of Bolsonaro and what Washington called unfair trade practices. Brazil responded by filing a complaint at the World Trade Organization, invoking its new Reciprocity Law and hinting at retaliatory tariffs of its own. The result: a major rift with the US and a clear signal that Brazil is recalibrating its strategic orientation.

Brazil’s direction matters enormously. A lasting US-Brazil split could realign trade flows, shift regional power dynamics, and boost China’s influence in Latin America. Conversely, if Brazil ultimately steers back toward Washington, it would reaffirm the US’s dominant position in the hemisphere.

Panama

Panama has emerged as a crucial flashpoint in the contest for influence across the Western Hemisphere.

With the Panama Canal at the center of global trade and US naval strategy, the Trump administration views any Chinese foothold near the waterway as intolerable.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama and delivered a blunt message: reduce Chinese influence around the canal or face consequences. Within days, Panama announced it would not renew its memorandum with China’s Belt and Road Initiative—a move widely seen as a victory for US pressure.

The backdrop is unmistakable: Trump himself has publicly questioned the sovereignty of the canal, suggesting the US might ”take it back.”

The strategic intent is clear—Panama must align with the United States rather than Beijing. The canal is too vital for Washington to treat as neutral.

Washington’s recent hard line evokes echoes of 1989, when US military forces invaded Panama to remove Manuel Noriega and install a friendly regime.

Mexico

Mexico sits squarely at the heart of the Americas both geographically and economically. As the US’s largest trading partner, Mexico has deep economic, manufacturing, and logistical links with Washington—from cross-border supply chains to shared infrastructure.

At the same time, Mexico engages with China economically. Chinese goods and investment are flowing into Mexico at a growing pace, sometimes causing friction with the US, which worries that Mexico could become a backdoor for Chinese influence or trade. Mexico’s leadership also shows signs of asserting greater independence, pursuing its own path on global diplomacy and trade policy rather than fully falling in line with Washington.

Further, Mexico faces new pressure from Washington to treat its drug cartels as terrorist threats. The Trump administration has declared major Mexican criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations and is laying plans for military operations inside Mexico’s borders.

For Mexico’s leadership, this presents a serious challenge. Mexico firmly asserts that no foreign military operations may take place on its soil without authorization, and sees unilateral US action as a breach of national sovereignty.

Mexico could become a pivot point where US geopolitical strategy collides with Latin American autonomy.

El Salvador

El Salvador is an interesting example of the geopolitical tug-of-war between China and the US in Latin America.

A defining moment came when Washington paid roughly $6 million to El Salvador to detain hundreds of deportees—mainly Venezuelans—in the country’s maximum-security prison. Shortly after, the US hosted President Bukele at the White House, praising his government’s hard-line approach to gangs, migration control, and internal security.

At the same time, Bukele has deepened ties with China. Beijing has financed major Salvadoran infrastructure projects, including the new national library, a modern stadium, and an expansive waterfront tourism corridor.

So far, Bukele has managed to balance relationships with both Washington and Beijing. Whether that balance can hold remains to be seen, but for now, El Salvador stands as one of the few countries effectively navigating both sides of the great-power rivalry.

Argentina

Under Javier Milei, Argentina has become a key partner for the US in South America.

That’s why the US has made an unusually large and openly political bet on Argentina. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and President Trump previously announced a $20 billion currency swap that allows the US Treasury to buy Argentine pesos and deliver dollars to help stabilize Argentina’s financial system. They also outlined plans to assemble another $20 billion from US banks and private funds, bringing total potential support to around $40 billion.

Trump described the deal as an “economic Monroe Doctrine,” making clear that this is not simply an economic program but a geopolitical play. He tied the continuation of US support directly to President Javier Milei’s political success.

The US interest in Argentina is not hard to understand. Argentina is the third-largest economy in Latin America, with a GDP of about $600 billion. It is a major exporter of agricultural products and holds some of the world’s largest shale gas reserves. It also possesses huge lithium deposits. These resources are strategically valuable in a world where supply chains for food, energy, and critical minerals are becoming more important amid rising tensions with Russia and China.

What makes Argentina stand out is its political direction. While many large Latin American economies maintain closer ties to China or are leaning toward the BRICS bloc, Argentina under Milei has taken the opposite path. Milei withdrew from the BRICS expansion plan, canceled or froze Chinese infrastructure agreements, scaled back the use of China’s currency swap lines, opened the strategic Paraná River region to US military cooperation, and began signing new mineral agreements with US partners. For Washington, reducing Chinese influence in Argentina and securing access to critical resources are major incentives behind the financial support.

For Argentina, the US swap line is meant to stabilize the peso and support Milei’s market-friendly reforms. But the political conditionality creates risk. If reforms stall or if Milei loses legislative momentum, the US may pull back, which could quickly destabilize the currency again.

In the most recent national elections, Milei’s party made significant gains, winning roughly 41% of the vote and increasing its congressional representation enough to strengthen its ability to block opposition measures. Markets interpreted this as a sign that US backing will continue for now and that reform efforts will remain in place.

The bigger picture is that Washington is using financial leverage to secure influence in a strategically important, resource-rich country.

When Geopolitics Shifts, Financial Reality Follows

The great-power struggle unfolding across the Western Hemisphere isn’t just a regional contest—it’s a sign of the deeper economic fractures now spreading through the global system.

As the US, China, and Russia compete for influence in Latin America, the financial foundations that once underpinned American global dominance are weakening under the weight of inflation, debt, and an overstretched monetary order.

Geopolitical realignment is accelerating a financial reckoning that will affect every saver and investor long before it reshapes national borders.

To understand how this hemispheric tug-of-war connects directly to what may be the most dangerous economic crisis in a century—and to learn the three essential strategies you need right now to protect yourself—I strongly recommend reading my free PDF special report, The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years: The Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to access it now.

For much of the past year, America’s largest food manufacturers haven’t been able to rebut Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated claims that ultraprocessed foods are making Americans sick – something most Americans believe. 

So instead of even trying to pretend their products are even the slightest bit healthy, the industry appears to have settled on a narrower counterargument; Yes, the food may be bad for you, but it’s CHEAP! And in an era when grocery bills have become a political liability (and who cares about the long-term drag on the healthcare system), that may be defense enough.

Food companies are making the case as they seek to blunt a growing wave of state-level efforts to regulate ingredients commonly found in ultraprocessed products. Those efforts, encouraged by Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, range from restrictions on synthetic dyes to warning labels for chemical additives. Industry executives and lobbyists argue that such measures, taken state by state, will drive up costs for consumers already struggling with inflation.

“The dynamic here is affordability,” Sam Geduldig, a managing partner at the Republican lobbying firm CGCN, which represents Kraft Heinz, told Politico. “You have a MAHA movement that would like to accomplish one goal, and then you have an inflation, economic affordability issue on the other side that runs counter.”

The argument has been sharpened for political effect. In late October, major food companies and trade groups – including Kraft Heinz, Nestlé and PepsiCo – launched a coalition called Americans for Ingredient Transparency. The group has begun a six-figure advertising campaign warning that a patchwork of state regulations would raise grocery prices and urging Congress to establish a single federal standard that would override state rules.

Businesses have long preferred federal preemption when faced with divergent state requirements, and the food industry is no exception. What is new is the framing. The coalition’s message is calibrated to appeal to Republican lawmakers uneasy about rising costs and skeptical of regulations that might be blamed for them.

“President Trump is cutting costs and delivering real relief for working families,” Andy Koenig, a senior adviser to the coalition and a former Trump administration official, said in a statement, “but these well-intentioned state bills are creating a patchwork of labeling regulations that could undermine his goal to lower costs for Americans.”

The industry’s push comes amid record lobbying spending in Washington. Trade groups and major manufacturers have poured millions into K Street as the Trump administration – more insular and more openly skeptical of corporate influence than in its first term – has proved harder to access. Polling commissioned by the industry underscores why affordability has become its chosen refrain: A recent POLITICO survey found that nearly half of Americans now consider grocery prices the “most challenging” household expense, outranking housing and health care.

Yet the industry’s economic argument runs alongside another political reality. Polls also show broad agreement with Mr. Kennedy’s view that ultraprocessed foods are damaging public health, particularly for children. In October, a survey by KFF and The Washington Post found that large majorities of Americans see highly processed foods as a major health threat.

Kennedy has leaned into that sentiment, often naming familiar brands. At his confirmation hearing, he contrasted the ingredient lists of American products with their counterparts abroad. “If you buy McDonald’s french fries in our country, there’s 11 ingredients,” he said. “If you buy Froot Loops in our country, they’re loaded with food dyes—yellow dye, red dye, blue dye.”

At the federal level, Kennedy is pursuing a rule change that would require additional scrutiny when food companies alter recipes or introduce new ingredients. At the same time, he has encouraged states, including Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, to move ahead on their own. Legislatures across the country have responded. More than a hundred bills targeting sugar, synthetic dyes and chemical additives have been introduced this year, nearly five times as many as last year, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Some measures have already passed. California enacted the nation’s first ban on ultraprocessed foods in public schools. Texas approved a law requiring warning labels on products containing any of 44 additives—a statute the food industry is now challenging in court.

“These state laws are ultimately going to lead to increased cost,” said Charles Leftwich, vice president for food safety and quality assurance at Sysco, the country’s largest food distributor. “Those costs are ultimately going to get passed down to consumers.” (or not?)

Consumer advocates and MAHA supporters dispute that framing. They argue that federal preemption would weaken standards rather than harmonize them, particularly given the industry’s influence in Washington.

“A federal standard favors large multinational companies with a lot of money to lobby for less restrictive standards,” said Jennifer Galardi, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who focuses on MAHA-aligned issues. “We see a state-by-state approach as emulating the checks and balances that our federalist system was designed to produce.”

The tension is already visible inside the administration. The final version of a Kennedy-backed report on childhood chronic disease released in September softened language from an earlier draft that had described ultraprocessed foods as “detrimental” to children’s health. The revised document instead called for a federal definition of ultraprocessed foods—a shift some advocates attribute to industry pressure.

Earlier this year, companies including Kraft Heinz and Nestlé pledged to voluntarily phase out artificial dyes. But those gestures have not slowed a lobbying counteroffensive aimed at stopping state laws before they spread.

“It is one of the top things we are planning around,” said one lobbyist for a beverage company, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The strategy mirrors tactics used by other industries navigating the Trump administration. In November, a coalition backed by artificial intelligence companies launched a $10 million advertising campaign urging federal standards for AI regulation. The president signed an executive order weeks later. Health insurers and hospital groups have deployed similar campaigns to preserve Obamacare subsidies.

For MAHA advocates, the pattern is familiar – and troubling. States, they note, have often led the federal government on public health, from trans fat bans to chemical warning labels.

“This isn’t about affordability,” said Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group. “This is about maintaining the status quo.”

Whether Congress embraces a federal food standard will test an open question in Republican politics: whether the party remains reflexively aligned with business interests, or whether Mr. Kennedy’s populist critique of corporate power has lasting influence.

For now, the industry’s most persuasive response to being accused of poisoning Americans is not a denial. It is a reminder that the poison, at least, is cheap.