Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest.

Here is the column:

For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news.

This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador.

In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity.

After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation.

That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress.

Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them.

These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases.

The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio).

It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers.

The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets.

Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution.

The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers.

It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years.

Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.”

Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration.

Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.”

Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.”

However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations.

There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot.

Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates.

Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department.

The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers.

Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department.

I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone.

None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.

Nick Gerli, CEO and founder of the real estate analytics firm Reventure Consulting, has posted another informative housing-market update on X. This time, he outlines how a major demographic turning point will reshape housing demand and even the size of homes people will want.

By 2032, Gerli pointed out that deaths will exceed births in the U.S., and this crossover point – four decades in the making – will have significant implications on the housing market, including: 

1. structurally lower homebuyer demand, as declining births and family formation lowers the need and urgency for young people to buy houses

2. more inventory, as incrementally more deaths and the aging out of the Baby Boomer generation increases listings (Freddie Mac estimates 9 million homes by 2035).

The U.S. Housing Market is about to get hit by a big demographic shift.

By 2032, there will be more deaths than births in the U.S.

This crossover point will be the continuation of a long-term trend over the last four decades, and ultimately will have the following impacts:

a)… pic.twitter.com/8cLAUEd4IM

— Nick Gerli (@nickgerli1) November 23, 2025

“This will likely have a disinflationary and/or deflationary impact on home prices over the long-term,” Gerli said. 

He noted this trend will ultimately lead to “fewer children will invariably lead to lower homebuyer demand, and more renter demand.”

He said this will ultimately lead to “an increase in the demand for other types of houses to buy — such as smaller ranch-style homes and starter homes,” adding that “McMansion-style neighborhoods probably won’t fare as well based on current demographic trends.”

Gerli hedged his outlook with this…

8) Of course – things could shift. The current trends continuing isn’t a guarantee.

Note that the 1940s and 50s in the U.S., a massive baby boom occured. Where the fertility rate soared by 56% over two decades.

Some of that was a return to normal after the Great Depression.… pic.twitter.com/W7z60pbMx5

— Nick Gerli (@nickgerli1) November 23, 2025

He did not mention the open border invasion of tens of millions of migrants and their impact on the housing market. 

Also, we pointed out the other week that multigenerational living has surged to a record high as families increasingly combine households to cope with elevated inflation after the Biden-Harris regime years, effectively pooling more resources under one roof (read the report).

President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has “disbanded” – or at least that’s the narrative Reuters is pushing to start the week, as the globalist left-leaning media outlet tries to rile up the progressive base and claim a victory. 

Reuters ran with the headline, “Exclusive: DOGE ‘doesn’t exist’ with eight months left on its charter,” and recently quoted Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor saying, “That doesn’t exist,” when asked about DOGE’s status.

It’s no longer a “centralized entity,” Kupor added, in the first public comments from the Trump administration. 

Perhaps there was some misinterpretation, because the report goes on to state that “OPM, the federal government’s human resources office, has since taken over many of DOGE’s functions.”

In fact, Reuters was hit with a Community Note on X, where the top note pointed out:

There is no evidence that DOGE has shutdown. There is no mention of it on the press secretary, Elon, Trump, the WH , DOGE or any other gov official account. Including DOGE official website. As of 9 hours ago DOGE was still posting about the work they are doing.

• https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1992433682074743257?t=YwneTda8TLPrnMyOY6VO1A&s=19

• https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1977928905169269143?t=7xhRsok88w0c2pVZsElwTA&s=19

• https://x.com/DOGE/status/1992615954065330507?t=HqjAT2L5MTKGdEd1wy7o0w&s=19

• https://www.doge.gov/join

• https://x.com/PressSec/status/1991932554908225586?t=LpC36ggtJNJ4S5Zf9Za4nw&s=19

• https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1992605677144207798?t=B3UBu7_4bcxNn_4vFKNoyA&s=19

Shortly after Reuters ran its DOGE narrative, Kupor combatted the misinformation: 

Good editing by @reuters – spliced my full comments across paragraphs 2/3 to create a grabbing headline 🙂 The truth is: DOGE may not have centralized leadership under @USDS . But, the principles of DOGE remain alive and well: de-regulation; eliminating fraud, waste and abuse; re-shaping the federal workforce; making efficiency a first-class citizen; etc. DOGE catalyzed these changes; the agencies along with @USOPM and @WHOMB will institutionalize them! 

Good editing by @reuters – spliced my full comments across paragraphs 2/3 to create a grabbing headline 🙂 The truth is: DOGE may not have centralized leadership under @USDS. But, the principles of DOGE remain alive and well: de-regulation; eliminating fraud, waste and abuse;…

— Scott Kupor (@skupor) November 23, 2025

The latest from DOGE, not even one day ago, states: 

Contracts Update! Over the last 9 days, agencies terminated and descoped 78 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $1.9B and savings of $335M, including an $616k HHS IT services contract for “social media monitoring platform subscription”, an $191k USAGM broadcasting contract for “broadcast operations and maintenance in Ethiopia, Africa”, and a $4.3M IRS IT services contract for “Inflation Reduction Act transformation project management support”.

Contracts Update!

Over the last 9 days, agencies terminated and descoped 78 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $1.9B and savings of $335M, including an $616k HHS IT services contract for “social media monitoring platform subscription”, an $191k USAGM broadcasting… pic.twitter.com/83ldxUZ1NY

— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) November 23, 2025

The official government website for DOGE shows no indication that the operation to root out significant government waste and fraud has been wound down. In fact, cost savings so far this year total $214 billion – however, far short of Elon Musk’s $1 trillion goal.

This is not the first time for Reuters…

Reuters is lying (again)

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 5, 2024

Hmm, a media outlet based in a foreign country publishing propaganda pieces on US politics?

Can Reuters be trusted? Latest polls show American trust in the mainstream media has collapsed. So the short answer is…

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

We’re hearing it everywhere: AI is in a bubble. The surge in capital, the parabolic stock charts, and the bold claims from CEOs all have a familiar rhythm. Nvidia’s valuation has soared, along with AI-related startups raising billions with little to no revenue. Investment in data centers, chips, and infrastructure is happening at a scale not seen since the internet boom of the 1990s, which immediately reminds investors of what happened next. The question isn’t whether AI is important; it’s whether the price of that importance is being inflated beyond reason. That is the nature of market bubbles.

Voices in the market are split. Some, like Jared Bernstein, former Biden CEA chairman, said:

“We point out that the share of the economy devoted to AI investment is nearly a third greater than the share of the economy devoted to internet related investments back during the dotcom bubble. So, we think there are enough analogies there to make the call.”

Others argue this is not a bubble, at least not yet.

“Macro bubbles” – asset price distortions with large economy-wide consequences – have generally involved not just overvalued asset prices but also dramatic impacts on spending and capital flows that have been both clues that a bubble is under way and forces that serve to undermine it.

The 1990s was a classic example. Alongside soaring equity prices, investment spending boomed, leverage rose, capital poured in, and profitability and balance sheet strength declined, while credit spreads and equity volatility moved higher. The macro and market imbalances that we saw then, particularly from 1998 onward, are not generally visible yet.” – Goldman Sachs

This split is normal. Every major innovation cycle creates a divide between skeptics who see overvaluation and optimists who see a new era of growth. The challenge for investors is not to take sides, but to understand what bubbles do, why they’re so hard to identify in real time, and how to benefit from them without being destroyed by them.

Yes, we may be in the second market bubble of this century. Alternatively, the market may be pricing in a shift as fundamental as the transition to either electricity or the internet. Either way, investors must think clearly, act deliberately, and avoid the kind of blind speculation that turned past booms into bloodbaths.

Market Bubbles Aren’t All Bad

Market bubbles carry a negative reputation because we witness the devastation in the aftermath of their collapse.

However, from a broader perspective, market bubbles also carry active value. During the inflation of a bubble, you see excessive optimism, capital flowing rapidly, and valuations detached from fundamentals. This is undoubtedly the case with respect to Artificial Intelligence as we currently see it.

Still, this environment often gives rise to genuine innovation. As Jeremy Grantham once argued:

“Bubbles are wonderful at generating new technologies.”

His point echoes through history.

Take the British railway mania of the 1840s. Investors poured capital into rail lines, many of which failed. However, in the end, the result was a vast transport network that transformed the economy. Or consider the late‑1990s dot‑com boom. The always wrong Paul Krugman once said:

“The Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine.”

That quote was made during the height of the dot-com bubble, a period that many now consider a textbook example of financial excess. However, it also laid the foundation for the modern digital economy. The infrastructure that powers Amazon, Google, and Microsoft was created because billions of dollars flowed into companies, many of which failed. Yet their collective capital expenditures left behind fiber optic cables, server farms, and developer tools that enabled the next wave.

When capital floods into a technological frontier, many bets fail. But some win. That outcome sets a foundation for future growth.

The AI boom is following a similar path. Companies are spending heavily on GPUs, data centers, and custom models. Most of them will not survive, but their investments are accelerating real capabilities. AI is being integrated into products, streamlining operations, and driving the creation of new business models. Nvidia, Microsoft, and Meta are racing to build the next layer of compute infrastructure. This isn’t abstract theory; it’s already showing up in earnings reports and productivity metrics.

Understanding that a bubble can be beneficial involves recognizing two key points.

1. You don’t dismiss the boom simply because it is speculative. You acknowledge that capital is being deployed and that it will have future positive implications.

2. You accept that risk is inherent during such periods. From one angle, the bubble looks reckless. However, from another, it seems like the stage where breakthroughs become possible. By appreciating the positive aspect, you gain clarity about what is happening and why it matters for investors.

You should treat a bubble not as a spectacle to be ignored, but as a phenomenon to be studied. Market bubbles are periods where capital loses discipline, but that loss of discipline funds the future. The value created during inflation often matters more than the value destroyed during the burst.

That’s why you don’t ignore market bubbles; you study them, respect them, and use them to your advantage.

Why Bubbles Are Only Obvious in Hindsight

Currently, many predict that the AI market bubble is set to burst. Every time the technology sector wobbles, the media is quick to push headlines of the end of the AI boom. However, each time, those warnings turned false and impaired investors who paid attention to them.

This doesn’t mean the warnings aren’t valid. Yes, current valuations are very high in many cases, and many of the companies either in the market today, or coming to it, likely won’t succeed. The problem is always the “timing” of the call.

For most investors, bubbles are never evident until they pop.

While rising prices may seem like evidence of irrational behavior, this may not be the case today or in the future if the future turns out as expected. Of course, there are a lot of “ifs” in that forecast. A good example was from Research Affiliates discussing Tesla (TSLA) in 2018:

“Tesla’s current price is arguably fair if most cars are powered by electricity in 10 years, if most of these cars are made by Tesla, if Tesla can make those cars with sufficient margin and quality control and can service the cars properly, and if Tesla can raise additional capital sufficient to cover a $3 billion annual cash drain and another billion to service its debt.”

As noted, there were many “ifs” in that statement. However, as we approach that 10th anniversary, TSLA is still operating and growing, but doesn’t sell MOST of the cars in America. However, for investors who bailed on Tesla in 2018, assuming it was a bubble, they have paid a price for that decision.

As noted, while the RA’s analysis was sound, that is what makes market bubbles so hard to identify. Valuations can exceed what you consider reasonable and remain elevated for longer than you anticipate.

In real-time, a bubble appears to be a trend backed by solid fundamentals. The early phases attract smart capital. The next phase brings in copycats and momentum traders. But by the time people start warning about a bubble, the narrative is fully established. Calling a market bubble too early can be just as costly as calling it too late. As Howard Marks wrote:

“Being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.”

Even seasoned investors misjudge it. During the late 1990s, Warren Buffett was widely mocked for sitting out of the tech rally. His response was simple: he didn’t understand how to value the companies. He was right, eventually, but missed a massive run. Others, like Julian Robertson, tried to short the bubble and suffered enormous losses before it burst.

The AI surge fits the classic pattern. A legitimate breakthrough in computing power and algorithmic capability has led to rapid adoption. OpenAI’s ChatGPT reached 100 million users faster than any consumer product in history. Nvidia’s revenue tripled in a year. These facts are real. What’s unknown is how much of this growth is sustainable.

You only know it was a bubble when prices collapse and companies disappear. But by then, it’s too late to protect your capital. The Spyglass article put it well:

“You never really know it’s a bubble until the knife is already halfway through your chest.”

That’s why humility is essential.

If you think it might be a bubble, you’re already ahead of most investors. But timing it? That’s luck, not skill.

How to Participate During the Inflation and Avoid the Deflation

Participating in a bubble doesn’t mean going all in. It means allocating resources wisely, managing risk effectively, and knowing when to step back. The goal is not to call the top. It’s to avoid the worst of the collapse while capturing some of the upside..

Recognize the structural backdrop.

• AI is a genuine transformative technology. The AI surge entails substantial capital expenditures in data centers, chips, computing capacity, and cloud services. That means there is real substance beneath the hype.

• Nonetheless, the valuations and the speed of investment suggest that the market is pricing in extremely optimistic scenarios, characterized by high growth, low risk, and rapid monetization.

How you should position your investment. To participate while managing risk, you might follow these steps:

• Focus on companies with strong fundamentals and realistic business models. Since bubbles bring many “spray and pray” investments, your edge lies in filtering.

• Allocate only a portion of your portfolio to the “bubble zone,” and recognize the high-risk/high-reward nature.Do not rely on it for core returns.

• Use this bubble to invest in infrastructure and enabling technologies rather than pure “moonshot” names. The infrastructure often survives the bust. For example, in the dot‑com era, the winners included those who built the backbone rather than the most hyped storefronts.

• Consider time‑horizon and liquidity. If you invest in bubble‐type assets, you must be prepared for high volatility and potential loss of capital if the bubble deflates.

How to avoid the consequences of the eventual deflation. Since bubbles eventually correct, you must adopt safeguards:

• Set exit rules. Define ahead of time the conditions under which you’ll reduce exposure (e.g., valuation multiple, margin of safety erosion, fundamental deterioration).

• Diversify across themes. Do not place all your bets in one bubble. If the bubble bursts, you want other anchors in your portfolio.

• Monitor fundamentals. The bubble phase often disconnects from fundamentals. When you observe that the disconnect is widening, the risk rises.

• Avoid leverage. Borrowing into a bubble makes the downside much steeper. Many historic bubble collapses were amplified by excessive debt.

• Keep long‑term winners in view. Some companies will emerge stronger post‑bubble. Try to identify them now, hold them, but be wary of paying hype‑driven valuations.

Start with this: focus on quality. In every bubble, a few companies emerge stronger. Amazon fell by over 90% during the dot-com crash but survived because it had a real business model and strong execution. The rest disappeared. Today, investors should look for companies with free cash flow, pricing power, and tangible applications of AI. Nvidia might be expensive, but it’s selling the picks and shovels in this gold rush. That’s a more sustainable model than a startup burning cash to fine-tune a chatbot.

Even using something as simple as a 40-week moving average can help you navigate both the inflation and deflation of a bubble.

No, you won’t get in at the bottom, or out at the top. But remember what is most important: participation is optional, but survival is mandatory.

The first coupon auction of the holiday-shortened week just priced and it was a snoozer, which came in right as expected. 

The sale of $69BN in 2 year notes, priced at a high yield of 3.489%, down from 3.504% in October and the lowest since August 2022; it also priced on the screws with the 3.489% when issued.

The bid to cover was 2.684, up from 2.590 and the highest since August.

The internals were also solid, with Indirects awarded 58.1%, the highest since June, and above the six auction average of 57.9%. And with Directs taking 30.7%, in line with the recent average of 30.9%, Dealers were left with 11.2%, also right on top of the recent average of 11.1%. 

Overall, this was a solid auction, which came in line with expectations on most metrics, which explains why the market reaction was non-existent with yields trading near session lows after news of the auction priced, and why traders took one look at the results and went on their merry way.

A federal judge has dismissed cases against former FBI Director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James, after finding that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed to the role, and that AG Pam Bondi cannot ratify her actions.

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the DOJ can try again when they get their act together. 

BREAKING

A federal judge just DISMISSED James Comey’s case without prejudice because of Lindsey Halligan’s unlawful appointment.

More soon on All Rise News.

Doc https://t.co/m6S1O9vWK5

Background https://t.co/KPpEL9WuKm pic.twitter.com/gaQwNGzB79

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) November 24, 2025

As Axios notes;

• The indictment against Comey came as the statute of limitations was set to expire. Trump ousted U.S. attorney Erik Siebert, who had reportedly believed there was not enough evidence to bring a case against Comey or New York Attorney General Letitia James.
• Trump replaced Siebert with Lindsey Halligan, who had previously worked for him. She is now serving as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia despite having no prosecutorial experience.
• Judge William Fitzpatrick warned in a November opinion that “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” could have undermined the proceedings, leaving the indictment in jeopardy.

Developing…

Update (1240ET): President Trump has just posted on his Truth Social feed, breaking down his ‘debrief’ on the call with China’s Xi: (emphasis ours)

I just had a very good telephone call with President Xi, of China.

We discussed many topics including Ukraine/Russia, Fentanyl, Soybeans and other Farm Products, etc.

We have done a good, and very important, deal for our Great Farmers — and it will only get better.

Our relationship with China is extremely strong!

This call was a follow up to our highly successful meeting in South Korea, three weeks ago.

Since then, there has been significant progress on both sides in keeping our agreements current and accurate. Now we can set our sights on the big picture.

To that end. President Xi invited me to visit Beijing in April, which I accepted, and I reciprocated where he will be my guest for a State Visit in the U.S. later in the year.

We agreed that it is important that we communicate often, which I look forward to doing. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

We do note that there was no mention of Taiwan in President Trump’s breakdown.

*  *  *

At a moment US-ally Japan is in a rare full-blown diplomatic and (increasingly) military showdown with China, the country’s President Xi Jinping held a phone call with US President Donald Trump on Monday, both sides have confirmed. The last time the two leaders met and talked in detail, which was on the sidelines Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in late October, they had declared a “tariff truce” in an effort to de-escalate trade tensions.

But the Taiwan issue is once again taking center stage, at a moment Tokyo has quite provocatively decided to place medium-range missiles on an island which lies less than 70 miles east of Taiwan. The White House has so far into its term been relatively quite on the issue.

Trump, rather than stoking tensions further, appears to be striking a conciliatory position: 

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump discussed bilateral cooperation and the issue of Taiwan in a phone call on Monday, Beijing’s state news agency Xinhua reported.

Xi told Trump that the two countries should “maintain momentum in ties” after the two leaders met last month in South Korea, and “stressed that Taiwan’s return to China is an important part of the post-war international order”, according to Xinhua.

And so it appears Trump is content to maintain Washington’s longstanding doctrine of ‘strategic ambiguity’ regarding the Taiwan crisis. Trump’s Taiwan policy has been a big question mark, but arguably this is precisely what strategic ambiguity seeks to convey. 

Still, MIT has featured some recent analysis, also citing the non-interventionist Quincy Institute, suggesting Trump could be ready to abandon the US policy which has been in place for decades:

Despite uncertainty in the Trump administration’s China policy, dangerous trends across the Taiwan Strait continue to raise the chance of crisis. Tensions are deepening in the overall U.S.–China relationship, and the credibility of Washington’s One China policy and Beijing’s support for peaceful unification is mutually eroding. While China continues to expand its military capabilities and intimidate Taiwan, the U.S. is keen to mobilize its regional alliances to enhance warfighting against China.

These developments raise the question of whether the longstanding U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity, which contains the possibility of U.S. military intervention to defend Taiwan against China, remains the best approach to preventing war over the island.

Quincy Institute senior research fellow Michael Swaine recently published two policy briefs arguing that Taiwan is not a sufficiently vital interest for the United States to go to war over. He contends that Washington should begin transitioning to a policy beyond strategic ambiguity — a new approach that seeks to enhance support for Taiwan but rules out the possibility of joining a war over the island.

And Nikkei has recently published a report in a similar vein, suggesting Trump could be listening more to those voices which urge a more hands-off approach in China’s backyard, and that the US would be unwilling ultimately to commit military forces to aid in the self-ruled island’s immediate defense:

Trump’s rhetorical vagueness on Taiwan, compounded by the continued absence of any authoritative policy documents on the topic, has prompted observers to look elsewhere for possible reflections of the administration’s views.

One such report that has gone viral on both sides of the Taiwan Strait came from researchers at my former home organization, RAND. Their report from last month, “Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry,” contained the following sentence within its recommendations: “Stabilizing the Taiwan issue should focus on creating the maximum incentive for Beijing to pursue gradual approaches toward unification [my emphasis added].” Although it seems like the authors are advocating Chinese unification with Taiwan, this is hardly the case. Rather, they were highlighting the importance of slowing Beijing’s unification efforts down and basically encouraging Washington to trick China into thinking this is possible, even if the U.S. would still severely complicate forceful unification, to buy more time for the uneasy status quo to persist.

Despite Trump not having raised the issue much with Xi, there have still been a couple of Trump-approved weapons sales to Taipei of late. For now though it looks like Trump is playing nice with Xi on the issue, given the sensitivity of the subject could sour positive momentum in trade relations.

A late-night illegal street takeover in Queens, New York, over the weekend turned extremely violent when a private security guard attempting to intervene was assaulted, and his vehicle was set on fire. The incident highlights the growing public-safety crisis in Democrat-run cities and may only suggest what’s to come under Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. 

City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino, who represents the neighborhood of Malba, a small, wealthy residential area in northeastern Queens, was absolutely disgusted by the lawlessness…

On X, Paladino raged: 

Last night in Malba, a large group of individuals from outside my district conducted an illegal ‘takeover’ of a quiet residential street at approximately 12:30am. This is not the first time it’s happened.

A private security guard attempted to calm the situation — he was assaulted by the mob and his vehicle was set on fire. He suffered significant injuries. A local resident was also assaulted.

Response to this incident was less than ideal. Residents reporting the incident to 911 were told that ‘quality of life team’ and 311 should handle the situation. Unacceptable. In fact, these violent street takeovers should be met with maximum force by the police department.

We have NEVER had these problems before. Now it’s an epidemic. What changed? We stopped arresting criminals.

I am meeting this morning with the chief of department and the local precinct at the scene to discuss exactly what happened last night. I have already been assured that Malba will receive four dedicated patrol cars from this point forward, as well as additional security upgrades that we cannot disclose.

However, the city MUST do something to stop this lawlessness. All the speed cameras in the world do absolutely NOTHING to prevent these incidents — we need police response and the most severe consequences for these criminals, not to simply allow them to drive away after they’ve completed their mayhem.

These incidents are happening citywide, and they’re happening because there are no longer any real consequences to this kind of criminality. But let me make something very clear to the criminals — you are risking your lives bringing this chaos into our neighborhoods.

I know for a fact there were multiple armed residents who exercised extreme restraint last night, however that level of restraint is not guaranteed. If the city refuses to do what’s necessary, the people might.

Once again I want to urge any residents of my district who are interested in obtaining their carry or premises permits to contact my office. We are offering assistance with the application process and legal fees to all who wish to exercise their constitutional right to self protection.

Last night in Malba, a large group of individuals from outside my district conducted an illegal ‘takeover’ of a quiet residential street at approximately 12:30am. This is not the first time it’s happened.

A private security guard attempted to calm the situation — he was… pic.twitter.com/sSL7aWuufC

— Councilwoman Vickie Paladino (@VickieforNYC) November 23, 2025

Paladino posted another view of the mob attack:

Another view of the chaos as a mob of criminals attack a resident on their own lawn.

This is what progressives have wrought on our neighborhoods.

A homeowner would be entirely justified using deadly force on these animals, and one day it will come to that if this isn’t stopped. pic.twitter.com/3hxD4GMGwS

— Councilwoman Vickie Paladino (@VickieforNYC) November 23, 2025

More chaos. 

Another angle of these animals attacking a law abiding homeowner in his own front yard. They do this because they know there are no consequences for criminality in New York. They’ve done this before and will do it again. pic.twitter.com/FkVX73WdPS

— Councilwoman Vickie Paladino (@VickieforNYC) November 23, 2025

This latest incident of lawlessness in NYC comes just as far-left Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani prepares to take control of City Hall. Though he’s recently tried to soften his past “defund the police” rhetoric, his decision to tap radical leftist anti-cop activist Elena Leopold to his transition team tells a different story. 

Mamdani has repeatedly called for defunding the police. https://t.co/KLTfb6BTBE pic.twitter.com/KXoSkmkLI6

— America (@america) October 17, 2025

Mamdani wants to EMPTY THE PRISONS AND DEFUND THE POLICE

NYC: Do you want to live in a lawless hellhole and have career criminals running around your city freely with no police around??? pic.twitter.com/xTgqHTKa6K

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 4, 2025

Mamdani’s policy framework mirrors the same nation-killing agenda of the Democratic Party, weakening law enforcement, opening all borders, shielding illegal aliens, promoting the climate crisis hoax agenda, and doubling down on the failed social and criminal-justice experiments that have hollowed out public safety across the country and, in some cases, sparked national security threats. 

Wait a minute, did you say anything about DHS under the last administration letting 10,000 Islamist terrorists over the southern border—now you want to use “terrorism” when you all know you set us up for the massive attack that is coming. Cute.

— Sarah Adams (@TPASarah) November 23, 2025

The result, well, more NYC outflows to red states… 

The ongoing China-Japan dispute and diplomatic flare-up has just gone from bad to worse, and has taken a turn toward potential military confrontation. Japan’s defense minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, visited a Japanese island which has a military outpost that lies close to Taiwan on Sunday. The optics were unmistakable, signaling Tokyo doesn’t plan on backing down after two weeks of Beijing demanding a retraction. It all started when earlier this month Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made comments in a parliamentary meeting which made clear Japan could possibly intervene militarily in the scenario of China invading Taiwan.

“If there are battleships and the use of force, no matter how you think about it, it could constitute a survival-threatening situation,” Takaichi had said, becoming the first Japanese top official in decades to link the Taiwan crisis to a potential Japanese military response. 

Beijing immediately embarked on punishing measures, including threatening trade relations alongside urging Chinese citizens to avoid all travel to Japan.

It was only last Friday that China again warned, “Prime Minister Takaichi’s openly erroneous remarks concerning Taiwan have fundamentally undermined the political foundation of China-Japan relations and severely damaged bilateral economic and trade exchanges,” according to the words of a foreign ministry spokesperson.

The following threat was emphasized, “Should the Japanese side persist on its course of action and continue down the wrong path, China will resolutely take the measures required and all consequences shall be borne by Japan.” The United States is standing by Tokyo’s side, even as the Trump admin appears to be sticking by the long-running Washington doctrine of ‘strategic ambiguity’ related to Taiwan’s defense.

But instead of heeding the warning and reversing course, Japanese Defense Minister Koizumi unveiled the deployment of placing medium-range surface-to-air missiles on Yonaguni island.

“The deployment can help lower the chance of an armed attack on our country,” Koizumi told reporters while sporting an military commander-style jacket. He also expressly rejected Beijing’s concerns, though without invoking China directly. “The view that it will heighten regional tensions is not accurate,” he said.

Importantly, the island in question – and thus the new highly provocative missiles deployment – lies just under 70 miles east of Taiwan. It looks to become part of a broader military build-up in Japan’s southern island chain.

China has in turn already reacted to the development, saying Sunday: “Right-wing forces in Japan are … leading Japan and the region toward disaster,” foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told a regular news briefing. Beijing “is determined and capable of safeguarding its national territorial sovereignty,” she continued.

Various regional watchers are lining up on either side of the dispute, but nearly all of expressed surprise at Japan’s new ‘boldness’…

I’m beginning to see the rationale for China’s UN Charter Article 53 intervention. Japan is militarist insane. https://t.co/HJROyBPcvD pic.twitter.com/W3WQZs5fIE

— Kathleen Tyson (@Kathleen_Tyson_) November 23, 2025

“The move is extremely dangerous and should raise serious concerns among nearby countries and the international community,” Mao added, also relating the whole spat back to PM Takaichi’s earlier remarks.

China has earlier warned Japan will suffer a “crushing” defeat if it ever decided to directly intervene in the Taiwan dispute. Recent years have also seen Beijing’s anger grow after NATO briefly talked about opening an official office in Tokyo, but these plans were soon abandoned for the time being.

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

Bonds and equities rallied on Friday and Brent crude prices fell by more than 1% as markets digested the details of a 28-point peace plan drafted by US and Russian officials. The most contentious elements of the plan are the recognition of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as being de facto Russian, the requirement for Ukraine to reduce its armed forces to 600,000 personnel (from approximately 800-850,000 currently), a commitment from both NATO and Ukraine that the latter will never be admitted as a NATO member, and the provision for Russia to rejoin the G7 and have sanctions lifted in stages.

In return for formally ceding control of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk and renouncing ambitions to NATO membership, Ukraine would receive confirmation of sovereignty (including from Russia) be granted a NATO-style security guarantee from the United States that has been long-sought by Volodomyr Zelenskyy, be granted short-term preferential access to the EU common market, a pathway to EU membership and substantial aid for reconstruction and development – including from $100bn in frozen Russian assets.

President Trump has set a deadline of the Thanksgiving holiday this Thursday for signing the agreement, with the possibility of withholding arms and intelligence dangled as a ultimatum for delay. President Zelenskyy has said that the plan presents an “impossible choice” for Ukraine between a loss of dignity or the loss of a key defence partner. Trump seemed to acknowledge that the deal would be a bitter pill for Ukraine but that Ukrainian concessions were an inevitability if peace was going to be achieved. “He’s [Zelenskyy] going to have to like it, and if he doesn’t like it, then you know, they should just keep on fighting… at some point he’s going to have to accept something.” 

It should be pointed out that European politicians have been completely sidelined during this process. Some have balked at the terms and instead proposed alternative plan that is more favorable to their own interests and the interests of Ukraine, but lacks buy-in from the United States or Russia and does not appear to be taken seriously by Ukraine. Others have said that the EU should take the US plan as a starting point and haggle over the details. Once again, Europe’s incoherent and slow-moving political apparatus is being exploited by outside powers to its cost.

Of course, Europe has precious little leverage to inject itself into the negotiations because the defense guarantees critical to the process can only be realistically enforced by the weight of US arms. This was seemingly confirmed by the political reaction to recent comments by top French General Fabien Mandon who said that Europe has “all the knowledge, all the economic and demographic strength to deter the Moscow regime”, but “is not prepared to accept losing its children, [or] to suffer economically because priorities will be given to defense production”. The fear for some European politicians will be that if they do not accede to American terms (especially if they are grudgingly accepted by Ukraine), the United States will simply hand them the keys and tell them that Russia is now their problem to deal with. How does that fit with the “sell America, buy Europe” narrative that was driving markets earlier this year?

This process highlights the extraordinary geopolitical impotence of the EU as it – like Ukraine – has terms imposed upon it from the outside without so much as a “by your leave”. It also highlights the ongoing determination by the administration in Washington to pursue détente with Moscow as it views the Kremlin as a natural partner in the United States’ geopolitical competition with China. This is the noxiN (‘reverse Nixon’) strategy of splitting the junior partner away from the senior.

Consequently, the 28-point agreement also includes provisions for economic cooperation between Russia and the United States, explicitly in the domains of “energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.” This suits Washington on many fronts, whether it be shoring up its own supply chain vulnerabilities, keeping the EU off-balance, or ensuring that Russia can present a credible check against Chinese dominance of central Asia (where Russian influence has been waning).

Of course, there are also risks here for the United States. Impatience to reach a deal to end the war so that the USA can focus its attentions on the Indo-Pacific risks agreeing to terms that would be too generous to Russia, and effectively vindicate its strategy of using military force to reset the geopolitical order in Eastern Europe. As President Zelenskyy has repeatedly pointed out, Russia has already violated peace agreements numerous times in the past. Would a US defence guarantee be sufficiently credible to deter such violations in the future? Is it credible to believe that Russia is willing to abandon its conception of the Russkiy Mir (Russian World) in the Baltics, the rest of Ukraine and Transnistria? Can Vladimir Putin credibly seek to end a war that has driven rapid growth in real wages and commensurately rapid growth in consumer spending at home?

Striking an agreement that allows Russia to achieve the objectives of its war also risks legitimizing force as a tool of state policy elsewhere. This is an obvious risk in East Asia, where relations between China and Japan are at their most tense in decades as the former accuses the latter of meddling in its internal affairs by saying that it would consider a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to constitute a threat to its own security – and therefore justify a military response. What message will be taken by parties to simmering territorial disputes in the Middle East, or Kashmir, or any number of other geopolitical hotspots?

While the world digested the US-Russia plan for peace in Ukraine another conception of world order was being promoted at the G20 Summit in South Africa over the weekend. The theme of the summit was “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability”, which sounds very idealistic and perhaps feels a bit 2010s in its optimism for multilateralism in an environment where great powers are embracing realist conceptions of foreign policy. Canadian Prime Minister Carney said that the summit was “a reminder that the center of gravity in the global economy is shifting”, pointing out that it “brought together nations representing three-quarters of the world’s population, two-thirds of global GDP and three-quarters of the world’s trade, and that’s without the United States formally attending.”

While the sums are undoubtedly right, Carney is perhaps glossing over the Achilles heel that is the lack of cohesion among the group’s constituent parts, and also over the degree to which a unified marginal power can still set the agenda globally. After all, it was only in the recent past that the EU had a greater population, larger GDP and conducted more trade than the USA, but who calls the tune in that relationship?