Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Many observers were surprised after Kazakhstan joined the Abraham Accords during President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s trip to DC to attend the latest C5+1 Summit since it’s already recognized Israel since 1992.

The Presidential and Foreign Ministry websites shed more light on this decision.

The first wrote that “By joining the Abraham Accords, Kazakhstan seeks to contribute to overcoming confrontation, promoting dialogue, and supporting international law based on the principles of the UN Charter.”

It added that “The decision of Kazakhstan does not affect the country’s bilateral commitments with any state and represents a natural continuation and manifestation of its multilateral diplomacy aimed at promoting peace and security.”

The second echoed this message: “This important decision was made solely in the interests of Kazakhstan and is fully consistent with the nature of republic’s balanced, constructive, and peaceful foreign policy.”

Their statement then concluded as follows: “Joining the Abraham Accords will contribute to strengthening our country’s cooperation with all interested states and, therefore, is fully in line with Kazakhstan’s strategic goals. Kazakhstan will continue to firmly advocate for a just, comprehensive, and sustainable settlement of the Middle East conflict based on international law, relevant UN resolutions, and the principle of ‘two states for two peoples.’”

Accordingly, the official explanation is that this purely symbolic move was meant to signal support for a “two-state solution” and bolster Kazakhstan’s multi-alignment policy, but there’s actually more to it. This was indisputably intended to appeal to Trump, thus raising Tokayev’s profile in his eyes, and coincided with the raft of deals that they agreed to. This importantly includes a MoU on critical minerals that was assessed here as putting pressure, unintended by Kazakhstan but deliberate by the US, on Russia.

The above preceded Tokayev’s trip to Moscow to meet with Putin, the purpose of which was to reassure Russia that Kazakhstan isn’t siding with the US against it, but it’s now clear that Kazakhstan is more actively relying on the US for balancing Russia. It’s this trend, which isn’t new but is now taking on a qualitatively different form due to how the new TRIPP Corridor is expected to intensify US-Kazakh ties and Tokayev doing a personal favor for Trump by joining the Abraham Accords, that’s most newsworthy.

It was earlier warned that “The West Is Posing New Challenges To Russia Along Its Entire Southern Periphery”, which Russia is aware of as proven by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent remarks to this effect, and that “A US Think Tank Considers Kazakhstan To Be A Key Player For Containing Russia”. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is still a member of the Russian-led CSTO military bloc and the EAEU economic one, but it’s understandable if Putin might soon begin to wonder about Tokayev’s long-term intentions.

Azerbaijan just announced that its armed forces now conform with NATO standards, and if Kazakhstan one day tries to follow suit, then Russia’s threat assessment would spike. Tokayev hasn’t signaled any such plans, but by doing a personal favor for Trump by joining the Abraham Accords, he likely expects him and the US to have his back if he ever decides to do so and this leads to a crisis with Russia. Therein lies the real significance of what he just did, which lends credence to concerns about his intentions.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Taiwanese National Science and Technology Council Minister Wu Cheng-wen said that Taiwan and the United States have reached a “consensus” to keep tariffs off Taipei’s semiconductor industry.

In a Financial Times interview published on Nov. 20, Wu said that Taiwan will support the United States in building its chip industry, and in return, the United States will offer tariff relief for the island’s semiconductor sector.

“Of course, there’s the recipes of how to make the chips, but it’s also about the science park management, attracting companies, integrating academic research with industry,” Wu told the news outlet. “No other country has done what we have done.”

Wu did not provide details about the consensus that was reached.

Taiwanese Economic Minister Kung Ming-hsin told reporters on Nov. 22 that Taiwan has not finalized any trade agreement with the United States yet, but he noted that Taiwan’s negotiators are “working hard on it,” local media reported.

Taiwan hopes to secure a deal with the Trump administration that would ease the current 20 percent U.S. tariffs on its exports. U.S. President Donald Trump in August threatened tariffs of up to 300 percent on chip imports.

Wu said that Washington is unlikely to impose such high tariffs on Taiwan’s semiconductors because the administration understands that “punishing Taiwan is not in their interests.”

Taiwan’s dominant role in global chip manufacturing, led by chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., has been labeled as a deterrent against the Chinese regime’s military aggression, a concept known as the “silicon shield.”

Wu said in the interview that Taiwan was looking to create a “second silicon shield” in areas such as drones, robotics, and medical technology to diversify its strategic assets beyond chips.

However, Wu noted that Taiwan intends to keep its cutting-edge research and development within the island, citing potential security concerns if the sector were relocated overseas.

“If we move our [research and development] overseas, it’ll be dangerous for us,” he said. “New weapons and defense systems rely on advanced chips.”

The White House has not publicly commented on Wu’s remarks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told NewsNation on Sept. 27 that the two sides have discussed producing equal shares of the semiconductor chips required to meet U.S. demand.

Washington wants Taiwan to move half of its semiconductor production to the United States, Lutnick said. Ultimately, the goal is for the United States to capture at least 40 percent of the semiconductor market, which would require $500 billion in domestic investment, he said.

“That has been the conversation we had with Taiwan, [telling them] that ‘you have to understand it’s vital for you to have us produce 50 percent,’” he said.

In response to Lutnick’s comments, the Office of Trade Negotiations of Taiwan’s Executive Yuan, the highest administrative organ in Taiwan, said that it would exercise prudence in trade negotiations with the United States, according to Taiwanese media outlets.

Frank Fang contributed to this report.

Hamas is threatening the collapse the US-backed ceasefire after a series of Israeli airstrikes and a rising death toll in Gaza over much of the past week. However, Israel’s military in fresh Sunday statements has said it is Hamas terrorists repeatedly violating the truce.

“The agreement is over and [Hamas] is ready to fight,” Hamas sources have been cited in regional outlets as saying. Hamas has reportedly communicated its stance to US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, that it is ready to end the ceasefire.

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Most people check the weather the way they check traffic or the time. Rain might mean rearranging plans or canceling a child’s T-ball game. A cold snap might simply mean pulling out a sweater or your favorite tweed jacket. Weather, for most people, is an inconvenience or a conversation starter. Because when you need water, you turn on a faucet. When you’re cold or hot, you adjust the thermostat. Weather becomes background noise rather than a force that shapes survival.

For farmers, weather is everything.

We don’t just look at the forecast. We live by it. We watch humidity, wind patterns, soil temperature, and cloud formation with the kind of attention most people reserve for financial markets or national security briefings. A few degrees of difference can determine whether a crop thrives or dies. We wait for moisture the way some people wait for medical news. Because one wrong call can erase months of work.

Earlier this year, the temperatures had been in the high 90s for weeks. Summer seemed to arrive early, and the weather service confidently projected warm, stable nights in the 50s. Based on that forecast, we continued preparing the greenhouses and tending the spring crops. Everything looked promising.

Then one Monday morning in late April, we woke up to ice. Not frost. Ice.

Our greenhouses weren’t sealed, because the forecast told us we were safe. The propane heaters inside are set to turn on automatically at 38 degrees, and they ran full force all night. By sunrise, we had burned through $5,000 in propane, and everything was still dead. Every spring tomato. Every cucumber. Tender annuals. Guavas, lemons, and young tropicals. Outside the greenhouse, brand-new kale and broccoli seedlings that had finally established themselves were frozen limp and useless.

There was no warning. Just loss.

That is what it means when a farmer mentions the weather. He isn’t complaining. He is praying that a single cold snap, drought, hailstorm, or unpredictable shift doesn’t take away his livelihood. We do everything we can, but the weather still decides what survives.

Which is why the cultural conversation around climate and weather is so interesting. We’ve been quick for years to talk about climate change. And I’ve always said: If we’re going to talk about climate change, we also have to talk about geoengineering. Because at this stage, it’s hard to know where one ends and the other begins. It’s hard to know whether the shifts we’re experiencing are natural, human-caused, manipulated, or some combination of all three. It’s even fair to ask whether climate change exists in the exact framework we’ve been presented—or whether geoengineering exists in the exact framework we’ve been told—or whether the lines have been blurred without transparency.

This was once considered wild conspiracy, the kind of thing people joked about with tinfoil hat references. Yet now it’s discussed openly. Amazon Prime hosts documentaries about it. Universities conduct research on it. Weather modification companies operate publicly in multiple states. Government agencies acknowledge it.

Today here in Kerr County, after heavy flooding, a CEO of a weather modification company made a point to assure the public that his cloud seeding was not responsible for the rainfall. I’m not claiming it was. But when someone feels compelled to explain themselves for something everyone swore didn’t exist 10 years ago, the conversation has already changed.

And that leads to a reasonable and necessary question:

What is the ripple effect?

Weather is a system. Everything in nature is interconnected. If you add rain here, does that mean less rain somewhere else? If you alter cloud structure or reflect sunlight, does that shift wind patterns, soil moisture, or storm behavior? If we inject particles into the atmosphere to cool temperatures globally, what happens to regional rainfall, food systems, ecosystems, and planting zones?

Farmers think this way because we live in the reality of consequences. We don’t work in theory. We work in soil, water, frost, and risk. Every decision has an outcome.

So if geoengineering and cloud seeding are now part of public policy, private industry, and scientific pursuit, then the people whose lives depend most on natural systems deserve transparency. We deserve honesty. We deserve oversight. And we deserve a voice before—not after—changes are made.

We can choose what we eat and what we put on our bodies. But we cannot choose what falls from the sky.

Weather is not a casual headline or a political slogan. It’s the difference between feeding our community or losing everything. If climate change is real in the way we’ve been told, then geoengineering absolutely matters. If geoengineering is now a reality, then the climate narrative cannot be discussed without it.

The sky is not a laboratory. It is a life support system.

And the question that remains is not whether these experiments are helpful, harmful, necessary, or misguided.

The real question is much simpler.

Did the people beneath the sky ever consent?

Because I don’t remember being asked. And I doubt most people do.

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

Because the universe is nothing if not predictable, we’re back with yet another episode of “New York’s transit agency attempts first grade math.”

The MTA has once again found itself rummaging through the sofa cushions of the nation’s largest transit network, searching for spare millions, according to Bloomberg. If it feels like we’re constantly writing about their chronic cash-management drama, that’s because… we are. 

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is now targeting $675 million in additional cuts over the next four years, aiming to trim anything that can reasonably be declared unnecessary. This comes from its latest budget presentation, which also outlines multiple cost-saving initiatives already in motion.

Bloomberg writes that the agency is finally phasing out the yellow MetroCard, swapping in OMNY as the full-time fare system to eliminate a slew of legacy maintenance costs. It’s also replacing older commuter-rail train cars and deploying artificial intelligence to streamline supply needs. Those efforts come alongside hopes for a rebound in real estate tax revenue, expected to return to roughly $1.1 billion annually by 2027 after dropping to $719 million in 2024.

All this belt-tightening is unfolding against the backdrop of fewer riders than before the pandemic, rising labor and supply expenses, and an estimated $1 billion annual hit from fare evasion. Despite that, MTA leadership insists they’re holding things together. As Janno Lieber said during a board meeting, “Figuring out how to do more with less has been the daily priority of the MTA these last few years. And I think we’re doing it pretty well.”

The agency estimates the combined cuts and revenue gains will narrow deficits by $418 million over the next three years. Officials now anticipate a $160 million gap in 2027 — under 1% of that year’s operating budget — before deficits climb again, to $243 million in 2028 and $306 million in 2029.

Much of the long-term savings are tied to the OMNY rollout, which eliminates MetroCard-related costs like machine upkeep and coin handling. New Long Island Rail Road cars should reduce maintenance needs, and improved scheduling technology is set to make train and crew deployment more efficient.

Still, even with additional state funding replacing expired federal pandemic aid, the MTA faces some significant uncertainties. Future budgets rely on fare and toll hikes planned for 2027 and 2029, assume $500 million in casino revenue that depends on yet-to-be-finalized developments, and hinge on a long-delayed $600 million FEMA reimbursement for pandemic cleaning expenses.

Lieber noted the holdup bluntly: “Money was promised under the first Trump administration to fund that, but it hasn’t yet come from Washington. That application’s been sitting for awhile.”

And so the MTA’s eternal budget circus continues…

There is no way for a government to enforce Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies without also discriminating against certain groups of people.  DEI, by its very nature, is anti-merit, anti-success and pro-privilege.  Of course, the groups that are most commonly discriminated against under DEI quotas are mostly white, male and straight.  The assumption being that white dudes are widely considered “fair game” by the rest of society. 

This dynamic creates a never-ending cycle of people clamoring for oppression status rather than personal integrity and accomplishment.  To win in life, you must figure out a way to catch the government’s favor and attain that coveted prize; to rise to the top of the diversity totem pole.

This ideology has infected societies throughout most first world countries and even some developing nations.  Woke activism seems rampant in the US, but that’s because DEI faces American opposition.  The color revolution is louder because their power is failing.  For the rest of the west, however, DEI in government is an absolute.  This is a problem because it requires Americans to reconsider which countries they view as “allies.” 

The Trump Administration is adjusting to this ideological conflict quickly, and part of this change requires that the US starts openly calling out far-left governments for their destructive behaviors.

Countries enforcing DEI policies will now be at risk of the Trump Administration deeming them as human rights abusers, which upends the status quo when it comes to diplomatic relations.  The State Department is issuing new rules to all US embassies and consulates involved in compiling its annual report on global human rights violations.  

Other policies by foreign governments which US embassies will be told to categorize as human rights infringements include:     

Subsidising abortions, “as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions”     

Gender-transition surgery for children, defined by the state department as “operations involving chemical or surgical mutilation… to modify their sex.”     

Facilitating mass or illegal migration “across a country’s territory into other countries.”     

Arrests or “official investigations or warnings for speech” – a reference to the Trump administration’s opposition to internet safety laws adopted by some European countries to deter online “hate speech” (any speech which is critical of woke ideology no matter rational).  

A senior State Department official says, rather blatantly, that the new rules are “a tool to change the behavior of governments”.  That is to say, the sooner foreign governments abandon woke cultism, the easier it will be for them to engage with the US in terms of relations and trade.  

State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the new instructions are intended to stop “new destructive ideologies [that] have given safe harbor to human rights violations”. 

“The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children, laws that infringe on free speech, and racially discriminatory employment practices, to go unchecked.” 

Leftist officials are calling the new policy an “attack on marginalized groups” and a “new low for Trump.”  But once again, there is a substantial disconnect between what leftists see as a human right versus what normal people see as a human right.

The rights that the Trump Administration is referring to include the right to free speech, the right to secure borders, the right to cultural integrity without fear of engineered cultural replacement, the protection of children from manufactured consent, the right to equal opportunities (not equal outcomes), the right to life, etc.  Many of these ideals are taken for granted in the US as the norm, but the Biden Administration revealed how fragile such standards can be.

Leftists see human rights as contingent on identity.  In other words, some people have more rights than others depending on their genetic history and gender orientation.  Bureaucrats and progressive gatekeepers have conveniently made themselves the decision makers for which groups deserve the most rights.

They see speech rights as conditional; it all depends on the ethnicity and sexual identity of the person who is talking. 

They treat national borders and national identity as a social construct that needs to be torn down (if the country rooted in western civilization).  They see the west as a global commons, an economic zone to be pillaged, not protected.

The view morality as relative, childhood as circumstantial and parental rights as an obstacle.  The grooming of children is a political imperative for leftist survival.  Questions of right and wrong never enter their minds.    

Millions of Americans united in solidarity against DEI and other mechanisms of progressive authoritarianism, turning back from the edge of utter disaster.  It makes little sense, then, to reward woke foreign governments with alliances and economic benefits after spending years struggling to defeat those same cancerous notions in the US.    

Derek Chauvin’s defense attorneys have filed a new petition that challenges the 2021 murder conviction that sent Chauvin to prison over George Floyd’s death. The petition includes over 50 former and current MPD officers who made sworn declarations that the technique Chauvin used to restrain George Floyd was part of the official training they received.

The 71-page petition was sent to Hennepin County District Court, where Attorney Greg Joseph stated that “this case simply never made sense.”  The petition asserts that the case involves two key issues: intent and causation. Did the restraint of Floyd follow policies and procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD); and, did the restraint cause Floyd’s death

In each case, the evidence is thin.  Yet, prosecutors achieved a conviction which many critics argue was pure theater – The human sacrifice of Derek Chauvin on the altar of race politics as a means to justify the mob violence of Black Lives Matter groups.  The protests (and the hysteria over the pandemic), paid for with hundreds of millions of dollars in NGO funds, brought chaos in the middle of the US election process and Democrats took full advantage of. 

The benefits behind throwing Chauvin to the wolves were many. 

During the trial, the Minneapolis Police Department denied that the specific restraint used by Derek Chauvin.  This denial came directly from MPD leadership.  If Chauvin was simply applying restraint techniques that he was trained by the MPD to use then he cannot be held accountable for any potential ill effects that the technique causes.   

The point is of course moot if the restraint had nothing to do with George Floyd’s death. 

In seeking to vacate Chauvin’s conviction, or obtain a new trial, the petition argues that Chauvin “was deprived of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Minnesota Constitution.” 

In speaking about the prosecution – and what he believes was the false testimony of MPD Inspector Katie Blackwell, Chief Medaria Arradondo, and others during Chauvin’s trial – Joseph told Alpha News, “you can only run from the truth for so long.” 

The petition argues that the methods used to examine video footage of George Floyd’s restraint and arrest by “expert” witness for the prosecution are at odds with the methods used by the medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, the only doctor who conducted an actual autopsy of Floyd.  It should be noted that Baker did in fact blame the subduing of Floyd as the ultimate cause of death, even though no damage was found to Floyd that would explain the death as a homicide. 

The official autopsy performed by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner found no physical trauma, fractures, or damage to George Floyd’s trachea, larynx, hyoid bone, or surrounding throat structures. This included no bruising, lacerations, or other visible injuries in the neck area. The report explicitly noted “no life-threatening injuries identified” to the neck muscles, cartilage, bones, or soft tissues.

The autopsy, instead, said that Floyd died of severe heart disease that was “complicated” by the arrest.  Baker had told the jury “that he had certified deaths due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease under similar conditions.” 

Furthermore, Baker found 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in Floyd’s toxicology; this is at least twice the amount required for a common deadly dose. He was described by witnesses as erratic and ‘extremely impaired’, throwing himself around the back of the police vehicle to escape arrest. Even if Floyd was a chronic user, fentanyl is known to exacerbate heart disease. 

It should be noted that no other officer in modern history has been convicted of murder charges for a death that took place during prone restraint.  At most, Chauvin should have faced involuntary manslaughter charges. 

In other words, Derek Chauvin was convicted for the second-degree murder of Floyd because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong suspect. He just happened to be arresting the man (who resisted arrest while he had a heart condition and poison in his veins) using a technique which MPD officers say was a part of Chauvin’s training.  The jury was reportedly lied to, and apparently coached to ignore the obvious contradictions.

If this is the case, then it confirms everyone’s suspicions:  The trial was a complete clown show – a political farce.

Things between Israel and Lebanon just escalated in a major way on Sunday, as the Israeli military launched a major attack on the capital of Beirut, in what later announced as another targeted strikes on top Hezbollah leadership.

The Israeli military (IDF) announced that it “eliminated” Hezbollah’s chief of staff Haytham Ali Tabatabai, after Lebanon’s official National News Agency (NNA) reported that two missiles were fired at an apartment building on al-Arid Street in Haret Hreik neighbourhood of Dahiyeh. 

A large plume of smoke could be seen rising above the area, said to be a Hezbollah stronghold of southern Beirut, and extensive damage to cars and surround buildings resulted.

At least five people were killed, and another 28 were wounded in the assault which came without warning, and has been strongly condemned by both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

An official statement from Hezbollah didn’t immediately confirm the killing of Tabatabai but said it “breaches a new red line” – following recent weeks of a series of escalating Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon, despite the ceasefire having long officially been in place.

Hezbollah’s statement alluded to the ceasefire, saying that “agreements are useless with the enemy” and that “We are coordinating with the Lebanese state to put an end to this Israeli violation.”

The New York Times too has admitted that “the attack on Sunday — the assassination of a senior Hezbollah leader near the Lebanese capital — was a new escalation.”

Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr has explained from Beirut, “There’s still no confirmation, but the very fact that this Israeli strike happened without an evacuation order, without a prior warning if you will, really suggests that they were after a high profile figure or a high-value target.”

A busy, densely packed neighborhood was rocked by Israeli missiles during the daytime hours of Sunday…

Israel just bombed a residential neighborhood in Beirut, violated Security Council resolution SCR 1701, the ceasefire agreement, and international law with absolutely no consequences.

This is another war crime and the International Criminal Court remains silent. pic.twitter.com/KLCeD0JDAV

— Mohamad Safa (@mhdksafa) November 23, 2025

“Israel said the person killed was Haytham Ali Tabatabai. He is believed to be the number two of the movement, one of the founding members of the organization. A very keen military figure; a man wanted by the United States, which designated him as a terrorist. There’s a $5m bounty on his whereabouts,” she added.

Khodr’s statement pointed to the likelihood of Israel still maintaining well-placed intelligence assets within Hezbollah, as she called it “a major security breach”.

Since the ‘pager attacks’ as well as the September 2024 killing of Hezbollah founder and Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, Israel has been on a roll in terms of largely decimating Hezbollah’s leadership and capabilities.

Currently the Shia militant group with ties to Iran has been in talks with the Lebanese government to potentially disarm, at least in some areas of the country, also amid pressure from Washington.

Authored by Stuart Liess via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal Judge has ordered a halt to the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard in Washington, following months of keeping watch in the city.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled on Nov. 20 that the National Guard deployment, which had been there since August, was disrupting the capital’s ability to self-govern.

The lawsuit, filed by the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration has exceeded its authority in deploying military forces for civil matters without the city’s request and, secondly, questions their use of troops from other states.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb applauded the ruling as a “victory for DC, Home Rule, and American Democracy.”

“The U.S. military should not police American citizens on American soil,” he posted in a statement on X.

The court has given the Trump administration until Dec. 11 to end the deployment, allowing them time to appeal.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump is well within his lawful authority to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement with specific tasks.”

On Aug. 11, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum deploying over 2,000 National Guard troops to the nation’s Capitol, declaring a national emergency, following a series of attacks on government staffers.

In his memorandum, Trump described Washington as having “a violent crime rate that is higher than some of the most dangerous places in the world.”

The National Guard is a reserve army unit that operates in each state and is usually under the governor’s command, generally serving during natural disasters and in military service abroad.

They have been called upon in recent years to serve more domestic roles, like assisting border control forces at the U.S. southern border or during the Black Lives Matter Riots in 2020.

What makes Washington unique is that it lies directly under the president’s jurisdiction; therefore, he has direct control over the city’s use of the National Guard, but deployment from other states usually would require each governor’s approval, unless in a state of emergency.

Trump has been targeting various cities with high crime statistics over the year, looking to send the National Guard to clean them up.

On Sept. 15, Trump signed an order with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to set up a task force, combining the National Guard with FBI, drug enforcement, and immigration authorities, to send to Memphis to clean up its historic levels of violent crime.

On Nov. 17, a Tennessee judge ruled that the state’s deployment of the National Guard violates the state’s military code, after Democrat Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris filed a lawsuit. Lee is currently appealing.

Support for Trump’s use of the National Guard across various cities in the United States runs along party lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats strongly against.

The Department of Justice is currently appealing a Nov. 16 district ruling that blocked the deployment of the National Guard to protect a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland, Oregon.

Illinois is also in strong opposition to National Guard deployment in Chicago, with an appeal over a judge’s block currently being weighed by the Supreme Court.

Matthew Vadumn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

California is facing a perfect storm in finances, with a crippling deficit and a declining tax base.

Now, a study of IRS data by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation found that California is losing a taxpayer roughly every minute, as states like Florida, Texas, and North Carolina attract new residents due to lower taxes and higher standards of living.

In comparison, Florida gains a new taxpayer every 2 minutes and 9 seconds while Texas gains one every 2 minutes and 53 seconds.

The result has been a bonanza for Florida, which is now collecting $4 billion more per year for its budget.

The states losing taxpayers at the fastest rate are California, New York, and Illinois. Here is the rate of loss:

California: every 1 minute and 44 seconds

New York: every 2 minutes and 23 seconds

Illinois: every 6 minutes and 4 seconds.

Massachusetts: every 11 minutes and 38 seconds

New Jersey: every 14 minutes and 14 seconds.

These remain high-tax states where there are even greater demands for tax increases (particularly in Illinois, California, and New York) as well as new spending demands. In Illinois, Mayor Brandon Johnson is pushing for disastrous new taxes, while in New York, incoming Zohran Mamdani is demanding new taxes to fund his free buses and other campaign promises.

In Seattle, socialist Katie Wilson won the mayoral election on the promise of new “progressive taxes” to fund an assortment of programs.

In Oregon, as Democratic politicians run on the rise in the cost of living, they just approved a gas tax hike as part of $4 billion tax and charge increases. They may be hoping that the decline in gas costs this year will make the tax less noticeable, but some citizens are pushing to place it on the ballot for voters.

In these states and cities, the assumption is that wealthy people will remain as voluntary game in a type of fiscal canned hunt as politicians discuss new wealth and other forms of taxes. They are not. They are leaving with their wealth and their tax payments.

Unions continue to push for these new taxes as high-tax-paying residents leave these states. At the same time, California and Illinois continue to push their status as sanctuary states, increasing the public burden for schools, hospitals and other programs. As they increase spending and their tax base contracts, the outcome is obvious.

Again, take California. The state experienced a $9 billion decline in taxpayer funds during 2018. That number increased to $29 billion lost in 2020.

As I discuss in my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, there is a common myth that the top five percent of this country do not “pay their fair share.” However, putting that debate aside, the question is whether it will produce more revenue than it costs the state in the long run. As these politicians campaign on clipping the “fat cats” who are not paying their fair share, many are likely to follow the exodus to lower tax states with greater fiscal discipline.

There are many in states like Florida and Texas who worry that new residents from states like New York and California will replicate their prior voting patterns and produce the same disastrous policies in their new states. I just spoke in Boise, Idaho where many are complaining that Californians are moving to the state and adopting the same policies that produced the conditions that they just left behind. The fear is that the voters will not be willing to vote for conservatives or libertarians and simply move like a liberal diaspora from state to state as they reproduce prior tax and fiscal policies.

Time will tell. However, what is clear is that Democratic states are not showing any greater fiscal discipline as they careen toward budget meltdowns.