Nick Reiner faces two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office announced the charges Tuesday after the Reiners’ son was arrested Sunday night and booked into jail Monday.

“These are some of the most serious charges a DA can bring against anyone,” LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman said at a press conference.

“Prosecuting these cases involving family members are some of the most challenging and most heart-wrenching cases that this office faces because of the intimate and often brutal nature of the crimes involved,” the prosecutor added.

The weekend stabbing deaths of the acclaimed actor-director, 78, and his wife, 70, stunned the Hollywood community, as well as residents of Brentwood, the wealthy Los Angeles enclave where they lived.

Their bodies were discovered Sunday.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, Nick Reiner allegedly murdered his parents with a deadly weapon, or a knife, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman told reporters at a press conference. 

Hochman declined to say whether the weapon has been located.

Officials also declined to outline the time of death or how specifically they determined Nick Reiner killed Rob and Michele Reiner.

“He was found with good, solid police work,” Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said during the briefing. He added that he would not talk about “what was found or anything that could potentially taint the investigation.”

More details will be presented during court hearings and filings in the future, Hochman and McDonnell said.

“The LAPD remains steadfast in our mission to protect life and uphold justice,” McDonnell said.

“We will continue to support the Reiner family to ensure that every step forward is taken with care and dignity.”

Alan Jackson, an attorney hired to represent Nick Reiner, did not respond to a request for comment. Jackson told reporters in Los Angeles earlier Tuesday that his client would not be appearing in court before Wednesday because he has not been medically cleared. 

“Hopefully he’ll be cleared tomorrow and we’ll get him here,” he said.

Prosecutors said Nick Reiner faces a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted, and they are still evaluating whether to seek the death penalty.

Nick Reiner is currently being held without bail.

Hochman indicated the case will be handled like other similar cases.

“This will proceed along the tracks that many of the first-degree murder cases proceed,” Hochman said.

“Do I anticipate it being particularly fast? No. I anticipate it being very thorough.” 

Police officers went to the home of Rob and Michele Reiner in Brentwood in west Los Angeles on Sunday afternoon after receiving a call from the Los Angeles Fire Department.

They determined a crime had occurred and called homicide detectives, McDonnell said. 

“It is with profound sorrow that we announce the tragic passing of Michele and Rob Reiner,“ family members said in a statement to media outlets. ”We are heartbroken by this sudden loss, and we ask for privacy during this unbelievably difficult time.”

Rob Reiner was a famous actor, director, and producer. Michele Reiner was a photographer. 

Rob Reiner made the 2016 film “Being Charlie” with Nick Reiner. They said that the movie, which features a man struggling with addiction and family problems, was inspired by experiences they went through. Nick Reiner has said he has at times been addicted to drugs and homeless. 

Officials said Tuesday that any past statements by Nick Reiner may be utilized in the case against him.

They also said that if there is any evidence of mental illness, it will emerge in court.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Inflation is the most insidious tax because it is the least visible. If the taxman took 30 percent more of your income this year than six years ago, you would be in a state of fury. Inflation does the same thing but only leaves confusion and disorientation in its way, a sense that something is deeply wrong but with an explanation that is opaque and a bit abstract.

We blame high taxes on politicians. We are never entirely certain who precisely to blame for inflation. Part of the reason is that it is generated by a system with many moving parts. The core explanation is simple—paper money expansion—but the players involve central bankers, commercial bankers, bond dealers, legislatures, and the way that it plays out depends on contingent factors involving reserves and financial velocity.

We are left with a sense of rage against everything.

But this doesn’t happen immediately.

Recall that in 2021, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen assured the country that the inflation was transitory. That sounded a bit like temporary, even if she did not say that. Many people heard that, and assumed that prices would go down in a matter of months.

That did not happen. Instead it got worse, reaching even double digits. Making matters worse, each inflation report was rendered by media as relatively good news. Inflation is “cooling,” they said, and is limited only to this sector or that, without which there would be no problem at all. This messaging continued for three years.

During that very time, there were moments in which we felt oddly prosperous because the Treasury Department was injecting newly created Fed money directly into our bank accounts. Many were staying home at that time, not really working. It seemed like magic: making money without working. It is always this way in the early parts of inflation. Life seems relatively good, at least not tremendously bad.

But then strange things started happening. Not all at once. Inflation hits random sectors and then disappears again, like a mold in the house that is there and then not. You keep wondering if it is in your imagination, not really a threat, just a one-time thing, and so on. Plus money is otherwise washing around everywhere, generating frenzied buying.

This sloshing effect of new inflations keeps going, hitting in unexpected ways. It’s plywood. Then it goes away. It’s gas. Then it’s gone. Then it’s eggs but that comes and goes. Then it hits services, which you only notice because you happen to need your car repaired. It is hidden until accidentally revealed in an unexpected health-care purchase and so on. At every stage, it is getting better in one sector and worse in another.

The point at which it becomes obvious that a massive devaluation is taking place is uncertain. Eventually, however, the reality dawns on everyone. We’ve all been robbed even though we never saw the thief or even noticed that the property was missing. Every inflation in history has worked this way, which is why governments have long resorted to money printing when taxes are too dangerous for political stability.

The inflation of 2021–2024 has its origin in the year before it showed up in prices. The pandemic response was the reason for the sudden shift from monetary tightening to monetary loosening. Such a wild printing mania has not been experienced in our lifetimes in the United States. It was also repeated in most parts of the world, causing essentially a global inflation.

No need to wonder why everyone is so upset these days about affordability and why it has become the central issue. It’s mostly because of the devaluation that took place during the pandemic. Yes, tariffs have contributed to the problem mostly by adding a pricing floor that includes compliance costs. That said, tariffs are not driving the problem even if they are not helping it.

The lingering effects are everywhere in 2025. Even as headline inflation hovers around 3 percent—higher than the Federal Reserve’s target but spun as “moderating”—the cumulative damage from those pandemic-era money floods is baked in. Prices aren’t falling back; they’re just rising more slowly. Your grocery bill is still 20–25 percent higher than in 2019, housing costs have ballooned, and everyday services feel like luxuries.

Affordability is the central grievance, not some transient blip. This has uncertain political impacts, but it certainly does not help that Donald Trump declared his Golden Age prematurely, just about the time that the trauma of the previous four years was just settling in.

Shelter costs, the biggest chunk of most budgets, have been stubbornly high and continue to rise by 3–4 percent in many reports. The pandemic lockdowns crushed new construction, supply chains lingered in disarray, and then the money printing bid up asset prices. The result is that a median home now requires an income far beyond what most young families earn. First-time buyers are sidelined, renting forever, or moving to less desirable areas.

It’s not just numbers; it’s delayed marriages, fewer children, shattered dreams of independence.

Food tells a similar story. Eggs, meat, dairy—the basics—spiked erratically, then settled at elevated plateaus. Energy prices fluctuated with global events and policy shifts, but gasoline and utilities never returned to pre-2021 levels. Add in tariffs and you get upward pressure on goods from apparel to electronics.

Today’s officials can call this all a hoax or transitory but families live in the real world. One month it’s heating bills, the next childcare or car insurance.

Inflation doesn’t just erode wealth. It erodes trust. People sense they’re working harder for less, savings vanishing into thin air, rewards from labor diluted by invisible forces. And what is the Fed doing about the problem? The answer is not good: it is lowering rates. Let there be no mystery. This is quantitative easing by another name. It risks another full wave, which is a terrifying prospect. Congress isn’t helping by its continued spending frenzies. And now we are seeing a virtual merging of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. This can only end in making the problem worse, unless we get very lucky.

The problem comes down to this. Sound money is great and even essential for the people. But it is never good for government or debt-addicted financial markets. Governments and borrowers generally love inflation for the same reason they once loved debasing coins: it funds spending without overt taxes, and pays down debt in cheaper dollars. But the bill arrives eventually for everyone else. The results are social unrest, lost productivity, and misallocated capital.

In 2025, the trauma of inflation manifests in quiet desperation: skipped doctor visits, cheaper (less healthy) food, delayed retirements. It’s not hyperinflation but a slow grind that normalizes hardship. The thief got away, leaving us poorer, more divided, less hopeful. Until we confront the root, the hits will keep coming, random and relentless, until the system itself cries uncle.

Meanwhile, for most people, the golden age feels more like the coins in our pocket: scrap metal refashioned to look like something they are not.

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

If there is one thing that leftist politicians are proficient at (or at the very least consistent at), it’s the exploitation of tragedies to push forward their agendas.  One of those agendas is the complete disarmament of law abiding citizens so that they no longer have the means to defend themselves against criminals, terrorists or authoritarian governments.  Another agenda is the demonization of conservatives to the point that their mere existence is labeled a “threat to democracy.”  

Without fail, anytime there is a mass shooting event or an assassination leftist officials and the media immediately jump to the accusation that the “right wing” must somehow be involved.  If there’s no evidence of such involvement, they simply lie and accuse conservatives anyway (as we witnessed with the assassination of Charlie Kirk).  

Furthermore, the true culprits and causes are often glossed over or buried if they are inconvenient to the establishment narrative.  For example, multiple mass murder events in Europe involving Islamic terrorists driving cars and trucks into crowds are invariably tossed down the memory hole and rarely spoken of again.  Addressing the cause – mass immigration from third world countries – is admonished as racist or xenophobic. 

Liberals love mass shootings most of all, and the latest shooting at Bondi Beach in Australia is a perfect example.  They have an extensive playbook ready to go in case their is an active shooter event and they follow it like clockwork.  Here’s how they operate…

Hide The Identities Of The Shooters (Unless They Are White, Conservative And Straight)

Liberal officials and left wing media will seek to suppress the identity details of the killers for as long as realistically possible if the culprits are minorities, immigrants, Muslims, LGBT or left wing activists.  

Social media histories are swiftly erased, leaving the public with only tiny crumbs of evidence.  Amateur sleuths are ridiculed when they find the truth, until the truth is officially admitted.  Manifestos are censored and restricted until years later. 

Unless, of course, the culprits are white, straight males, and then all of the information is released like a flood onto the internet.  Media stories will talk about the attack for weeks or months, reiterating the “dangers” of right wing ideology.  In other words, if the killers have the right politics, sexual orientation, religion or skin color, they are protected from mainstream scrutiny. 

In the case of the Bondi Beach shooters, the fact that they are Muslim migrants of Pakistani origin is being incessantly ignored.  Instead, the media initially pumped out hero stories about a Muslim man who tackled one of the shooters while refusing to identify the gunmen.

Blame The Victims If They Are Inconvenient (Ignore The Ideology Of The Killers)

When Charlie Kirk was murdered, the media and leftist politicians quickly blamed none other than Charlie Kirk for his own death.  Their claim was that his “rhetoric incited violence” and they asserted that it was “karmic justice” that a man who defended gun rights was killed by a gun.  They also lied and claimed the shooter was MAGA.  

Their message was clear (and insane):  If you support gun rights, we have the right to shoot you.  This mentality only convinces conservatives that they are correct to keep their guns, for what else is keeping the far-left from killing them all?  The political left sought to bury the actual ideological drive of the prime suspect in the Charlie Kirk murder; a far-leftist who engaged in a homosexual relationship with a transgender partner. 

When trans-shooter Audrey Hale shot up a Christian school, a large number of leftists argued that she was justified because the school was a “symbol of trans genocide”.  Meaning, in their view, the existence of Christians who oppose transgender ideology are all guilty and deserve to die.  Authorities under Joe Biden refused to release Hale’s full manifesto to the public.  

Following a t*rrorist attack targeting jews in Sydney by islamic t*rrorists, the Prime Minister of Australia warns about “right-wing extremism.” pic.twitter.com/rH4qoIKZQu

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 15, 2025

In the case of Bondi Beach, political leaders are trying to associate the shooting with “right wing extremism” even though the shooters were both Muslim migrants.  There’s also little doubt that numerous leftists will take to social media to blame the mostly Jewish victims because “Gaza is a thing.”  The victims only matter if they are not currently on the enemies list of the leftist hierarchy.   

Blame The Existence Of Guns (Punish Law Abiding Citizens Whenever Criminals Kill With Firearms)

Australia already has some of the most strict gun laws in the western world.  Only 3.4% of Australians have been able to get the approval for gun licenses necessary to purchase firearms and the types of firearms they are allowed to buy are heavily controlled (the vast majority of firearms in civilian hands are shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles).   

🚨 JUST IN: The Australian Prime Minister is now planning EVEN MORE gun control after the Islamic terror attack in Bondi Beach.

Australia has some of the world’s STRICTEST gun laws.

These politicians don’t seem to grasp the MUSLIMS were the problem in this case; NOT THE GUNS. pic.twitter.com/y5MUwbP5Rg

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 15, 2025

Keep in mind that Australia has a population smaller than the state of Texas with 11 times the amount of land.  Most of Australia is a wilderness where firearms are often necessary (though, necessity should not matter to gun rights).  The percentage of legal gun owners who commit gun crimes in Australia is less than 0.01%, yet, the leftist Australian government is already seeking to restrict the rights of good people even further. 

This simply shows that the government is on the side of criminals and not on the side of law abiding people.  The use of mass punishment any time there is a shooting crime indicates an agenda of total disarmament.  Politicians do not care about the murder victims or the true cause, they only want to use the event as a vehicle to further disarm the citizenry.  

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump said on Dec. 15 that he’s considering an executive order to reclassify marijuana out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a category reserved for drugs deemed to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse.

The president was asked about the plan during a ceremony at the White House on Monday, presenting the Mexican Border Defense Medal, which recognizes service members deployed to the U.S.-Mexico Border.

“We are considering that,” the president said. “Because a lot of people want to see the reclassification, because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify. So we are looking at that very strongly.”

A review process started by President Joe Biden in 2022 could reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, but if finalized, it would not legalize or decriminalize the drug.

Trump told reporters in August that his administration was “looking at reclassification,” but that a determination would not come until later.

“We’re looking at it. Some people like it. Some people hate it. Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana, because if it does bad for the children, it does bad for people that are older than children,” Trump said. “But we’re looking at reclassification, and we’ll make a determination over the next, I would say, over the next few weeks, and that determination, hopefully, will be the right one.”

The president added that marijuana is a “very complicated subject” and that he believes the plant has done great things in the medical field, even if there are “bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical.”

“For pain and various things, I’ve heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I’ve heard some pretty bad things,” Trump said.

Picking Up Where Biden Left Off

If the president proceeds with the executive order, it could mean picking up where his predecessor left off, as it wasn’t clear if the federal government would proceed with reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance after Biden urged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the drug’s status in 2022.

Once the agency completed its review in 2023 and considered recommendations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), HHS endorsed moving marijuana to Schedule III.

Biden’s Justice Department followed suit in May 2024 and announced it was formally moving to reclassify marijuana out of Schedule I, which requires directing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to change its classification status.

However, after the Democratic Party lost control of the executive branch in last year’s election, it was uncertain if the Justice Department and DEA would continue the process of moving marijuana into Schedule III with widely used medications, such as anabolic steroids, testosterone, and ketamine.

Schedule I, by contrast, is reserved for drugs with no “currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” including LSD, ecstasy or MDMA, and heroin.

Supporters of reclassifying marijuana point out the decades of anecdotal reports of its medical benefits treating ailments like insomnia, anxiety, and pain, but recent research has called into question the plant’s efficacy for treating non-neuropathic pain, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, some of the compounds found in the plant—known as cannabinoids—have led to the creation of new FDA-approved drugs, including Epidiolex, made from cannabidiol, or CBD, which treats severe childhood epilepsy.

“These kids have seizures maybe 100 times a day, and this drug can reduce the number of seizures and, in a small percentage, abolish the seizures,” Kent Vrana, director of the Penn State Center for Cannabis and Natural Product Pharmaceuticals, said during a university Q&A in August.

A poll released in March by Fabrizio, Lee, & Associates found that 72 percent of all voters, and 67 percent of Republican voters, support moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

Legal Implications

Putting marijuana in a different category of the Controlled Substances Act does not legalize or decriminalize the plant, but it can ease red tape on legal markets in states with recreational or medical marijuana laws.

Some banks refuse to do business with companies in the industry because marijuana is still a Schedule I substance at the federal level.

Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I has made it difficult for universities and organizations to conduct authorized clinical studies that involve giving the drug to participants, sometimes relying on self-reported experiences with the drug that are less empirically rigorous for medical research, according to Vrana.

“I can only get cannabis and cannabinoids from a handful of federally approved sources,” he said in August, adding that it puts the university’s funding at risk.

“It makes it harder for us to conduct clinical trials that would help us better understand the potential benefits—and harms—of cannabis.”

Remember Uranium One? The massive 2010 sale of US uranium deposits to Russia approved by Hillary Clinton and rubber-stamped by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) – after figures linked to the deal donated to the Clinton Foundation?

Turns out rank-and-file FBI investigators thought there was enough smoke to launch a criminal investigation, but internal delays and disagreements within the DOJ and FBI ultimately caused the inquiry to lapse, newly released records reveal. 

The materials, made public by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and first reported by Just the News, reveal that investigators argued internally over the delays – which allowed the statute-of-limitations to expire and ultimately halt the case.

The Uranium One transaction – involving the sale of a Canadian mining company with substantial U.S. uranium assets to Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm Rosatom – became a flashpoint during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Critics argued that then-Secretary of State Clinton, a member of CFIUS, helped approve the deal while donors connected to Uranium One made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that “as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013 … a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. [Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times reported. “At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.” -Just the News

Resistance from senior officials – including then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – slowed the inquiry to the point where statute-of-limitations concerns were later cited to justify shutting it down.

Investigators disputed statute-of-limitations claims

Thanks to Grassley we now have a newly declassified FBI investigative timeline surround the deal, as agents in multiple field offices opened inquiries in early 2016 examining the Clinton Foundation’s intersection with the Uranium One deal. The Little Rock field office initiated a full field investigation, while New York and Washington opened preliminary investigations.

Internal records show that agents and prosecutors continued to debate whether the investigation was time-barred. Jonathan Ross, then First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued in a 2018 email that “there is no legal barrier in continuing the present investigation.” Ross has served as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas since 2022.

Then-U.S. Attorney Cody Hiland of Arkansas echoed that view in a separate email to then-U.S. Attorney John Huber of Utah, stating that the team did not believe the case was barred by statute of limitations because payments to the Clinton Foundation “were made continuously from 2007 through 2014.”

The FBI timeline also noted that statute-of-limitations arguments “failed to include whether Acts of Concealment such as deleting emails in 2015” could have extended the filing window. Investigators pointed to possible statutes including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, major fraud against the United States, bank fraud, and the Wartime Suspension of Statute of Limitations Act.

Despite those arguments, senior DOJ officials expressed growing reluctance to proceed. In late 2016, then-U.S. Attorney Robert Capers and then-Criminal Chief James Gatta raised concerns about potential statute-of-limitations issues and urged moving on from the case.

Internal emails show morale collapse among agents

The records reveal frustration among investigators who believed conflicting legal guidance undermined their authority to continue the probe. Hiland wrote in June 2018 that an email circulated by then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Harris, asserting that the statute of limitations expired on Feb. 1, 2018, “cast a permanent pall over the local agents’ attitude” toward the investigation.

Ross later disputed Harris’s conclusion, writing that Harris was unaware of 18 U.S.C. § 3287 when issuing his assessment. Ross warned that agents’ confidence had been damaged and urged additional resources or reassignment of the case to a new investigative team.

The timeline indicates that prosecutors believed additional interviews and investigative steps remained unfinished, including questioning Uranium One executives, foreign nationals, State Department officials involved in the CFIUS vote, and Department of Energy personnel who approved export authorizations after the deal closed.

Political scrutiny and congressional oversight

The Uranium One deal drew sustained attention from Congress. In 2010, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) warned that the transaction would give Russia control over a sizable share of U.S. uranium production capacity. Grassley repeatedly pressed DOJ officials to examine whether donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced the CFIUS process.

The Hill reported in 2017 that the FBI had gathered evidence as early as 2009 that Russian nuclear officials engaged in bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering connected to U.S. uranium interests. That reporting cited a confidential U.S. witness and financial records tied to the Russian nuclear industry.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions later tasked Huber with reviewing the Uranium One matter in 2017, but did not appoint a special counsel. By early 2020, reports indicated that Huber’s effort was winding down. Special Counsel John Durham later stated that his mandate did not include Uranium One.

Fallout continues amid uranium supply concerns

The release of the FBI records comes as U.S. reliance on Russian-sourced uranium remains a national security concern. Russia accounted for roughly 20% of U.S. enriched uranium supplies in 2024, according to the Energy Information Administration, down from prior years.

Congress banned Russian uranium imports following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, but experts have warned that decades-old policy decisions left the United States vulnerable.

The newly released documents suggest that the circumstances surrounding Uranium One were never fully investigated, leaving unresolved questions about how a strategic U.S. asset came under Russian control – and whether potential criminal conduct went unexamined due to internal delays and legal disputes.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Food and Drug Administration is not adding “black box” warnings to COVID-19 vaccines, even though an agency center recommended it, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said on Dec. 15

“When it comes to the ‘black box’ warning, we have no plans to put that on the COVID vaccine,” Makary said during an appearance on Bloomberg Television.

Black box warnings are the highest safety-related warnings that FDA officials can place on products. Scenarios warranting their usage include when there is an adverse reaction so serious that it is “essential that it be considered in assessing the risks and benefits of using the drug” or when there is a serious adverse reaction that can be prevented or reduced by appropriate use of the drug, according to FDA documents.

The announcement comes several weeks after FDA officials reported deaths of children following COVID-19 vaccination and concluded that at least 10 deaths were related to the vaccines, according to a November memorandum obtained by The Epoch Times. The review, which included looking at autopsies, has been broadened to other age groups.

The announcement also came several months after regulators updated language on the vaccine labels for a form of heart inflammation called myocarditis. The inflammation was discovered after the FDA first authorized COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020. The updated labels state that the highest observed risk of myocarditis was among young males aged 12 to 24 after receipt of vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.

Makary said Monday that an FDA safety and epidemiology center did recommend adding a black box warning to the COVID-19 vaccines, and indicated the recommendation stemmed from the risk of myocarditis.

But, he said, Dr. Vinay Prasad, the agency’s top vaccine official, and other FDA leaders opted against accepting the recommendation because the dosage people are receiving has changed from the original two doses within weeks or months of each other.

“When you have those two doses three months apart, that’s when you see the side effects go way up, like myocarditis in young people,” Makary said on Bloomberg.

“Now that it’s annual, you may not see that same prevalence. So we don’t want to extrapolate findings to today if it’s not transferable.”

COVID-19 vaccines had been cleared and recommended for virtually all Americans until Trump administration officials took a series of steps to narrow the clearance and recommendations. They are now only advised on an annual basis after consulting with a health care professional and taking into account various factors, including whether people have characteristics such as obesity that could put them at higher risk of severe problems if they contract COVID-19.

Moderna and Pfizer have said their vaccines protect people and have favorable safety profiles, a position also held by some groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The academy counts Pfizer and Moderna among its partners.

Other experts and advocates have called for the removal of COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recently told The Epoch Times that clearance for them should be withdrawn because the spike protein they deliver is immunotoxic, and that he would not be surprised if, after the FDA finished its investigation, regulators placed a black box on the shots.

Authored by Anna Jackson and Jenn Hatfield via PewResearch.org,

As we do every year, we’ve gathered data around some of the most pivotal news stories of 2025, including President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the changing U.S. immigration landscape and the rapid rise of artificial intelligence worldwide.

Here’s a look back at 2025 through 12 of Pew Research Center’s most striking research findings.

After more than 50 years of rapid growth, the number of immigrants living in the United States is on the decline. In January 2025, there were 53.3 million immigrants in the U.S., making up close to 16% of the country’s population. Both the number and the share were record highs. But by June 2025, the nation’s immigrant population decreased by more than a million, to 51.9 million. That decline has likely continued since, due to deportations, voluntary departures and fewer new arrivals.

Most immigrants are in the U.S. legally. As of 2023, 73% were either naturalized American citizens, lawful permanent residents or temporary lawful residents. The remaining 27% were unauthorized immigrants.

Views of the U.S. have worsened – and views of China have improved – across many of the 10 high-income countries we surveyed this year. Across these countries, a median of 35% of adults now say they have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 32% say the same about China. These shares are the closest they’ve been since 2018.

There is a similar pattern when it comes to confidence in U.S. and Chinese leaders to do the right thing regarding world affairs. A median of 22% of adults in the 10 high-income countries surveyed have confidence in Trump, while 24% express confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping. Their median confidence in former U.S. President Joe Biden was consistently higher than their confidence in Xi.

Seven-in-ten Americans now say the U.S. higher education system is generally going in the wrong direction – up from 56% in 2020. Views of the nation’s colleges and universities have turned more negative among Republicans and Democrats alike. (In this analysis, Republicans and Democrats include independents who lean toward each party.)

Many Americans give these institutions broadly negative ratings in specific areas. For example, 79% of U.S. adults say colleges are doing an only fair or poor job of keeping tuition costs affordable, and 55% say this about preparing students for jobs in today’s economy.

Americans have grown more critical of the widespread legalization of sports betting, and this is especially the case among young men.

Overall, 43% of U.S. adults say the fact that sports betting is now legal in much of the country is a bad thing for society, up from 34% in 2022. And 40% say it’s a bad thing for sports, up from 33%.

One of the biggest shifts in attitudes has occurred among men under 30. In this group, 47% say legal sports betting is a bad thing for society, an increase from 22% in 2022. For women under 30, the shift is smaller: 35% now see legal sports betting as bad for society, up from 25%.

A substantial share of men under 30 (36%) also say they have personally placed a sports bet in the past year.

Around seven-in-ten Americans (69%) say Trump is trying to exert more power than his predecessors, according to a Center survey from September.

Most of those who say this view it as a bad thing for the country. Overall, 49% of U.S. adults say Trump is trying to exercise more presidential power than previous presidents and that this is bad for the country.

Democrats overwhelmingly say Trump is trying to exert more executive power and that this is bad (83%). Republicans are more divided: About half (49%) say Trump is trying to exert more power, and among those who say this, more say it’s good for the country than say it’s bad.

A majority of parents with a child under 2 say their child watches videos on YouTube. Some 62% of parents with a child under 2 say their child ever does this, up from 45% in 2020.

A growing share of parents with a child under 2 also say their child watches YouTube videos daily: 35% say this, up from 24% five years ago. Daily use is also up among kids ages 2 to 4, according to their parents (51%, up from 38%). But it’s stable among children in other age groups.

Google users who encounter a Google AI Overview are about half as likely as users who don’t to click on search results. Users who landed on a Google search page with an AI summary clicked on a search result 8% of the time. Those who did not encounter an AI summary clicked on a search result 15% of the time, according to our analysis of data from U.S. adults who agreed to share their March 2025 web browsing activity.

People who encountered the summaries – which Google introduced in 2024 – very rarely clicked on the sources cited, and they were more likely than those who didn’t see summaries to end their browsing session entirely.

Republicans have become much less likely to say healthy children should be required to get the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to attend public school. Around half of Republicans (52%) now hold this view, down significantly from 79% in 2019. The share of Democrats who support school MMR requirements (86%) has not changed.

Our broader survey on childhood vaccines found that Republicans are divided over some aspects of vaccine safety. For instance, 32% of Republicans are highly confident that the childhood vaccine schedule is safe, while 31% are not too or not at all confident. A 71% majority of Democrats are highly confident.

Partisans differ sharply on which news sources they trust, especially when it comes to Fox News and CNN. More than half of Republicans (56%) say they trust Fox News, but 64% of Democrats say they distrust it. The reverse is true for CNN: 58% of Democrats trust it, while the same share of Republicans distrust it.

Fox News stands out among the 30 news sources we asked about because it is the only one that a majority of Republicans trust. Democrats tend to trust a much broader range of sources.

For the first time in nearly two decades of our national surveys of U.S. Hispanics, most say Hispanics’ situation in the country has worsened over the past year. About seven-in-ten Latinos (68%) now express this view, up sharply from 26% in 2021 during the Biden administration and 39% in 2019 during the first Trump administration. In the most recent survey, 9% of Latinos say their group’s situation is better than it was a year ago, and 22% say it’s about the same.

About a third of Latinos (32%) also say they’ve recently thought about moving to another country. Among those who have considered this, the most commonly cited reason is the political situation in the U.S.

Sub-Saharan Africa is now home to more Christians than any other world region, surpassing Europe. As of 2020, about 31% of the world’s Christians live in sub-Saharan Africa, while 22% live in Europe. This change has been fueled by Africa’s much higher fertility rates, but also by widespread disaffiliation from Christianity in Western Europe.

Christianity remains the world’s largest religion. But Islam was the fastest-growing religion between 2010 and 2020, among the seven groups Pew Research Center has measured globally over time. The global Muslim population increased by 347 million people during that span (to 2.0 billion), while the Christian population grew by 122 million (to 2.3 billion).

Americans are far more pessimistic than optimistic about the effect AI will have on human creativity and connection. About half (53%) say AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively, while 16% say it will improve this. And 50% say it will worsen people’s ability to form meaningful relationships with others, while only 5% say it will make this better.

As generative AI technology continues to improve, most Americans (76%) say it’s extremely or very important for them to be able to distinguish between content made by AI and by people. But 53% are not too or not at all confident that they can personally tell the difference; just 12% are highly confident.

*  *  *

This is just a small slice of the Center’s research publications this year.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a stunning display of leftist intolerance, an elderly Target employee found herself on the receiving end of a heated confrontation simply for wearing a shirt honoring conservative icon Charlie Kirk.

The incident, captured on video and shared widely on social media, underscores how the mere sight of patriotic apparel can send so called ‘progressives’ into a frenzy, even in the most mundane settings like a retail store.

The video shows the worker calmly going about her duties in the clothing section, her red “FREEDOM” shirt emblazoned with an American flag sleeve and Kirk’s name. But peace was short-lived as a woman approached, launching into a foul mouthed tirade that reeks of the kind of unhinged rhetoric that’s become all too common from the left.

🚨BREAKING: Deranged Liberal woman HURRASSES an elder Target employee for wearing a Charlie Kirk “FREEDOM” shirt in the store.

LIBERAL: “Are you stupid? You support a racist.”

EMPLOYEE: “He is NOT a racist—have a nice day.”

Liberals are triggered over the rights this… pic.twitter.com/GALFtl3h8E

— The Patriot Oasis™ (@ThePatriotOasis) December 16, 2025

“Are you f***ing stupid? You support a racist?” the woman snarled at the employee, her voice dripping with disdain.

Unfazed, the Target worker explained she was free to wear any red shirt of her choosing and responded with grace: “He is NOT a racist—that’s your opinion, have a nice day.”

The employee continues folding clothes and pushing her cart, embodying the quiet dignity that leftists seem intent on stamping out. The harasser’s words, promising “this is going to be taken above your f***ing head,” echo the knee-jerk accusations often hurled at anyone daring to support freedom.

The simple act of wearing merchandise tied to Kirk was enough to provoke outright harassment. It’s a stark reminder that for some on the left, freedom of expression only applies when it aligns with their worldview.

Liberals champion diversity and inclusion, yet they can’t tolerate a differing opinion expressed through a t-shirt. This woman didn’t just disagree; she harassed a senior citizen at her workplace, potentially violating store policies on customer conduct. If the roles were reversed—say, a conservative berating someone in a BLM shirt—the media would erupt in outrage, labeling it hate speech. But when it’s a leftist doing the bullying, it’s crickets from the fake news media.

This episode exposes the fragility of progressive tolerance. Triggered by symbols of freedom, they lash out, revealing their discomfort with the very rights that allow them to spew such venom.

Charlie Kirk built his movement on empowering young people to think critically and reject agendas that erode national sovereignty. His assassination was a blow to that cause, but incidents like this only fuel the resolve of patriots to carry on his work.

Leftists, emboldened by years of unchecked cultural dominance, now feel entitled to police personal expression in public spaces. But as the employee demonstrated, standing firm with poise is the best rebuke.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend a deadline for states to implement new immigration-related eligibility restrictions on food stamps, a federal judge ruled on Dec. 15.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, during a hearing in Eugene, Oregon, issued an injunction requiring the USDA to extend the expiration date of a grace period for the states to comply with the new restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

The deadline was Nov. 1. It is now April 9, 2026. A written order has not been released yet.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump over the summer, states had to stop letting certain immigrants, including those with deportation hold orders and refugees who are not legal residents, receive food stamps from SNAP, the USDA said in an Oct. 31 memorandum.

The USDA also stated at the time that lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, would only be eligible for SNAP after a 5-year waiting period.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia sued over the guidance. They said that the guidance wrongly required a waiting period for all green card holders, even though another federal law allows a variety of permanent residents, including people who are blind or disabled, to receive SNAP without a waiting period.

Kasubhai said on Dec. 15 that the guidance contributed to “confusion” that impeded states’ ability to implement the new restrictions.

The USDA said it never intended for its guidance to go beyond the new immigration-related eligibility restrictions set forth in the law, and a lawyer for the Department of Justice told the judge that reflected a “misunderstanding” by the states.

On Dec. 9, the USDA issued revised guidance on implementing the new rules, stating that some permanent residents, including refugees, do not need to wait five years to receive food stamps.

The states also said in a motion for a preliminary injunction that if the judge did not block the guidance, he should extend the compliance deadline to March 1, 2026.

Kasubhai said that the updated guidance corrected the USDA’s previous position, which he said ran counter to the One Big Beautiful Act. Later in the hearing, he said the deadline for compliance was illegal, contrary to past practice, and would expose the states’ budgets to irreparable harm if not extended.

“The inability to provide compliance in the time period in which they were forced to by virtue of the guidance contributed to an erosion of trust,” Kasubhai said.

A USDA spokesperson declined to comment in an email to The Epoch Times.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, said in a statement that the ruling “allows Oregon to keep administering SNAP without fear of being punished for following the law.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

European luxury stocks have been locked in a 4.5-year trading range, oscillating between peaks and troughs rather than the up-and-to-the-right pattern seen with AI stocks.

Global consumer uncertainty has been a persistent overhang for the last few years. Lower-income households remain under pressure from inflation and affordability constraints. By contrast, upper-income consumers have benefited from wealth effects driven by rising equity markets, cryptos, precious metals, and home prices.

UBS analyst Andrew Garthwaite now offers clarity on the next move for luxury stocks, writing in a lengthy 2026 outlook note to clients that his team has, for the first time in three years, upgraded luxury to “overweight.”

Garthwaite cited a combination of improving fundamentals, supportive valuations, and strengthening macro tailwinds entering 2026 as the primary reasons for the upgrade in luxury stocks.

The analyst laid out his case in a section of the note titled, “The major sector changes are to upgrade luxury…”: 

We take luxury up to overweight for the first time in over 3 years:

We upgraded to benchmark (from underweight) on July 1st. We raise further because: i) EPS is now back to trend (having been 100% above trend); ii) capex is now below trend (implying that future margins should improve); iii) we are now seeing EPS and revenue expectations being at the low end of range but improving (with UBS forecasting luxury EPS to be 5% above the market compared to consensus on 2% above the market) – we have seen the first signs of margin improvement since 2022; iv) P/E relatives ex Hermes are mid-range (only slightly above its normal 32% P/E premium) – on UBS HOLT, the implied CFROI and growth rate are at the bottom end of their historical range against that of the market at only a 1.3% and 1.5% premium, respectively. A quarter of the luxury cluster is US-related and if just 0.5% on the wealth gain in equities that we predict in 2026 in the US is spent on luxury, then that adds c7% to sales. The rise in gold has generated a wealth gain 3X higher than the losses in bitcoin YTD. The top income decile household stands to benefit by $12K a year (according to the CBO) from the OBBB. A stronger dollar forecast post Q1 26 has statistically speaking been very helpful for a sector with extremely high transactional exposure. High-end luxury tends to avoid the disruption associated in other sectors from Gen AI, GLP-1, governments cutting healthcare budgets or Chinese competition. We forecast outsized growth of the EM middle class, boosting demand for conspicuous status symbols. China is a risk, but Macau casino stocks (a proxy on high-end spending) have modestly outperformed YTD. The team have Buys on LVMH, Richemont and EssilorLuttoxica.

The UBS EU Luxury Goods basket has been rudderless for roughly 4.5 years, trapped in a trading range as investors search for signs of a consumer rebound.

Will a breakout be coming in 2026?

Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pointed to a brighter outlook for low-income consumers in 2026.

ZeroHedge Pro subs can read the full note in the usual place.