One of the more interesting aspects to the Thursday signing ceremony for President Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ in Davos, Switzerland was who was not in attendance.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to attend the signing ceremony, but not necessarily by choice, as he is currently unable to travel to much of Europe on fears of being arrested.

In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes that included using starvation as a weapon of war and deliberately targeting civilians, as well as crimes against humanity.

Gaza sources have said over 70,000 Palestinians were killed in the some two-year long bombardment and siege of the Gaza Strip in the wake of the Oct.7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Israel has countered that tens of thousands of the deceased were armed Hamas militants.

Israel was still represented at the signing ceremony, however:

Netanyahu was replaced at the summit by Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, who travelled to Davos on Tuesday and met German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.

During the meeting, Herzog criticised the absence of Israeli officials from the forum and called for the removal of ICC arrest warrants issued against Israeli leaders, describing the court’s actions as “politically motivated”.

Israeli leaders have blasted the ICC, along with the US, which has actually sanctioned some ICC officials. “Israel is given here a bum rap. I think it’s dangerous. Basically, it’s the first democracy being taken to the dock when it is doing exactly what democracies should be doing in an exemplary way,” Netanyahu told CNN in a past interview. “It endangers all other democracies. Israel is first, but you’re next. Britain is next. Others are next, too.”

As for the newly initiated Board of Peace, the White House earlier this month named several members of the Trump administration, as well as international leaders, to top positions. It officially aims to mobilize international resources while overseeing Gaza’s transition and reconstruction. But critics have said it’s a colonial-style land grab and Western investment project which has nothing to do with the interests of the Palestinian people.

This is who is on the board and participated in the signing event:

• Isa bin Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, minister of the prime minister’s court, Bahrain
• Nasser Bourita, minister of foreign affairs, Morocco
• Javier Milei, president, Argentina
• Nikol Pashinyan, prime minister, Armenia
• Ilham Aliyev, President, Azerbaijan
• Rosen Zhelyazkov, prime minister, Bulgaria
• Viktor Orban, prime minister, Hungary 
• Prabowo Subianto, president, Indonesia
• Ayman Al Safadi, minister of foreign affairs, Jordan
• Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, president, Kazakhstan
• Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, president, Kosovo
• Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, prime minister, Pakistan
• Santiago Peña, president, Paraguay
• Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, president, Qatar
• Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia
• Hakan Fidan, minister of foreign affairs, Turkey
• Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, special envoy to the U.S. for the UAE
• Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president, Uzbekistan
• Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, prime minister, Mongolia

And here’s something deeply ironic: 11 of the 25 countries on Trump’s Board of Peace are currently banned from immigrant visas to the United States.

Jared Kushner presenting this morning at the “Board of Peace” ceremony their mock ups of “New Gaza” & “New Rafah.” pic.twitter.com/zWuhhqPVz1

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) January 22, 2026

Trump will chair the board, which will be tasked with overseeing the next phase in Gaza. Dozens of countries have been invited to join. Notably absent from the Davos signing event were Canada, France, Germany, Italy and some other European nations.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The European Parliament has voted to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the legality of the EU–Mercosur trade agreement, a move that delays ratification of the deal, but the European Commission could still apply the agreement “provisionally” if Germany has its way.

MEPs meeting in Strasbourg approved the referral by 334 votes to 324, following intense lobbying from farming groups and several member states opposed to the agreement. The vote took place against a backdrop of farmers’ protests outside the chamber.

The pact, signed on Saturday with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, aims to establish one of the world’s largest free trade areas by eliminating tariffs on more than 90 percent of bilateral trade, but those opposed have expressed concerns over the importation of cheaper products that need not adhere to the quality control standards European farmers must adhere to.

The vote was immediately criticized by Germany and the European Commission, both of which support the agreement and argue that it is legally sound. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the decision as “regrettable” and warned that it failed to account for Europe’s strategic interests.

“We are convinced of the agreement’s legality. No more delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally,” Merz said on X.

Die Entscheidung des Europäischen Parlaments zum Mercosur-Abkommen ist bedauerlich. Sie verkennt die geopolitische Lage. Von der Rechtmäßigkeit des Abkommens sind wir überzeugt. Keine weiteren Verzögerungen mehr. Das Abkommen muss jetzt vorläufig angewandt werden.

— Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz (@bundeskanzler) January 21, 2026

The European Commission said it “strongly regretted” the outcome, insisting that the legal concerns raised by parliament had already been addressed during negotiations.

“According to our analysis, the questions raised in the motion by the parliament are not justified because the commission has already addressed those questions and issues in a very detailed way,” said Olof Gill, the Commission’s trade spokesman. He confirmed that EU treaties allow for provisional application while the court review is underway.

Outside the parliament building, the reaction was markedly different. Hundreds of farmers, many arriving on tractors, gathered in Strasbourg to protest the deal, which they say would expose European agriculture to unfair competition. When the result was announced, crowds cheered and celebrated.

🟢 VICTOIRE !

Rien n’est jamais joué d’avance !
Après des mois de mobilisation agricole et plus de 7 000 agriculteurs hier à Strasbourg : le Parlement européen vient de voté la saisine de la Cour de Justice de l’UE sur l’accord #MERCOSUR.

La FNSEA et les @JeunesAgri n’ont… pic.twitter.com/HHw9wK0viE

— La FNSEA (@FNSEA) January 21, 2026

“We’ve been on this for months and months, for years,” said Quentin Le Guillous, head of a French young farmers group. “Tonight, I’m going home, I’m going to kiss everyone, and I’m going to tell my kids, ‘I got it, we got it, we can be proud.’”

France, Poland, Austria, Ireland, and Hungary have all voiced opposition to the agreement, citing risks to domestic agriculture and food standards. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the parliamentary vote strengthened that position. “The fight continues to protect our agriculture and guarantee our food sovereignty,” he said.

Several Polish politicians also welcomed the decision. “A major defeat for von der Leyen and her strategy of disregarding the European Treaties!” wrote MEP Beata Szydło, a former Polish prime minister, on X. Law and Justice MEP Maciej Wąsik said, “The farmers’ protests have brought results!” while Confederation MEP Anna Bryłka added, “Big applause for the farmers.”

Umowa UE z Mercosur wstrzymana! Zdecydowaliśmy w PE o skierowaniu skargi do TSUE. Wielka klęska von der Leyen i jej strategii lekceważenia Traktatów Europejskich! Dziś mówiłam o tym, jakim błędem i łamaniem zasad jest umowa z Mercosur: pic.twitter.com/KZzpdSe2EG

— Beata Szydło (@BeataSzydlo) January 21, 2026

Szydło also criticized Chancellor Merz’s call to apply the deal pending the judicial review, writing, “The German Chancellor’s incredible audacity in demanding that the Mercosur agreement enter into force despite the European Parliament’s decision! Does democracy mean nothing if Germans don’t like something?”

Irish MEP Billy Kelleher of Fianna Fáil said the Commission had ignored warnings about agricultural imports and environmental harm. “The European Commission must reflect on its own actions, respect the democratic will of the parliament and await the outcome from the European Court of Justice deliberations,” he said.

Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan said the vote should energize opposition to the deal. “Today is a good day, and hopefully will give momentum to the campaign to stop this rotten trade deal,” she said.

‘Ursula von der Leyen and her commission have to go!’ — Farmers descend on Strasbourg to oppose EU-Mercosur trade deal ahead of European Parliament vote

Supporters of the agreement argued that parliament had chosen delay over substance. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, said lawmakers had not actually voted on the merits of the deal. “The European Parliament did not take a substantive position on Mercosur today; it voted on a procedural motion instead,” he said. “This is an attempt to delay a much-needed agreement for ideological reasons.”

He, too, called for the provisional application of the trade agreement.

Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, was even more critical, calling the vote “absolutely irresponsible” and “an own goal” in a post on X. “Very harmful for our economic interests and standing,” he wrote.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had made a final appeal to lawmakers before the vote, warning against strategic paralysis. “The more trading partners we have worldwide, the more independent we are. And that is exactly what we need now,” she said.

The European Court of Justice is now expected to examine whether the agreement complies with EU treaties, a process that could take several months, but should the agreement be applied provisionally, celebrations among its critics and Europe’s agricultural sector could be short-lived.

Read more here…

Authored by Miguel Santos García via GlobalResearch.ca,

The inaugural BRICS joint naval exercise, “Will for Peace 2026”, that unfolded off the coast of South Africa from January 9 to the 16 marked a significant and symbolic evolution for the bloc but not without its hurdles. With the participation of naval forces from China, South Africa, Russia and Iran in the first multilateral military exercise under the BRICS, its location near the strategic chokepoint of Simon’s Town, SA – a crucial nexus between the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans – is a deliberate projection of presence into vital global trade arteries.

Previously, these nations have engaged in bilateral and trilateral exercises. However, “Will for Peace 2026” is distinctly different. Chinese military expert Zhang Junshe said it is a milestone as the first formal exercise within the BRICS framework itself.

The exercise stated objectives of deepening military exchanges, improving collective response capabilities to maritime threats, and safeguarding the security of trade routes and sea lanes. With an exercise curriculum, featuring anti-terrorism drills, hostage rescue, ship recovery and maritime assault maneuvers, covers a wide spectrum of potential disruptions.

For BRICS nations, the ability to conduct complex joint operations enhances their strategic autonomy, ensuring that vital sea lanes are not solely under the protection or potential control of traditional Western powers. In this way it is a move to “de-risk” their maritime security from the foreign policy whims of others.

Thus, it would seem the nascent institutionalization of defense cooperation moves BRICS beyond an economic dialogue forum into the realm of tangible security coordination.

Asserting Maritime Multipolar Sovereignty?

The BRICS maritime exercises occur against a backdrop of escalating and evolving US piracy threats that increasingly blur the lines between criminal acts and geopolitical coercion. Recent years have seen sophisticated hijackings and attacks targeting vessels from states the US has sanctioned like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela — some of them being China bound — all BRICS/BRICS+ partners.

This is a concerning trend of vessel seizures that target nations already under intense Western sanctions. The theft of tankers linked to Iran, Russia, and Venezuela points to a dangerous new paradigm where maritime crime becomes a tool for applying indirect pressure or for profiteering from geopolitical isolation.

“Peace Will 2026” then signals an intent to develop a bloc-specific capacity to secure member states’ sovereign assets, ensuring they are not solely reliant on Western-led coalitions whose political priorities may conflict with their own.

These nations, all key partners within the expanded BRICS/BRICS+ framework, find their critical energy exports uniquely vulnerable on the high seas. Hence the possible wish to develop an independent capacity to deter, intervene in, and resolve such incidents, ensuring that the bloc’s members’ assets are not sitting ducks against western pressure.

Although, this naval initiative is not necessarily an explicit declaration of hostility toward the United States, but rather a manifestation of a multipolar world in action. In a world where U.S. sanctions, unilateral actions, or naval posturing can disrupt economic lifelines, having a parallel cooperative security mechanism provides a counterweight capable of responding to threats that these nations themselves define, whether they be piracy, terrorism, or the coercive use of naval power by any state.

Decoding BRICS Peace Will 2026

However, to interpret this exercise solely as the birth of a unified naval bloc opposing the West is an oversimplification with the most significant limiting factor being internal fragmentation and lack of synchronicity. BRICS is not a monolithic alliance with a shared security vision but a consortium of often competing interests.

The unfolding “Will for Peace 2026” exercise has swiftly transformed from a display of BRICS unity into a stark revelation of its inherent tensions and the punishing realities of global alignment. South Africa’s eleventh-hour decision to relegate the visiting Iranian naval contingent from active participants to mere observers exposes the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the bloc’s ambitions and a wariness to US pressure. While aiming to project strategic autonomy from Western-led security structures, Pretoria found its symbolic gesture colliding with the hard calculus of national interest. The threat of jeopardizing its crucial trade benefits under the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), currently up for renewal, proved far more powerful than the allure of a consolidated anti-Western front.

This diplomatic reversal lays bare the bloc’s internal fractures, not only does it show South Africa’s precarious balancing act, but it also points to a potential failure of coordination, with reports suggesting the Iranian invitation was extended by a maverick general without full presidential sanction. Consequently, what was intended as a landmark demonstration of a multipolar maritime alternative may instead become a case study in the limits of such partnerships, demonstrating how Western economic leverage can swiftly unravel symbolic military posturing and forcing a reluctant host to choose between ideological companionship and economic survival.

The absence of India from these inaugural drills is very telling as the country is a major maritime power with its own tensions with China and strong ties to Western security initiatives like the QUAD.

Similarly, other new members like the UAE and Saudi Arabia maintain deep, strategic security relationships with the United States.

Consequently, “Peace Will 2026” serves multiple, overlapping purposes, at its core, it is a functional capacity-building exercise addressing real security gaps, particularly for sanctioned states. But also, it is a powerful piece of political performance, for China can show its leadership and normalize its far-sea naval presence, for Russia, it demonstrates strategic partnership despite isolation over Ukraine, while for South Africa, it affirms a “non-aligned” foreign policy. Its ultimate aspiration, however, is undeniably strategic of laying the groundwork for an alternative system of trade security guarantors.

“Peace Will 2026” is thus a pilot project led by its most geopolitically aligned members, not a demonstration of full-bloc consensus. While the current exercise involves only four of the ten BRICS members, it sets a powerful precedent. For global trade, this could eventually mean more actors with the capability to secure chokepoints and patrol routes, potentially reducing reliance on a single power.

Stan Kroenke, the billionaire sports magnate who owns the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams and England’s Arsenal FC, has quietly ascended to the top of America’s private landownership rankings, controlling more than 2.7 million acres following a blockbuster off-market acquisition in December, according to The Land Report.

The deal saw Kroenke purchase over 937,000 acres of ranchland in New Mexico from the heirs of Teledyne founder Henry Singleton, marking the largest single private land transaction in the U.S. in more than a decade, according to The Land Report’s 2026 ranking of the nation’s 100 largest landowners.

The noncontiguous parcels, focused on cattle and horse operations, vaulted Kroenke from fourth place into the No. 1 spot, surpassing the Emmerson family’s 2.44 million acres of timberland through Sierra Pacific Industries, Liberty Media’s John Malone at 2.2 million acres, and former CNN owner Ted Turner’s 2 million acres, Fox Business reports.

Kroenke, who built his fortune in real estate development before expanding into professional sports, has assembled his sprawling portfolio – primarily ranching and grazing land – across the American West and into Canada over decades.

Key holdings include the 560,000-acre Q Creek Ranch in Wyoming, the historic 535,000-acre Waggoner Ranch in Texas, Montana’s Broken O Ranch, Nevada’s Winecup Gamble Ranch, and British Columbia’s Douglas Lake Ranch, according to The Land Report.

How staggering is Kroenke’s total land holdings?

Well, it now exceeds the size of Yellowstone National Park and equates to roughly 2 million football fields, according to Fox Business.

Notably, Microsoft co-founder and one-time Epstein pal Bill Gates remains the largest private owner of dedicated farmland, with approximately 275,000 acres of productive agricultural land across multiple states—far smaller in overall scale but notable amid rising interest in our food supply.

Via The Cradle

US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced in a fresh statement that it has launched a mission to transfer ISIS fighters from Syria to Iraqi government-controlled facilities. The announcement came hours after the Syrian army entered the Al-Hawl Camp in the country’s north, resulting in the escape of thousands of ISIS and ISIS-linked prisoners.

“CENTCOM launched a new mission to transfer ISIS detainees from northeastern Syria to Iraq … to help ensure the terrorists remain in secure detention facilities,” the CENTCOM statement said. “The transfer mission began while US forces successfully transported 150 ISIS fighters held at a detention facility in Hasakah, Syria, to a secure location in Iraq. Ultimately, up to 7,000 ISIS detainees could be transferred from Syria to Iraqi-controlled facilities,” it added.

CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper was quoted as saying that Washington is “closely coordinating with regional partners, including the Iraqi government, and we sincerely appreciate their role in ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS.”

“Facilitating the orderly and secure transfer of ISIS detainees is critical to preventing a breakout that would pose a direct threat to the United States and regional security,” he added.

The CENTCOM chief failed to mention the release of scores of ISIS members in Syria over the past few days.

This week, the Syrian military entered Hasakah Governorate’s Al-Hawl Camp, which for around a decade housed tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners and their families, including foreigners who entered Syria illegally to join the US-backed war against former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Since the Syrian army entered the camp on 20 January, thousands of ISIS members and their families have been released from Al-Hawl.  Videos on social media showed government-affiliated troops arriving at Al-Hawl and allowing the prisoners to leave. 

Over 25,000 people were held in the camp prior to the withdrawal of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which recently lost most of its territory across northern Syria following the start of a massive assault by Damascus. 

“It remains unclear how many detainees have fled and who currently controls the camp,” one of the camp’s overseers told Rudaw. The camp is made up of prisons that held ISIS fighters for years, as well as areas designated for internally displaced people.

Syrian Government Forces have raised the flag of ISIS in Al Karama town east of Raqqah. pic.twitter.com/M5iYwlZtih

— ScharoMaroof (@ScharoMaroof) January 21, 2026

Al-Roj Camp and the Hasakah Prison also hold tens of thousands of ISIS militants. Government forces are nearby but have not yet entered those two prisons.

Yet Hasakah’s Al-Shaddadi Prison fell to government troops three days ago after the SDF said it could no longer hold the facility due to continuous attacks. The Kurdish group slammed the US coalition, located at a base two kilometers away, for ignoring repeated distress calls and requests for assistance. 

According to Kurdish media, at least 1,500 ISIS members have escaped from Al-Shaddadi. Damascus claims a little over 100 ISIS members escaped, and accused the SDF of letting them out.

According to Damascus-linked media reports, 81 ISIS prisoners have been detained by authorities out of a total of 120 who were “let out” by the Kurdish militia.

“I did a great job. You know what I did? I stopped a prison break,” US President Donald Trump boasted to the New York Post on January 20. “Oh, we did a good job with Syria. They had a prison break. European prisoners were breaking out and I got it stopped. That was yesterday,” he went on to say. 

“European terrorists were in prison. They had a prison break. And working with the government of Syria and the new leader of Syria, they captured all the prisoners, put them back to jail, and these were the worst terrorists in the world, all from Europe,” he added, referring to foreign extremists who entered Syria years ago to join Washington’s war against Assad.

NEW: The Pentagon is considering a complete withdrawal of American troops from Syria, U.S. officials said, as Syria’s president moved to wrest control of the northeastern part of the country from an American-backed Kurdish-led militia https://t.co/YRziAcjnoW @laraseligman

— Dave Brown (@dave_brown24) January 22, 2026

The US military has, for years, been transferring ISIS militants across different countries in the region. In 2021, Iraq’s anti-ISIS Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) revealed that thermal cameras had recorded US military helicopters transferring ISIS militants to different locations in the country.

In August 2017, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported seeing US choppers transporting ISIS fighters in and out of the city of Deir Ezzor multiple times. The last reports of these activities came mere days before Syrian and Russian troops retook the city from the terrorist group. 

The former Syrian government also said years ago that ISIS fighters were being moved out of a Kurdish-run prison and relocated to a US military base. Since the government assault on the north started earlier this month, Kurdish authorities have been warning that attacks on prisons pose the threat of triggering a major ISIS resurgence. 

Brimming with bravado after snatching Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a lightning raid on Caracas earlier this month, the Trump administration has now set a goal to end Communism in Cuba by the end of the year, according to sources who talked to the Wall Street Journal. 

Using the Venezuela operation as a blueprint, the White House is working to identify people inside the Cuban government who could be ripe for making a deal in which they use their position to help oust the current leadership, including President and First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba Miguel Diaz-Canel. Maduro’s capture was reportedly enabled by an asset in his inner circle, who helped the CIA closely monitor Maduro’s movements and daily habits ahead of the brazen snatch-and-grab mission.  

Following Maduro’s ouster, Trump used his Truth Social account to warn that the Venezuela operation spelled doom for the communist government of Cuba, and that they should cut a “deal” soon:  

“Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided “Security Services” for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack…THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

According to the Journal’s sources, the White House views the Cuban regime as teetering on the edge of collapse, and increasingly vulnerable with the loss of its Venezuelan trading partners. Assessments by the U.S. intelligence community paint a grim picture inside the communist nation, with Cuba’s tourism and agriculture industries significantly affected by shortages of medicine and basic necessities, routine blackouts, trade sanctions, and a host of other problems. Tourism has declined since the COVID-19 pandemic, and Cuba’s economy has retracted alongside Venezuela’s over the past decade. 

China is delivering 30,000 tons of rice to Cuba, which is facing severe food and fuel shortages due to the U.S. blockade. The delivery is part of a new Chinese emergency aid program, and the first shipment arrived on Monday with the second shipment arriving at the Port of… pic.twitter.com/apHUokTk6Z

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) January 20, 2026

Amid growing unease with Trump’s interventionism — including among a broad swath of conservatives — Trump officials who spoke to the Journal sought to distinguish the administration’s activism from the long line of regime-change efforts he railed against as a candidate: 

Some Trump officials said the president rejects regime-change strategies of the past. Instead, he looks to make deals where possible and to take advantage of opportunities as they come up, a senior Trump official said. As in Venezuela, this could look like escalating pressure while indicating the White House is open to negotiating an off-ramp, the official said. — WSJ

A “White House official” reiterated Trump’s warning about making a deal while there’s still time, saying, “Cuba’s rulers are incompetent Marxists who have destroyed their country, and they have had a major setback with the Maduro regime that they are responsible for propping up.” While the rhetoric suggests a preference for an ouster facilitated solely through the use of enterprising insiders, it seems one can’t rule out another military assault. Cuban blood has already been shed in Trump’s push to establish a new level of US dominance over the Americas, as 32 soldiers and intel agents were killed in the Jan. 3 US assault on Caracas.  

Some observers worry that a collapse of the Cuban government could bring about a major humanitarian crisis that could usher in yet another costly US nation-building program, and waves of refugees seeking asylum. In contrast to Venezuela, Cuba hasn’t had any kind of organized political opposition or parties poised to graduate to managing the country.  

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said on Jan. 21 that the issue of Greenland remaining part of Denmark did not come up during his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Rutte, in an interview with Fox News, was asked about Greenland’s sovereignty under a proposed framework Trump mentioned earlier in the day at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations,” Rutte said. “[Trump] is very much focused on what do we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region—where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and the Russians are more and more active—how we can protect it.”

Rutte told the crowd at the World Economic Forum that Trump was accurate about Chinese and Russian aggression in the region.

“When it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right. Other leaders in NATO are right. We need to defend the Arctic,” Rutte, who previously served as the Dutch prime minister, said.

NATO spokesperson Alison Hart, in a Jan. 21 statement to The Epoch Times, said that discussions would focus on “ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of Allies, especially the seven Arctic Allies.”

Trump announced he had formed the “framework of a future deal” on Greenland and the broader Arctic region following his meeting with Rutte.

The president had threatened 10 percent tariffs on eight European NATO members—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—opposing U.S. acquisition, set to take effect on Feb. 1.

He pulled back on that threat after signaling progress.

“This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations,” Trump wrote in a Jan. 21 post on Truth Social. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.”

Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark since 2009 with about 56,000 residents, hosts a U.S. air base and is rich in critical minerals. Trump has repeatedly said that acquiring the island is essential for national security, blocking Russian or Chinese influence, and enabling a “Golden Dome” missile-defense system.

Negotiations on Greenland have included U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. Recent meetings included Danish and Greenlandic officials and U.S. counterparts on Jan. 14, and a congressional delegation to Denmark on Jan. 17.

Putin, addressing the Greenland issue for the first time in public, signaled on Jan. 21 that Russia would not object to the United States acquiring Greenland and said it was an issue for Denmark and the United States.

“What happens in Greenland is of no concern to us whatsoever,” Putin told a meeting of Russia’s Security Council. “Incidentally, Denmark has always treated Greenland as a colony and has been quite harsh, if not cruel, towards it. But that is a different matter altogether, and hardly anyone is interested in it now.”

Travis Gilmore and Reuters contributed to this report.

It’s quite surprising, and a bit absurd, to read these lines in one of Canada’s premier and most widely read newspapers: “The Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical US military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response, which includes tactics similar to those employed against Russia and later US-led forces in Afghanistan, two senior government officials say.”

This is widely believed to be a first in the history of Canada’s military, given there’s never been reason for this founding NATO member to be attacked by another founding member of NATO, Globe and Mail additionally stated.

The two neighbors also partner and closely coordinate in continental air defense via NORAD, or North American Aerospace Defense Command. But Canadians no doubt woke up shocked Tuesday when beheld the US President sharing the following on social media…

Trump has also lately raised eyebrows in publicly talking about Canada as a potential 51st state, also while expressing his desire for the US to take over Greenland, and coming fresh off the Jan.3rd military assault and incursion on Venezuela to overthrow longtime leader Nicolás Maduro.

According to the Globe report, Ottawa’s contingency thinking and ‘model’ of a hot conflict with US forces reads less like a conventional defense plan and more like an insurgent playbook – even borrowing from the same guerrilla tactics used in Afghanistan by fighters who bled the Soviets and later the Americans.

This would include clashes along the border focused on ambushes, sabotage, as well as classic “hit-and-run tactics,” according to the report.

The Globe stressed that what’s being mulled remains a “conceptual and theoretical framework, not a military plan, which is an actionable and step-by-step directive for executing operations.” Naturally, Western media and tabloids are having fun with this one:

The two senior government officials said military planners are modelling a U.S. invasion from the south, expecting American forces to overcome Canada’s strategic positions on land and at sea within a week and possibly as quickly as two days.

Such an ‘insurgency-style’ response, as opposed to setting up a conventional battlefield ‘front’ – seems an acknowledgement that America’s armed forces would be far superior to Canada’s small military by comparison.

Officials featured in the Canadian media report downplayed the odds that Trump would actually order an invasion of Canada. Also there would be clear signs, probably very far in advance.

Obvious warning signs would including Washington pulling the plug on bilateral cooperation through NORAD, for starters. The neighbors’ bilateral trade would also likely collapse, and a ban on visas would like result in spiraling relations.

The two NATO powers are nowhere near that point, of course, but Canada does risk Trump’s wrath as it this week said it is considering sending troops to Greenland, to potentially join EU countries’ own deployments as they signal Washington that Denmark is not prepared to give up the resource-rich huge Arctic land mass.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Jan. 21 that he would support articles of impeachment against some federal judges after congressional Republicans floated the prospect last year.

During a press conference, a reporter asked Johnson about Senate Republicans suggesting that the House bring articles of impeachment against judges. Multiple Republicans have signaled they want to impeach two U.S. district judges, James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman.

“I’m for it,” Johnson said during the Wednesday news conference alongside other Republican House members. “Judge Boasberg is one who’s been mentioned.”

“Impeachment, as we have discussed all together many, many times, is an extreme measure. But extreme times call for extreme measures. And I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they’re supposed to operate, it would not be, in my view, a bad thing for Congress to lay down the law, so to speak, and to make an example of some of these egregious abuses,” the House speaker said, without naming other judges.

He did not offer a timeline on when impeachment articles could be introduced.

“We’ll see where it goes,” he said.

The House requires a simple majority to impeach an official such as a judge, but the bar is raised much higher in the Senate. A two-thirds majority in the upper chamber is needed to convict and remove an official if and after a House impeachment passes.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) in March introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg following court decisions that barred Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan illegal immigrant gang members.

The lawmaker also moved to introduce articles to impeach Boasberg in November over a separate decision related to the Arctic Frost investigation.

In October, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced an impeachment resolution targeting Boardman for a sentencing decision that she made for a man accused of plotting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The man, Nicholas Roske, was sentenced to 8 years in prison, while prosecutors had sought upwards of 30 years of imprisonment.

The text of the resolution states that Boardman should be impeached for handing down an “indefensibly light sentence” to Roske, who prosecutors had said had traveled to Kavanaugh’s home in June 2022 with a plan to kill the justice before he called the authorities on himself.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Commerce Committee, said in a Senate hearing earlier this month that he wants impeachment proceedings against Boardman and Boasberg, saying that “both … meet the standard for impeachment and for conviction and removal of office.”

Democrats in Congress say, however, that the impeachment efforts are misguided and pointless.

Among them is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who this week said in a statement that a call to impeach Boardman over the Roske sentencing “contradicts basic law and history.”

Whitehouse, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, said that in the case, “a notice of appeal has been filed regarding that sentencing, so it remains an active judicial proceeding, not a proper subject of partisan legislative pressure,” according to a Jan. 20 news release from his office.

Whitehouse characterized impeachment suggestions against Boasberg as part of an unjust “barrage of threats by the MAGA movement and the Trump administration” that “appear intended to intimidate” the judge.

President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday that his administration could distribute $2,000 direct payments to Americans – a “dividend” from tariff proceeds – without congressional authorization, citing the absence of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his sweeping import duties.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump suggested that the surge in tariff revenue could fund the payouts while also reducing the national debt, which is approaching $38.5 trillion.

“We have so much money coming in from tariffs that we’ll be able to make a very substantial dividend to the people of our country,” the president said. “I believe we can do that without Congress.”

🚨 HOLY CRAP. President Trump says he’s going to give out the $2,000 tariff dividend check to middle class Americans WITHOUT Congress

This is HUGE for the midterms!

“$2K dividend and pay down debt. We’d set an income limit. We can make a payment to the people WITHOUT Congress!” pic.twitter.com/c7aUDVMcHq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 20, 2026

The proposal would largely benefit moderate-income households, potentially with eligibility caps based on income.

Tariff collections rose sharply in 2025 following the imposition of duties ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from major trading partners. An analysis conducted by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows gross federal revenue from tariffs reached approximately $288.5 billion—nearly triple the $98.3 billion recorded in 2024. Independent estimates have placed the 2025 figure in a range of roughly $260 billion to $300 billion.

In the meantime, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has adopted a more measured stance on Trump’s tariff “dividend.” In November, Bessent told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that enacting the payments would require new legislation from Congress. “We will see. We need legislation for that,” the Treasury secretary replied when questioned about the checks, adding that they “could go out” if passed by Congressional lawmakers.

Bessent said the intended beneficiaries could be “working families” and stressed that an income limit would apply, potentially focusing on households earning under $100,000 or similar moderate-income thresholds.

Bessent has also suggested the $2,000 benefit might not take the form of direct cash disbursements. In an interview with ABC News’s “This Week,” the Treasury secretary said while he had not yet finalized details with Trump, the “dividend could come in lots of forms,” such as through tax reductions already under consideration—including exemptions for tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits, among other deductions.

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, also said in December that any direct payments to Americans funded by tariff revenue would require a formal proposal to Congress and would ultimately hinge on lawmakers’ appropriations.

“I would expect that in the new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen,” Hassett told CBS News’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan