Realtors, mortgage lenders, and other industry professionals: if three years of depressed transaction activity have you thinking about exiting, it may be worth holding that thought for now. A new Goldman note suggests that policy maneuvering by the Trump administration could partially unfreeze the housing market in the upcoming selling season, potentially reviving some activity.

The Trump administration is attempting to unfreeze a housing market paralyzed by elevated mortgage rates and high home prices, which have pushed affordability to generational lows.

Goldman analyst Arun Manohar penned a note on Wednesday asking clients: All hands on deck to fix US housing affordability?

Manohar highlighted several key housing policies under the Trump administration: a recently announced $200 billion MBS purchase program aimed at lowering mortgage rates, a proposed ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes, and additional measures designed to reduce the cost of homeownership.

Here’s the note:

Affordability, particularly in the context of housing, has recently been a central focus for the Trump administration. In a national televised address delivered in December, the President announced forthcoming plans which he described as “the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history.” According to media reports, President Trump is expected to introduce several initiatives aimed at enhancing housing affordability during his upcoming speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. To date, two policies have been previewed, each of which has already had market moving impacts. In today’s Global Markets Daily, we discuss the impact of recently introduced policies and outline additional measures that may be under consideration.

GSE MBS purchase program has already pushed mortgage rates lower by 15bp

On January 8th, President Trump posted on social media that he has instructed his representatives to buy $200 billion of mortgage bonds. Subsequently, Director Pulte and Secretary Bessent have essentially confirmed that the buying is being carried out by the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) – Fannie and Freddie. Although very limited details about the program are available so far, the agency MBS market has quickly priced in the program with production coupon spreads tightening around 14-15bp so far. We believe the spread tightening so far is consistent with a program of this magnitude and hence believe that it is fully priced-in. Mortgage rates have also declined in tandem and are now close to the lowest levels since September 2022 (Exhibit 1). This should improve affordability and improve sentiment in the housing market ahead of the key spring homebuying season. We believe that the cumulative decline of around 80bp in mortgage rates since June 2025 could boost existing home sales by at least 5-7% in 2026 vs. 2025. Moreover, it is possible that the administration could push new Fed leadership to provide additional support to housing by reinvesting monthly run-offs from the Fed’s portfolio back into MBS. However, as we noted recently, if the $200 billion purchase program is a one-off, and there are no other MBS purchase programs from the GSEs/Fed/Treasury, then MBS spreads are likely to end the year wider vs. current levels. Agency MBS nominal spreads are already tighter vs. their longer-term average, and OASs are at levels last observed during the Fed’s QE purchase program (Exhibit 2). Therefore, the key risk for the housing market is that the decline in mortgage rates over the past two days reverses by the end of the year.

Proposed ban on institutional investors from purchasing single family homes

The other major housing policy announcement from last week was President Trump’s intention to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. While the goal of this policy is to reduce competition from institutions and increase supply/reduce prices for individuals, we believe the national impact will be quite small. In aggregate, industry estimates show that institutional investors own less than 0.5% of total housing stock and around 2-3% of rental housing stock (Exhibit 3). Estimates from Cotality show that institutions owning 100+ units account for about 5% of recent home purchase activity. The rental housing market is largely dominated by smaller investors, who own around 79% of the total rental units. The impact could be slightly larger in some of the sunbelt metros where institutional investors have a greater presence. As prices of existing homes have soared in recent years, large single-family rental (SFR) operators have shifted towards built-to-rent homes, where they have better control over unit economics, rather than buying homes from MLS. These homebuilding operations provide much-needed supply, and we believe will not be included in any potential institutional purchase ban. Built-to-rent home volumes have averaged approximately 15k per quarter over the past year. Finally, Secretary Bessent spoke about the institutional SFR ban during an interview at the Economic Club of Minnesota last week and his comments suggest that the institutional SFR ban would not apply retroactively. While we need to see the actual language when and if Congress approves the legislation, it appears the administration would be comfortable with institutional SFR operators retaining the properties they already own. This removes a major headwind to the housing market.

Related:

• Goldman Reveals Housing “Affordability Illusion” When Factoring Other Costs

Whether the Trump administration can solve the U.S. housing affordability crisis, which largely emerged during the Bidenomics era, remains an open question. Lower mortgage rates would clearly provide a tailwind as the selling season typically begins in late February or early March, when buyers reemerge after winter, weather conditions improve, and house-hunting activity accelerates. As for the 50-year mortgage rate idea, that Trump administration proposal appears to have been shelved for now.

Authored by John Halpin via The Liberal Patriot,

National Politics Is A Graveyard

It’s time to face reality: two-party politics has failed. Americans want more and better choices than the ones Republicans and Democrats currently provide. Whether the two-party system stands or gets radically transformed in the future remains an open question, however.

As reported by Gallup, a record-high percentage of American adults at the end of 2025 self-identified as political independents, 45 percent, including majorities of both millennials and Generation Z plus a plurality of Generation X. In comparison, less than three in ten Americans self-identified as either a Republican or a Democrat in 2025, respectively.

People who cling to a fading notion of partisanship often assert that political independence is a youthful phase and that people’s party affinities deepen with age. While this may have been true in the past, Gallup’s numbers challenge the notion going forward—political independence tops partisan identification among every age cohort born from 1965 on.

The recent increase in independent identification is partly attributable to younger generations of Americans (millennials and Generation X) continuing to identify as independents at relatively high rates as they have gotten older. In contrast, older generations of Americans have been less likely to identify as independents over time. Generation Z, like previous generations before them when they were young, identify disproportionately as political independents.

As political independence increases steadily, the desire for a major third party has also climbed. Sixty-two percent of American adults in 2025 said that a new party is needed compared to only three in ten adults who feel that the “Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people.” In contrast, 56 percent of U.S. adults felt the two parties adequately represented Americans in 2003.

The desire for a third party makes sense when you examine the sharp declines in public favorability towards both Republicans and Democrats. In the early 2000s, more than six in ten Americans held a favorable opinion of both parties at some point. By the end of 2025, only four in ten felt favorably about Republicans, and only 37 percent felt that way about Democrats.

If you look at the trajectories of the last three presidential terms, Trump-Biden-Trump, you can see how disdain for partisanship plays out. In each instance, the incumbent party’s president lost overall public support rapidly as independent supporters sided with the opposition against the incumbent, leading to frequent switches in party control of both the Congress and the presidency. Trump and Republicans came into office in 2017 with unified control of government only to lose the House in 2018 and both the presidency and Senate after the 2020 election. Biden came into office in 2021 with unified control of Congress and promptly lost the House in 2022, and then Democrats lost both the presidency and the Senate in 2024. Trump again started his second term with unified control of government yet looks on track to at least lose the House in 2026.

Who knows what will happen in 2028 at the end of the Trump era? Stability seems unlikely, however.

Neither party seems capable of building nor sustaining durable national majorities. Republican and Democratic leaders and their policy programs are widely disliked by both political opponents and many independents, as they each pursue purely partisan objectives when in power that further polarize and alienate the electorate. Since voters are essentially forced to choose between two failed parties every cycle, the system chugs along with Americans growing increasingly cynical about government and politics.

But if voters were offered an option beyond the two major parties, many Americans would gladly take it up.

Given the amount of money and anger floating around politics today, it’s genuinely puzzling why a viable third party has not started. Of course, with the stranglehold of Republicans and Democrats over election laws and regulations, third parties face enormous hurdles. Likewise, except for Libertarians, third parties tend to organize around mercurial figures like Ross Perot, RFK Jr., or Elon Musk rather than around a concrete set of ideas or a coalition of voting blocs united behind a common purpose pursued over time.

Perhaps the viability of third parties will change in the not-too-distant future. For example, one could imagine a mostly moderate, pro-business, anti-deficit, anti-culture war party emerging to appeal to disgruntled centrists. Perhaps an old-school conservative party might rise to attract ex-Republicans who dislike Trump’s transformations of the GOP, or perhaps a truly social-democratic, pro-labor party could bring together working-class ex-Democrats who disagree with the party’s cultural and economic turn. One could also imagine two fiery left- or right-populist parties cropping up separately (or combined) to challenge the two-party duopoly.

For any of these third parties to have a chance, however, America first needs a strong independent movement dedicated to changing state and federal laws that enshrine two-party politics. As Jesse Wegman and Lee Drutman argue, this means a switch from winner-take-all to proportional representation in national legislative elections, with the creation of multimember districts and the elimination of partisan gerrymandering (and U.S. Senate and presidential elections remaining constitutionally the same).

Proportional representation models vary by country, but basically all of them create a situation where political parties get legislative seats based on the percentage of the vote they receive in a given election, thus encouraging and rewarding multiparty competition. In the American House of Representatives under this scenario, you could hypothetically vote for the populist-right Patriot Party, the centrist Liberal Party, the enviro Greens, or the Christian conservative Family Party, and each would get seats if they meet certain thresholds of support. The House, in turn, would be required to form some coalition of parties to enact laws to send to their Senate counterparts and eventually the president, who would also have to work with more than his own party and the traditional opposition to get things done.

It’s not a perfect system and potentially creates its own problems with stability. But a politics based on proportional representation would certainly meet the American public where they are in terms of their own often complicated views and the limited party choices they get every election cycle.

Change of this nature would require sitting or future members of both parties voting to reform state and federal election laws to allow for proportional representation in the House. America does not need to become a parliamentary democracy to do this or go through elaborate constitutional amendments. Reformers just need some willpower and solid organization to overcome partisan strong-arming and resistance to change.

At some point, a dedicated group of independents and like-minded members of the two parties need to put their heads together, with serious philanthropic backing, to develop a real movement to create proportional representation in America—with policy designs, model legislation, federal and state lobbying efforts, and public communications and voter outreach.

This is a tall order, for sure, but not impossible given the rising public hatred of existing partisanship and politicians themselves seeing the writing on the wall about dysfunctional government. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate a two-party system. Legislative elections can be changed to support multiple parties if Americans and a new generation of leaders choose to do so. Any takers?

Authored by John Rampton Via The Epoch Times,

If you’re over 50 and feel behind on retirement savings, you’re not alone—and you’re not out of options. There is a powerful tool that the government provides to help you close the gap: catch-up contributions.

This extra contribution is designed to help older workers boost their retirement savings during their peak earning years. Its importance has never been greater than it is today because of rising inflation, higher living costs, and longer life expectancies. In addition, the SECURE 2.0 Act (SECURE refers to Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) has added more opportunities by 2025, especially for those between the ages of 60 and 63.

Let’s take a look at what’s new, how much you can contribute, and what the updates mean for your retirement plan.

Why Catch-Up Contributions Matter

It is a struggle for many Americans to save enough for retirement. For people 55–64, the median retirement savings are $185,000, which is much lower than the $1.26 million “magic number.”

A catch-up contribution gives you a chance to make up for lost time. If you started saving late, took time off work, or simply couldn’t save as much as you hoped, these contributions let you go beyond 401(k) and 403(b) limits.

With the average life expectancy now in its 80s, a larger nest egg allows you to maintain your lifestyle, cover healthcare expenses, and reduce financial stress as you age.

Standard Catch-Up Contribution Rules

The Internal Revenue Service allows you to contribute more to your retirement accounts if you’re over 50.

• 401(k), 403(b), and similar plans. In 2025, you can contribute an additional $7,500.
• Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) (Traditional or Roth). An additional $1,000 can be added each year.

If you’re over 50, you could contribute up to $31,000 to your 401(k) and $8,000 to your IRA in 2025, assuming you have the income and plan flexibility.

In addition to boosting your savings, pre-tax contributions can also cut your taxable income or boost tax-free retirement income—if contributions are made to a Roth.

What’s New in 2025: Key Retirement Contribution Limits

Always check your plan details with your employer or plan administrator, as contribution limits and eligibility may vary.

Standard Workplace Plan Limits

• Employee deferral limit. The maximum amount for 2025 is $23,500.
• Standard catch-up (Age over 50). For those 50 or older, an additional $7,500 can be contributed, bringing the total to $31,000.

SECURE 2.0 ‘Super Catch-Up’

As a result of SECURE 2.0, retirees will experience a powerful—but temporary—boost.

• Who qualifies? Employees aged 60, 61, 62, or 63 in 2025.
• Limit. There is an enhanced catch-up of up to $11,250—the greater of $10,000 or 150 percent of the standard $7,500 limit.
• Total potential contribution. It’s possible to defer up to $34,750 in 2025, including $23,500 in standard deferral and $11,250 in super catch-up, if your plan allows it.
• Action step. Employers have the option of using this feature. Be sure to check with your HR department or plan administrator to confirm participation.

This “super catch-up” gives late-career savers a rare chance to supercharge their savings in the final years before retirement.

IRA Contribution Limits (Traditional & Roth)

• Standard IRA limit. The same as last year.
• Catch-up (Age over 50). Those 50 and older can contribute an additional $1,000, bringing the total contribution to $8,000.

Even if you’re contributing to a workplace plan, adding to an IRA can increase your investment options and tax savings.

Mandatory Roth Catch-Up for High Earners

Some older workers will soon be able to make catch-up contributions under a new rule called SECURE 2.0.

• Who is Affected. Participants aged 50 or older and who earned more than $145,000 in Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) wages from the employer in the previous calendar year.
• The Rule. Catch-up contributions must be made on an after-tax Roth basis. Pre-tax catch-up contributions will no longer be an option for this group.
• Who is Exempt. Individuals earning $145,000 or less, or those contributing only to IRAs/SIMPLE (savings incentive match plan for employees) IRAs.

Ultimately, starting in 2026, high earners aged over 50 will pay taxes on their catch-up contributions upfront (Roth), but can withdraw their money in retirement tax-free. If their plans offer it, all other eligible employees can continue to choose between pre-tax and Roth options.

How to Think About This Emotionally

Behavior isn’t driven by numbers alone—it’s driven by feelings. For you to make this real, here are a few mindset pivots:

• From “Am I too late?” to “I’m on the home stretch and I can sprint.” You may not have decades ahead of you, but you do have years—and that can translate into meaningful savings.
• From “I can’t make up for lost time” to “Let’s make the next 10–15 years count.” Rather than lamenting what you missed, think about what you can still gain. You can use this catch-up window to your advantage.
• From “Retirement is far away” to “Every dollar now has more impact.” The later you start, the greater the impact of every incremental dollar saved. In other words, boosting contributions is not optional—it’s strategic.
• From “Saving is painful” to “Saving is freedom.” The more you contribute, the fewer worries you’ll have later on. In the long run, it’s more about peace than immediate sacrifice.

How to Make Catch-Up Contributions Work for You

For those numbers to become results, here are some actionable steps:

Confirm Your Plan Allows for Catch-Ups

There is no guarantee that your plan will provide it just because you are over 50. If you are unsure of your plan’s details, check with HR or benefits. There must be a provision for catch-up contributions in the plan.

Decide Whether to Use Pre-Tax or Roth

If your retirement plan allows Roth contributions, consider your tax strategies: paying tax now versus paying tax later. Beginning in 2026, high earners may be required to follow Roth catch-up rules. In other words, this is a strategic moment.

Automate Your Contributions

Be sure to set your payroll deferral to capture the full limit, or as much as you can comfortably afford. As a result, decision fatigue and “out of sight, out of mind” barriers are removed.

Prioritize if Balancing Other Needs

Depending on how you balance savings, debt, and lifestyle costs, you may not reach the full catch-up limit at once. That’s okay. Decide what you can contribute now and then increase it incrementally.

Pair This With the Broader Retirement Plan

While catch-up contributions alone cannot guarantee retirement success, they can certainly enhance it. In addition to asset allocation, spending targets, withdrawal strategies, and other late-career considerations, make sure you consider other factors as well.

Work Until You’re Ready

Adding a working year increases savings, contributions, compound growth, and reduces the number of years of drawdown. With the right health and circumstances, staying in the workforce longer can be a perfect combination with catch-up strategies.

Watch-Outs and Potential Pitfalls

Catch-ups have caveats, as with anything:

• Plan limitations. Your employer should allow catch-ups and super catch-up contributions if you fall into the 60–63 bracket. But it is possible that some plans will not implement these new limits right away.
• Tax-treatment shifts. Beginning in 2026, many high earners will have to make catch-up contributions as Roth contributions (losing the upfront deduction). As a result, there is less immediate tax benefit through future tax-free growth.
• Cash-flow and lifestyle trade-offs. Increasing contributions means less take-home pay. If you over-stretch, you may feel deprived or be stressed about your finances. Balance is key.
• Not substituting for a full retirement plan. Contributions are powerful, but you also need to address spending habits, investment risk, and withdrawal strategies. In other words, don’t think of catch-ups as a magic wand.
• Over-reliance on employer plans. When you change jobs, your employer’s match, vesting, or plan rules may change. Be flexible and adapt your strategy as needed.

The Emotional Payoff: Why It’s Worth It

As you shift your mindset from “I’m behind” to “I’m catching up smartly,” several emotional changes occur:

• Less anxiety about “being too old to save.” It’s a matter of actively using your advantages.
• By maximizing every available lever, you’ll have more confidence in your retirement horizon.
• More control over your retirement narrative rather than resigning to “We’ll see what happens.”
• Being proactive now instead of waiting and worrying later gives you more peace of mind.

Yes, it feels good to know that you are going the extra mile. Compound growth, tax savings, and emotional resilience are all benefits of that “something extra.”

Final Thoughts

If you’re over 50 and working, don’t miss out on catch-up contributions. In 2025, you have the opportunity to boost your savings, close gaps, and reshape your retirement outlook. In certain plans, $31,000 is available (or up to $34,750 if you are 60-63) in total. Keep in mind that you still have time, you can still act, and you can still make meaningful progress.

As you move forward, make sure you check your plan’s specifics, choose pre-tax vs Roth, automate, balance lifestyle, and integrate into your larger retirement plan. By doing so, you won’t just increase your savings—you’ll change your perception of your financial future, too. In many instances, how you feel is crucial to a successful retirement.

So, let’s close the gap, own the next chapter, and make every contribution count.

By John Rampton

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

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump will unveil a plan next week that would allow Americans to withdraw funds from their 401(k) accounts to use for a home down payment.

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett announced the plan during an interview with Fox Business on Jan. 16, adding that the details of the proposal are still being finalized.

He said Trump will announce the final plan in Davos next week.

“The Fed lifted interest rates so much that mortgage rates went through the roof,” Hassett said.

He pointed out that the average monthly payment for a typical family buying a home has nearly doubled, and the down payment required had risen from about $15,000 to around $32,000 during the Biden administration.

Hassett stated that significant progress is needed to address the housing affordability problem, and the latest plan is one of many policies introduced by the president to help achieve this goal.

“We’re still talking about the mechanics of it,” he said.

Hassett explained that homeowners could put 10 percent of their home’s equity into a 401(k) plan, and as the home’s value goes up, the 401(k) would grow too. This approach, he said, could provide more funds for retirement, solve liquidity constraints, and make it easier to buy a house earlier in life.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has introduced a range of proposals to help more Americans achieve homeownership, including bringing down mortgage rates and banning large institutional investors from buying additional residential homes.

In a Jan. 8 Truth Social post, Trump directed the purchase of $200 billion in mortgage bonds to help reduce interest rates.

“This will drive Mortgage Rates down, monthly payments down, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable,” Trump wrote.

On Jan. 7, Trump also announced that he’s taking steps to bar large investors from purchasing more single-family homes, and said he would urge Congress to codify it.

Institutional investors are defined as companies owning 1,000 or more properties. Blackstone is considered the largest private-equity owner of U.S. apartments, with more than 230,000 units, according to data from the Private Equity Stakeholder Project as of April 2025.

Affordability of homeownership has become a growing concern, especially for first-time buyers.

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, housing costs rocketed, with median home prices rising 55 percent and rents surging more than 35 percent nationwide.

Borrowing costs also shot up in 2022 after the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to combat inflation.

The American Dream is out of reach, especially for many young people. The typical age of first-time buyers climbed to 40 in 2025, the highest on record and up from 31 in 2014, according to a report by The Center for American Progress.

Andrew Moran and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

New York City’s Democratic Socialists of America are moving to train and mobilize more than 4,000 anti-ICE activists into “rapid response” units designed to interfere with federal deportation operations targeting criminal illegal aliens, according to a New York Post report.

DSA’s effort to assemble a highly organized anti-ICE army of purple-haired leftists to impede federal deportation operations is particularly alarming because the planning phase was apparently being done at an upscale Midtown headquarters of the Chinese Communist Party-linked People’s Forum, a venue littered with pro-Communism rhetoric.

“As we’ve seen in other cities, we still do anticipate a big wave of federal immigration enforcement,” a DSA official who called herself Marina told the crowd of about 100 members last Thursday.

NYPost reported that the NYC chapter is preparing to train upwards of 2,000 DSA members and another 2,000 non-members, and to activate 50 additional trainers. If this story is accurate, it suggests that pressure campaigns against ICE agents on city streets, such as those seen in Minneapolis after the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer, are highly organized.  

“When we got the call for this ICE sighting, within minutes, we had 20 to 30 observers on foot and in vehicle, myself included. We showed up and we overwhelmed these ICE agents so much that they let this detainee go. They are scaring us, but we are scaring them right back. We have to keep going. It is working,” one of these legal observers in Minneapolis admitted in a social media post.

ALERT: Woman reveals that a quick response group she’s in was able impede and obstruct an ICE operation that ended in the detainee being let loose:

“When we got the call for this ICE sighting, within minutes, we had 20 to 30 observers on foot and in vehicle, myself included.… pic.twitter.com/4rYXbWfitN

— E X X ➠A L E R T S (@ExxAlerts) January 18, 2026

Here’s more from the NYPost report:

The group didn’t say what all of this will cost, but the member-funded organization repeatedly asked for money throughout the nearly two-hour long meeting – with one leader even going around the room with a red beanie soliciting cash donations in the socialist version of a collection plate.

Most concerning is that a dark-money NGO network tied to a CCP-linked communist billionaire, Neville Roy Singham, was allegedly at the center of this anti-ICE chaos and potentially seen as a command-and-control support node to organize nationwide protests.

This time around, as the Democratic Party’s NGO network attempts to spark ‘George Floyd 2.0’, we’ve understood how this protest industrial complex operates, and even the Trump administration has caught on, with Trump lashing out at paid protesters, and even Scott Bessent at the Treasury talking about investigating the NGOs.

It has become clearer than ever that Democrats and their NGO networks are waging a color-revolution-style operation against the America First agenda, one that increasingly appears aimed at obstructing federal deportation efforts intended to restore national security after the Biden-Harris regime allowed an invasion.

Democrats oppose the deportation of criminal illegals because they view this population as a future voting bloc, part of a broader strategy to entrench a sinister one-party rule. In the process, national security has been sacrificed for political power.

Why Democrats and their DSA allies are coordinating with a CCP-linked communist billionaire’s group to disrupt efforts to restore national security should be deeply alarming to the Trump administration. Yet amid all this chaos, one question remains: why have there been no meaningful reforms in the NGO universe?

“At this point, I have to believe that authorities and law enforcement know that the People’s Forum is not just ground zero for organizing NYC protests, but for foreign influence nonprofits on a national level. For them to be collaborating with the DSA, fresh off their return from Cuba, is a huge escalation in the revolution against the West. The DSA has an estimated 11,000 members in NYC alone. I pray that we don’t have another summer of protest-turned-riots in American cities, but these groups are training to do exactly that. You know the old saying: When someone tells you who they are, believe them,” an NGO expert focused on the Singham network told ZeroHedge.

The NGO-funded madness continues in Minneapolis, but the volume on violence has been turned up and it appears that activists have been given the green light to physically assault anyone and everyone they deem a political enemy.  Conservative counter-protesters arriving in the area in small groups or alone have become easy targets for mobs of hundreds of rabid leftists roaming the streets. 

The activists now claim Minneapolis is “their city”, as we witnessed in Seattle during the short lived “CHAZ” experiment and the BLM riots. 

Social media is being flooded with multiple instances of conservative commentators, protesters and also unaffiliated bystanders being assaulted and some nearly killed.  This includes former J6 prisoner and “controversial” Florida Senate candidate Jake Lang, who was rushed by a large leftist mob, cornered, beaten and reportedly stabbed. 

Minneapolis: 🚨 Thousands of left-wing rioters are becoming increasingly violent.

Jake Lang was just PULLED INTO and TAKEN AWAY by a violent mob!
pic.twitter.com/MtVl9m7CQm

— Jay M.D. 🇺🇸 (@PatriotHQ) January 17, 2026

Lang was attacked following a speech he gave a the Minneapolis City Hall for his “March Against Fraud”.  There were no Minneapolis police to be found during the incident.  Lang was struck over the head several times with various weapons, and had to be hospitalized for severe lacerations and cranial bleeding.  Keep in mind, this attack was for Lang simply giving a speech. 

Whether or not one agrees with Lang’s views on immigration and race, he has the right to voice them without being nearly murdered.

Another pro-ICE demonstrator was stalked by a mob and is seen on video allegedly being chased into a parking garage and struck in the head with a pole by anti-ICE agitators. The mob continued following the unidentified man, who was walking to a car in the garage to leave.  They reportedly continued to pepper spray a gash on his head and struck the wound with their hands.

🚨 BREAKING: Leftists just caused RAPID BLEEDING of an ICE supporter by beating him over the head with a flag pole in Minneapolis

Police TOTALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

Mayor Frey called for this. He’s getting the violence he wants.

SEND THE FEDS!https://t.co/IqjWpILwYK

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 17, 2026

NGO protesters are also setting up road blocks and checkpoints to stop vehicles near the Minneapolis federal building, looking for ICE agents and anyone who might be conservative.  Detained drivers are asked to say “Fuck ICE”, as a test of their political affiliations.

🚨🇺🇸 PROTESTERS DEMANDING NAZI CHECKS BEFORE LETTING CARS PASS

Demonstrators blocking vehicles outside Minneapolis federal building, interrogating occupants before allowing passage.

City descending into mob rule territory.pic.twitter.com/qS5tIoXeJ6 https://t.co/MAZNTtlBIq

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 16, 2026

In some cases the rioters attack their own people.  This man was beaten and nearly mobbed simply for wearing a camo jacket.  Activists are heard screaming “He’s one of us!”

BREAKING – Minneapolis police have completely turned over the city to leftists, as they are now forming groups to hunt down anyone who appears to support ICE, with this man being saved by the feds just moments before being beaten for simply wearing camo. pic.twitter.com/4b29KEx79F

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) January 17, 2026

This man was attacked for wearing a flag jacket with the word “Freedom” on the back.  Protesters yelled that they would not hurt him if he took the jacket off.

“Take it off and you won’t get hurt”

Minneapolis (Jan. 17) — Masked Antifa, far-left, anti-ICE thugs threaten and attack a person of color for wearing an American flag hoodie. Video by @Julio_Rosas11: pic.twitter.com/iwI6lMb8Gl

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) January 18, 2026

The Trump Administration is organizing a response to violent rioters – Around 1,500 active-duty soldiers on standby from the 11th Airborne.  It is clear that local law enforcement officials and Democrat leaders plan to do nothing to impede the unchecked criminality of the NGO funded mob. 

Mayor Jacob Frey asserts that the city will be peaceful again as soon as ICE agents leave the area. 

In other words, the activists are a tool for extortion; they create the chaos and the violence and ICE gets the blame.  

Authored by Brayden Lindrea via CoinTelegraph.com,

The Ethereum staking validator exit queue has dropped to zero – signaling a dramatic fall in selling pressure and strengthening confidence in Ether (ETH) as a yield-bearing asset.

Data from Ethereum Validator Queue shows the exit queue has fallen from its September 2025 peak of 2.67 million Ether (ETH) to 0 ETH, while the entry queue has risen more than fivefold over the last month to 2.6 million ETH, the highest since July 2023.

Wait times for the entry queue have now stretched out to 45 days, while exiting ETH is being processed in a matter of minutes.

Ethereum staking entry and exit queue data. Ethereum Validator Queue

Industry analysts said the massive staking inflows strengthen ETH’s supply-demand dynamic, potentially setting the stage for sustained upward price momentum in the coming months.

“Once the entry queue converts into active validators, the staking rate moves higher and pushes toward new all-time highs,” Onchain Foundation’s head of research Leon Waitmann said on Monday.

 “Bullish set-up for the coming months.”

The massive inflows have been partly pushed by institutional demand for ETH staking yields, which is currently around 2.8% Annual Percentage Rate.

BitMine Immersion Technologies, led by chairman Tom Lee, has been a contributor, having staked over 1.25 million ETH, more than a third of its total ETH holdings.

Nearly half of all ETH is in PoS deposit contract

Crypto analytics platform Santiment noted that more than 46.5% of the total ETH supply is now in the ETH proof-of-stake deposit contract at 77.85 million ETH, worth $256 billion at current prices.

Change in ETH Proof-of-Stake Deposit Contract since Jan. 2016. Source: Santiment

The total staked ETH stands at about 36.1 million, representing around 29% of the total supply, Beaconcha.in data shows.

Despite the bullish indicator, ETH’s current price of $3,300 is still down from its $4,946 all-time high set on Aug. 4, 2025, CoinGecko data shows.

The Pentagon has placed 1,500 active-duty troops on prepare-to-deploy status for a possible deployment to the Minneapolis metro area if social unrest escalates in the sanctuary city governed by left-wing politicians, according to multiple reports from ABC News and The Washington Post, both citing unnamed defense officials.

“The Department of War is always prepared to execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief if called upon,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told CNN.

WaPo and ABC reported that the 1,500 active-duty troops are assigned to two U.S. Army infantry battalions under the 11th Airborne Division, which is based in Alaska. The soldiers specialize in cold-weather operations, as temperatures in Minneapolis are in the single digits.

On Saturday afternoon, we reported that Gov. Tim Walz mobilized the National Guard to support the Minnesota State Patrol and other local law enforcement. These Guardsmen would focus on public safety support, such as traffic control and protecting life and property.

President Trump has already sent 3,000 federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol to Minneapolis and nearby St. Paul this month, as part of a massive federal deportation operation to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens that are being shielded by corrupt Democratic politicians.

On the ground, federal agents have faced militant left-wing groups, such as Antifa and Antifa-adjacent organizations, waging pressure campaigns to derail federal operations. There have also been so-called “legal observers,” including left-wing activists, who have attempted to disrupt these deportation operations. In addition, dark-money-funded NGOs are aiding these pressure campaigns against federal authorities.

ALERT: Woman reveals that a quick response group she’s in was able impede and obstruct an ICE operation that ended in the detainee being let loose:

“When we got the call for this ICE sighting, within minutes, we had 20 to 30 observers on foot and in vehicle, myself included.… pic.twitter.com/4rYXbWfitN

— E X X ➠A L E R T S (@ExxAlerts) January 18, 2026

Even the unhinged Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey admitted these pressure campaigns were being supported by a network of nonprofits.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey refuses to reveal the identities of the NGOs he’s working with to organize protests in his city. The DOJ is investigating the groups with funding and directives from Soros and CCP-linked NGOs. pic.twitter.com/C9cWgIZ5VN

— @amuse (@amuse) January 8, 2026

These pressure campaigns against the feds have prompted Trump to publicly say that he could use the “Insurrection Act” to quell the manufactured chaos by left-wing agitators.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Meanwhile, CBS News reported Saturday that the Justice Department is investigating Gov. Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over an alleged conspiracy to impede federal immigration agents during deportation operations (read report).

Left-wing chaos is unfolding even in frigid weather. Just wait until the Democratic Party’s billionaire-funded protest industrial complex ramps up in the spring; the manufactured unrest is only beginning. The clock is ticking for the Trump administration to fracture the left-wing billionaire family foundations, foreign money pipelines, and nonprofit networks waging a color revolution against all things “America First” agenda.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

If you have not read our 2026 Outlook piece – ProSec 2026, we really urge you to do it. It is our best attempt, to date, to outline why ProSec, or Production for Security (and Resilience) is the dominant theme for this year (and likely for years to come). Not just for the U.S. government (which kicked it off), but also for investors (who are rapidly chasing opportunities in the space), and increasingly for foreign governments and corporations.

We have not “trademarked” the term ProSec (yet), but we have been trying to capture this momentous shift in policy and focus since last summer, and haven’t thought of (or seen) a better way to summarize the New Era.

When we first argued that ProSec is the New ESG – the most common responses were: eye rolls and some reasonably aggressive pushback. That is not the case anymore as the shift in focus and the intensity of that focus is becoming apparent. ProSec has become the core of our discussions. We are learning and refining our take, but the core thesis remains not only intact, but it is also gaining momentum. The FT pointed out that Nuclear Weapons are now ESG Compliant. This is reframing ESG to remain relevant when in reality we are moving to a ProSec World. While the nuclear weapon concept might be a bit over the top, Euronext’s European Defense Bonds smell like capitulation. It will take Europe longer to truly admit that ESG has been replaced, and they are already creating the tools to make it happen, in the guise of the existing framework.

We were inundated (maybe just swamped) with people pointing out the Bipartisan Proposal to create a $2.5 Billion Agency focused on rare earths and critical minerals (someone really needs to simplify rare earths and critical minerals into something catchy and easy). We continue to argue that it is the refining and processing that is most important. More on that in “threats.”

We promise to deliver some semblance of a ProSec equity index this week. That will let people track the performance of ProSec companies. It is likely to evolve (as we get better at this), but it will provide a starting point. While ProSec may seem like an equity story, it will also be a credit story! Some companies will have to issue more debt than planned to achieve their ProSec opportunities (we almost said “goals” but ProSec isn’t about “goals” it is about opportunities). Other companies will see spreads tighten on growth, improved earnings, and possibly, especially for smaller, higher yielding companies, from being acquired. This is about investment to create long-lasting profit opportunities (while achieving security and resilience for your companies, investments, and countries).

If we could just stop the report here, we would. It is important, in our opinion, that if you haven’t read our work on ProSec it isn’t too late, and you should.
But many have read our work and discussed it, so we need to plow on. Also, we can’t ignore last weekend’s Fast and Furious 47, since the admin continued to issue edicts as a “fast and furious” pace.

We are going to go back and forth between deadly serious, and a bit over the top, to try to get our points across (and then we can get back to identifying tickers for our indices).

From ESG to ProSec

Let’s follow a mildly tongue-in-cheek and simplified “decision tree” to where we are in global production. Especially the processing and refining of rare earths and critical minerals. But also, things like steel, copper, solar panels, etc.

You might argue that this is overly simplified. I’d agree. You might argue that this is heavily tongue in cheek. I’d disagree as this is only mildly tongue in cheek.

So here is a take on how we got to where we are.

• Is the process energy (carbon emission) intensive? Does it produce a lot of pollutants?

  • If so, let’s do that step in [insert country here].

• Did that reduce direct and immediately obvious issues locally?

  • Yes.

• Did it protect the earth against global pollutants, carbon, etc.?

  • Probably not, but “out of sight” = “out of mind.”

• Presumably [insert country here] must have led to a lot of production in different countries?

  • Not really, by and large “insert country here” became China.

• Wow, it must be incredibly difficult to do these things, and that’s why it all went to China?

  • Not really. Most countries create more complex systems and finalize projects all the time. It really just didn’t fit the “framework” that we (the “West”) were looking to develop.

  • Okay, I lied, or at least exaggerated. Initially that was probably correct, but as economies of scale grew and the infrastructure was put in place, there were even greater cost advantages than just not worrying about details like pollution and carbon emissions.

• Ok, so we should be able to bring it back “quickly?”

  • Well, we ceded all of this to China over the course of a decade or two. Sure, we can bring it back more quickly than that, but it will still take time.

Before getting to one more “rant” let’s take a look at some real world examples.

The Threat to Our Flow of Semiconductors

Semiconductors have been greatly affected by how the global supply chain shifted. While we all know that Taiwan is the leading semiconductor manufacturer in the world (in terms of state of the art chips), even they are partially dependent on China. The U.S. is even more so, and not so much because of the technology to make chips, but due to what goes into a chip.

Working with ChatGPT for this, we start with the “simple question” of what are the 5 most important materials that go into semiconductor manufacturing and/or the chips themselves? Anything in bold AND italicized was done by Academy to highlight.

Quick hierarchy (mental model)

1. Silicon → physical platform

2. Photoresists → pattern fidelity

3. Copper → performance & power

4. Gases & chemicals → manufacturing viability

5. High-k & specialty metals → advanced scaling

ProSec lens (relevant to your prior themes)

• Silicon wafers, photoresists, and specialty gases are strategic choke points

• Rare metals (hafnium, tantalum, cobalt) tie semis directly to mining and refining security

• Water and electricity intensity makes fabs a critical infrastructure asset

Yes, we have been trying to “train” ChatGPT on our ProSec research.

Sticking with ChatGPT (but eliminating the graphics it provided):

• From silica → electronic-grade silicon (step by step)

1) Raw silica (SiO₂)

• Comes from quartz / quartzite deposits, abundant globally, but purity and consistency matter

• Mining alone is not the bottleneck

2) Metallurgical-grade silicon (MG-Si)

Process

• Quartz + carbon (coal/coke/charcoal), smelted in electric arc furnaces at ~2,000°C

Output

• ~98–99% pure silicon, Still far too impure for chips

Where this happens

• China (dominant), Brazil, Norway, United States (limited, declining)

  • This step is energy-intensive and already geographically concentrated.

3) Chemical purification → polysilicon

This is where semiconductor relevance begins.

Process (simplified)

1. MG-Si reacts with HCl → trichlorosilane (SiHCl₃)

2. Distillation removes impurities to parts-per-billion

3. Re-deposition via Siemens process → ultra-pure polysilicon rods

Purity

• Semiconductor grade: 9N–11N (99.9999999%+)

Where this happens (critical chokepoint)

• China (largest capacity, esp. Xinjiang), Germany, Japan, United States (small but strategic)

  • Only a handful of facilities globally can do true semiconductor-grade purification at scale.

4) Single-crystal silicon ingots

Process

• Melt polysilicon, Grow a single crystal via Czochralski (CZ) or Float-Zone (FZ) methods

• Slice into 300 mm wafers

Where this happens

• Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Germany

• This step is precision engineering, not mining.

Key takeaway (important)

• Silicon is abundant. Semiconductor-grade silicon is not.

The bottleneck is:

• Energy-intensive smelting, Hazardous chemical purification, Extreme quality control, Capital-heavy facilities

Strategic implications (ProSec framing)

• Mining ≠ security

• Chemical processing + electricity + know-how = security

Losing access to: Polysilicon purification, Crystal growth, Wafer slicing → fabs go dark, even if chips are designed domestically

• This is why silicon is quietly treated like a strategic material, even though it’s “just sand.”

That was probably more information that you (or I) needed on silicon in chips.

I’m almost embarrassed to have forced you to read it (or skim over it) but chips are mission critical to our (and virtually every) economy.

Also, this was just one of the 5 main “ingredients” in chips.

An “Imaginary” Conversation

With that serious discussion out of the way, we can get a bit more fully “tongue in cheek” and run through a conversation that plays out in my mind over and over (darn, I should have tried to think of a song for today’s T-Report).

• What would happen if China decided to cut the U.S. off from some of the things we now rely on them for?

  • Why would they do that?

• Ok, but hypothetically, what would happen if China decided to cut the U.S. off from some of the things we now rely on them for?

  • Why would they do that?

• Didn’t we get cut off during COVID?

  • Yes, but that was different because the entire global economy shut down.

• Were the consequences for U.S. manufacturing capacity really bad?

  • Not really because we weren’t making much of anything because people couldn’t go into the office unless they worked in important industries – like finance.

• But it would have hampered us?

  • Sure, but they would never do it on purpose.

• So at least we tried to reduce our exposure against another “accidental” situation, like COVID?

  • There was a lot of chatter about onshoring, re-shoring, friend-shoring, near-shoring, and we even had the CHIPS ACT to boost domestic production of chips.

• So, we aggressively reduced the risk?

  • By “aggressively” (in air quotes) you mean we talked about it a lot? Heck yeah! Actually, accomplished a lot, meh…

• So, we remain vulnerable to China cutting off supplies of various things?

  • Why would they do that?

• But seriously, we remain vulnerable to China?

  • Why would they do that?

• Okay, maybe I should toss out some reasons why they “might” do that:
  They think it would create leverage for them to be “handed” Taiwan?
  They view us as being in competition to be the major global superpower, and they would employ economic means to achieve their goal.
  The race is in chips and AI, where we lead in design and even manufacturing, but remain heavily reliant on Taiwan (in their sphere of
  influence) and China for the inputs.
  They threatened us repeatedly during trade negotiations, on exactly this topic.
  The U.S. now accounts for only 15% of China’s exports and they seem to continue to take steps to reduce the importance of the U.S. economy on their economy, which might lead them to the decision that they can start a real economic war.
  They did see how poorly the U.S. responds to inflation and disruption in our “comfortable” lives, so they may be tempted to use that to disrupt us, especially on the race to AI and Space superiority (to name a couple key technologies).
  They have been allegedly stockpiling things that are important to them, that they don’t necessarily produce themselves (oil is top of mind, but only one of a number of things).

  • Those all sound crazy to me.

• You really think there is no possibility that we experience a disruption, accidentally or on purpose?

  • Well, zero probability might be too low, things do happen.

• Wouldn’t we then be better off if we were prepared for such an eventuality, even if it is a low probability?

  • I guess.

Ultimately, the higher the risk you think we face from having supply shortages due to restrictions from China (whether intentional or not) the more urgent and important ProSec is.

In any case, I cannot think of good reasons not to want greater capacity domestically, for security, resilience, and the JOBS created.

In addition, is there a possibility that Venezuela doesn’t so much become a source of rare earths and critical minerals, but instead a major hub for processing rare earths and critical minerals, far more in our “control” than existing sources? It might be a way to outpace regulation in the near-term?

True economic freedom and true sustainability derive from being able to take care of yourself (just ask Maslow).

The Threat to the U.S. Military – Antimony

General (ret.) Spider Marks loves bringing up antimony (he has been doing it for years). I’m mildly suspicious he does it primarily because he knows I have trouble pronouncing it, but it is a serious topic. And if it is a threat to our military, imagine the threat it is to other countries’ militaries.

Antimony seems to follow the rather aggressive tone I took in my “make believe” conversation regarding China.

This is more or less an actual conversation with ChatGPT (I have paraphrased its answers because this report is already getting long on technical information, and it is not salient to the point we are trying to make).

• Is antimony used in munitions?

  • Yes.

• Are there other alternatives?

  • Technically yes, but far less efficient

• Is it the commodity itself or a refined version?

  • No. Munitions use antimony as refined metal or chemical compounds “the refining step is the real choke point.”

• Where does the U.S. get its refined antimony?

  • Over 60% from China.

Then directly from ChatGPT (along ProSec lines):

• What the U.S. does not have:

  • No large-scale primary antimony mine in operation

  • No dedicated munition-grade antimony trisulfide production

  • No surge-capable domestic refining base

• This is the core vulnerability.

Why this is strategically uncomfortable:

• The U.S. can manufacture ammunition domestically, but it depends on foreign chemistry to lighten and harden it.

Imagine ramping up a “war time” economy where most of the stuff you use to shoot at the enemy, comes from the enemy.

It almost hurts to even think about, but that is where we are.

Bottom Line

• Production.

• Security.

• Resiliency.

• ProSec.

Yes, today’s “Bottom Line” is that simple – ProSec.

Hope you have a great long weekend and I promise we will get back to our rate outlooks, credit outlooks, etc., but we believe that understanding and embracing this topic (as it evolves) will do more for your performance this year, than anything else in your control.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified Trump’s positioning on Greenland overnight, stating that “we are not going to outsource our national security.”

The elites of The European Union are not best pleased at Trump’s tariff threat (on some European allies that oppose the United States’ efforts to acquire Greenland) and immediately called an emergency meeting of ambassadors from the bloc’s 27 nations to discuss just how sternly worded their email response would be.

As we detailed yesterday, Trump has reiterated numerous times that the United States needs Greenland for national security purposes and warned that “world peace is at stake” if the United States does not succeed in obtaining Greenland.

Meanwhile, the eight European nations, which are already subject to 10 percent or 15 percent tariffs by the United States, have sent a small military presence to Greenland.

“Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral,” the group of eight countries said in a joint statement on Jan. 18.

As Jacob Burg reports below for The Epoch Times, the military deployment is intended to bolster Arctic security “as a shared transatlantic interest” and poses no threat to anyone, the nations said, adding that they are ready for dialogue with the United States “based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind.”

“We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland,” the eight countries said, adding, “We are committed to upholding our sovereignty.”

In an English translation of her written statement, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “Since the U.S. President’s announcement of tariffs, the [Danish] government has been in intensive dialogue with our allies.”

“It is all the more important that we stand firm on the fundamental values ​​that created the European community. We want to cooperate, and we are not the ones seeking conflict,” she said.

“And I am pleased with the consistent messages from the rest of the continent: Europe will not be blackmailed.”

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson echoed Frederiksen in a social media post on Saturday, adding, “Only Denmark and Greenland decide on issues concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

“This is an EU issue that affects many more countries than those now being singled out,” he added.

“Sweden is now having intensive discussions with other EU countries, Norway, and the United Kingdom for a coordinated response.”

Germany’s vice-chancellor and finance minister Lars Klingbeil said that “a line had been crossed”, adding that the affected nations “must not allow ourselves to be blackmailed”.

“There will be a European response to this threat,” he said.

“It is unacceptable to hit countries that are now taking more responsibility for our common security in Nato,” said Troels Lund Poulsen, Denmark’s defence minister, who will meet Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte on Monday.

Not to be outdone, France’s Emmanuel Macron has called for the EU to activate its so-called anti-coercion instrument that can restrict access to the single market for American companies.

“He will be in contact throughout the day with his European counterparts and will request, on France’s behalf, the activation of the anti-coercion instrument,” said an Élysée official.

Tariff Retaliation

The FT reports that EU capitals are considering hitting the US with €93bn worth of tariffs or restricting American companies from the bloc’s market in response to Donald Trump’s threats to Nato allies opposed to his campaign to takeover Greenland. The move marks the most serious crisis in transatlantic relations for decades.

Manfred Weber, president of the European People’s Party, the largest political party in the EU, said the party wouldn’t back a trade deal with the U.S.

“The EPP is in favour of the EU–U.S. trade deal, but given Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, approval is not possible at this stage,” he wrote in a post on X.

“The 0% tariffs on U.S. products must be put on hold.”

The tariff list was prepared last year but suspended until February 6 to avoid a full-blown trade war. Its reactivation was discussed on Sunday by the EU’s 27 ambassadors, along with the so-called anti-coercion instrument (ACI) that can limit the access of American companies to the internal market, as the bloc wrestled over how to respond to the US president’s threat with punitive tariffs.

“There are clear retaliation instruments at hand if this continues . . . [Trump’s] using pure mafioso methods,” said a European diplomat briefed on the discussion. “At the same time we want to publicly call for calm and give him an opportunity to climb down the ladder.”

“The messaging is . . . carrot and stick,” they added.

European officials said that they hoped their retaliation threats would increase bipartisan pressure in the US against Trump’s actions and result in him retreating from his tariff pledge.

“It is already a situation that no longer allows compromises, because we cannot hand over Greenland,” said a fourth European official.

“The reasonable Americans also know that he has just opened Pandora’s Box.”

Greenland Governance

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt at the White House on Jan. 14.

Rasmussen described the talks as a “frank but also constructive discussion.”

Trump said on Jan. 16 that he was considering a wave of tariffs on European allies “if they don’t go along” with allowing the United States to purchase the Danish territory.

The U.S. president noted on social media that attempts by the United States to “do this transaction” for Greenland date back “over 150 years.” U.S. President Andrew Johnson’s administration first floated the idea of expanding American influence in the Arctic in the 1860s.

Trump has also previously signaled that Greenland would be a wise investment for the United States due to estimates of high quantities of rare earth mineral deposits on the Arctic island.

While the island was under formal Danish control since the era of colonization in the early 1700s, Greenland was granted self-governance in the 1970s with the creation of a parliament and the Self-Government Act of 1979, expanding the island’s autonomy. However, the island didn’t gain full self-governance until 2009.

On Jan. 9, the officials from Greenland, including Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and multiple political party leaders, released a statement reaffirming Greenland’s sovereignty and rejecting any claims that would impede the island’s autonomy.

“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” the statement said. “The future of Greenland must be decided by the Greenlandic people. … No other country can interfere in this.”

World Cup Boycott

German politician Jurgen Hardt (CDU) spoke to newspaper BILD recently to suggest that Germany could withdraw from football’s biggest competition in response to Trump’s threats against Greenland. “Dropping out of the tournament would, however, only be considered as a last resort in order to get Trump to see sense on the Greenland issue,” he said.

🇩🇪🇺🇸 Germany does not rule out boycotting the 2026 World Cup to convince Trump not to seize Greenland

“Canceling the tournament will only be considered as a last resort to bring President Trump to his senses on the Greenland issue,” said Jürgen Hardt, a representative of the… pic.twitter.com/yNepjU5AAx

— Savchenko Volodymyr (@SavchenkoReview) January 17, 2026

Germany are not the only nation who have raised concerns over the participation at this summer’s World Cup. Back in September 2025, Spanish government officials suggested that withdrawing their national team was on the cards due to political tensions on the global stage. 

It seems to us that boycotting The World Cup would be a naive and we’re sure highly unpopular move (most notably in Germany who are among the favorites), likely ending disastrously from a domestic political perspective. Perhaps the politicians are not aware of the proletariat’s passion for the beautiful game!?