Authored by Brayden Lindrea via CoinTelegraph.com,

US dollar-pegged stablecoin Tether hit its 500 millionth user on Tuesday, offering a means to transact and save for those who have been excluded by the traditional banking system.

“Likely the biggest financial inclusion achievement in history,” Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino wrote in a post on X.

Source: Paolo Ardoino

Tether said the figure represents 500 million “real people,” not simply Tether wallets, suggesting its stablecoin has now been used by around 6.25% of the world’s population.

The World Bank Group estimates there are 1.4 billion adults who don’t have access to a bank account globally. Crypto is one potential solution to the problem, as anyone with a phone can download a crypto wallet to receive money and store funds securely.

Crypto can also be beneficial for those who live in high-inflation countries or nations where the risk of having one’s funds seized is real.

USDT is helping people and small businesses in Kenya

To celebrate the milestone, Tether shared a 10-minute documentary showcasing USDT adoption in Kenya, where people turn to stablecoins “not for speculation, but for survival.”

Ardoino noted that 37% of USDT users hold the stablecoin as a store of value.

It also highlighted how small businesses have been forced to turn to USDT to pay for imports as an alternative to the weakening Kenyan shilling, providing a lifeline to keep those companies afloat.

USDT is by far the largest stablecoin, with a market cap of $182.4 billion, representing a 58.4% market share, according to CoinGecko. Circle’s USDC comes in next at 76.8 billion.

Tether could be worth half a trillion dollars

Last month, Tether was said to be in talks with investors to raise up to $20 billion at around a $500 billion valuation, which would make Tether one of the most valuable private companies in the world.

Financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald is acting as a lead adviser in the potential deal.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Poland’s role in providing more US LNG to Central & Eastern Europe is expected to erode Germany’s influence in this region and accelerate Poland’s revival of its lost Great Power status.

The European Council decreed that the import of Russian gas will be banned across the bloc next year, but with varying lengths of grace periods for countries with short- and long-term contracts, the longest of which will last till 1 January 2028. The Council earlier admitted that pipeline gas and LNG combined accounted for a little less than a fifth of the bloc’s imports last year. It should also be mentioned that the EU continues to import Russian oil too, including indirectly, which has proven to be similarly scandalous.

Nevertheless, the EU’s plans to phase out the remaining fifth of its gas imports from Russia will further enfeeble its economy by leading to their replacement with more expensive US LNG, which will predictably result in the costs being passed down to consumers. This was entirely predictable too since the EU agreed to purchase $750 billion in US energy by 2028 per the terms of their lopsided trade deal from last summer that was assessed here as having turned the EU into the US’ largest-ever vassal state.

Germany is expected to be the most dramatically affected by this development in terms of its domestic politics and geostrategy. As regards the first, a greater decrease in living standards caused by the costs of more expensive US LNG being passed down to consumers could accelerate the AfD’s rise, which would lead to significant political changes if they’re ever able to form a government. Even if they’re kept out of power, such blatant meddling by the elites could worsen political polarization and associated tensions.

On the topic of German geostrategy, Poland with whom Germany is competing for influence over Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) is poised to play a supplementary role in supplying Czechia and Slovakia with US LNG via the Swinoujscie terminal and the planned one in Gdansk. Ukraine will be supplied too. These countries lie within the sphere of influence that Poland envisages creating upon the revival of its lost Great Power status. Czechia and Slovakia are also part of the Visegrad Group together with Poland.

Hungary is a member too and could be supplied with US LNG via Poland or Croatia’s Krk terminal, whose expansion is one of the priority projects of the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) that Poland and Croatia co-founded in 2015 but which is now led by Warsaw. While Germany commands much more influence over CEE due to being the EU’s de facto leader and boasting its largest economy, Poland’s influence over them is increasing through its future role in suppling US LNG, which might pull them away from Berlin one day.

Energy geopolitics play a significant role in geostrategy so the impact of the aforesaid trend shouldn’t be underestimated if it continues to unfold. In that event, the overarching trend would be the likely decline of German influence over CEE, greatly facilitated as it was by Germany’s voluntary participation in the US’ anti-Russian sanctions regime and then the Nord Stream terrorist attack which pushed it beyond the point of no return. These might be seen in hindsight as the beginning of a new regional order in CEE.

While Germany thought that it would inflict a strategic defeat upon Russia, the US ended up inflicting a strategic defeat upon Germany by engineering the circumstances whereby its only Western competitor’s economy would decline. Together with Poland, whose Anglo-American-backed revival of its Great Power status conveniently creates a regional wedge between Germany and Russia, the US is geostrategically re-engineering Europe at Germany’s expense in order to facilitate Russia’s post-Ukraine containment.

Authored by Brahma Chellaney via Project Sybndicate,

From surveilling and repressing Chinese citizens to firing and prosecuting potential rivals, Chinese President Xi Jinping seems able to rule only through fear. But fear is not a foundation for long-term stability, and the more Xi seeks to consolidate power, the more vulnerable his position becomes.

During his 13 years in power, Xi Jinping has steadily tightened his grip on all levers of authority in China – the Communist Party of China (CPC), the state apparatus, and the military – while expanding surveillance into virtually every aspect of society. Yet his recent purge of nine top-ranking generals, like those before it, shows that he still sees enemies everywhere.

After taking power in 2012, Xi launched a crackdown on corruption within the CPC and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The campaign was initially popular, because China’s one-party system is rife with graft and abuse of power. But it soon became clear that enforcement was highly selective – a tool not for building a more transparent or effective system, but for consolidating power in Xi’s hands. In Xi’s China, advancement depends less on competence or integrity than on earning the leader’s personal trust.

But even after more than a decade of promoting only loyalists, Xi continues to dismiss officials regularly, including top military commanders. According to the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence, nearly five million officials at all levels of government have been indicted for corruption under Xi. And this is to say nothing of those who simply disappear without explanation.

True to form, Xi’s regime claims that the military leaders swept up by his latest purge – including General He Weidong, a member of the Politburo, Vice Chair of the Central Military Commission, and the third-highest-ranking figure in China’s military hierarchy – committed “disciplinary violations” and “duty-related crimes.” But a more plausible explanation is that Xi is playing an interminable game of Whac-a-Rival, desperately trying to preserve his grip on power.

Xi’s fears are not entirely misplaced: each new purge deepens mistrust among China’s elite and risks turning former loyalists into enemies. From Mao Zedong to Joseph Stalin, there is ample evidence that one-man rule breeds paranoia. By now, Xi may well have lost the ability to distinguish allies from foes. At 72, Xi remains so insecure in his position that, unlike even Mao, he has refused to designate a successor, fearing that a visible heir could hasten his own downfall.

None of this bodes well for China. By refusing to lay the groundwork for an eventual leadership transition, Xi sharply increases the risk that the end of his rule – however that comes – will usher in political instability. In the meantime, Xi’s emphasis on personal fealty over ideological conformity is weakening institutional cohesion in a system once grounded in collective leadership. Coupled with his arbitrary firings and prosecutions, Chinese governance is now increasingly defined by sycophancy and anxiety, rather than competence and consistency.

China’s military is paying a particularly steep price for Xi’s insecurity. In recent years, the PLA has undergone sweeping structural reforms aimed at transforming it into a modern fighting force capable of “winning informationized wars.”

But Xi’s purges risk undermining this effort by disrupting military planning and leadership. For example, his abrupt removal in 2023 of the leaders of the PLA’s Rocket Force, which oversees China’s arsenal of nuclear and conventional missiles, may have jeopardized China’s strategic deterrent.

Replacing experienced commanders with untested loyalists might ensure Xi’s political survival – and Chinese leaders have often used the military to safeguard their own power – but it does nothing for national security.

And when generals are preoccupied primarily with political survival, both morale and operational readiness suffer. Can the PLA fight and win a war against a major adversary like the United States or India while operating under the political constraints Xi has imposed on it?

So far, Xi has advanced his expansionist agenda through stealth and coercion rather than open warfare. But a paranoid leader surrounded by sycophants unwilling or unable to challenge him is always at risk of strategic miscalculation. Recall that Stalin decimated the Red Army’s leadership on the eve of the Nazi invasion – with disastrous results. In Xi’s case, it might be China that does the invading, if he orders an amphibious assault on Taiwan.

For all the pomp surrounding China’s rise, the country is beset by structural problems, including a slowing economy, rising youth unemployment, and an aging and declining population. Popular discontent may well be growing, but it is masked by repression, just as any potential challenge to Xi’s leadership is preempted by purges and prosecutions. Ultimately, Xi seems able to rule only through fear.

But fear is not a foundation for long-term stability. A leader consumed by fear of disloyalty may command obedience but not genuine fidelity. Obedience is not merely a poor substitute for strength; it can become a source of fragility, as it leaves little room for creativity, competency, or collaboration. The great irony of Xi’s approach is that the more he seeks to consolidate power in his own hands, the more vulnerable his rule becomes.

Mao’s purges culminated in chaos and national trauma. Xi’s methods are more sophisticated, but the underlying logic is the same – as could be the results.

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

Now, for some news on the lighter side…like ‘how to prevent machines from enabling nuclear armageddon”..

In August, Anthropic announced that its chatbot Claude would not — and could not — help anyone build a nuclear weapon. The company said it worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to ensure Claude couldn’t leak nuclear secrets, according to a new writeup from Wired.

Anthropic deployed Claude “in a Top Secret environment so that the NNSA could systematically test whether AI models could create or exacerbate nuclear risks,” says Marina Favaro, Anthropic’s head of National Security Policy & Partnerships. Using Amazon’s Top Secret cloud, the agencies “red-teamed” Claude and developed “a sophisticated filter for AI conversations.”

This “nuclear classifier” flags when chats drift toward dangerous territory using an NNSA list of “risk indicators, specific topics, and technical details.” Favaro says it “catches concerning conversations without flagging legitimate discussions about nuclear energy or medical isotopes.”

Wired writes that NNSA official Wendin Smith says AI “has profoundly shifted the national security space” and that the agency’s expertise “places us in a unique position to aid in the deployment of tools that guard against potential risk.”

But experts disagree on whether the risk even exists. “I don’t dismiss these concerns, I think they are worth taking seriously,” says Oliver Stephenson of the Federation of American Scientists. “I don’t think the models in their current iteration are incredibly worrying … but we don’t know where they’ll be in five years.”

He warns that secrecy makes it hard to judge the system’s impact. “When Anthropic puts out stuff like this, I’d like to see them talking in a little more detail about the risk model they’re really worried about,” he says.

Others are more skeptical. “If the NNSA probed a model which was not trained on sensitive nuclear material, then their results are not an indication that their probing prompts were comprehensive,” says Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute. She calls the project “quite insufficient” and says it “relies on an unsubstantiated assumption that Anthropic’s models will produce emergent nuclear capabilities … not aligned with the available science.”

Anthropic disagrees. “A lot of our safety work is focused on proactively building safety systems that can identify future risks and mitigate against them,” a spokesperson says. “This classifier is an example of that.”

Khlaaf also questions giving private firms access to government data. “Do we want these private corporations that are largely unregulated to have access to that incredibly sensitive national security data?” she asks.

Anthropic says its goal isn’t to enable nuclear work but to prevent it. “In our ideal world, this becomes a voluntary industry standard,” Favaro says. “A shared safety practice that everyone adopts.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Oct. 22 that a plan by Democrats to launch an online platform tracking Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Los Angeles could endanger federal agents and expose them to harassment or violence.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif) said during an Oct. 21 press conference alongside Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee will launch what Garcia called a “master ICE tracker.” The online database would allow the public to submit and review reports of ICE activity across the Los Angeles area, including videos and other data.

“Over the course of the next couple of weeks, the Oversight Committee will be launching on their website a master ICE tracker where we’re going to be essentially tracking every single instance that we can verify that the community will send,” Garcia said.

“You’ll be able to send us information on. It’ll be all available in one central place, and you’ll be able to look up that information as it relates to Los Angeles as well.”

Garcia described the initiative as part of a wide congressional investigation into alleged wrongful detentions by ICE under the Trump administration. Garcia also said he plans to hold a congressional field hearing in Los Angeles, where residents can testify about immigration enforcement concerns, calling it part of a broader inquiry into alleged civil rights violations by federal agents.

He has joined forces with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who is leading a parallel investigation through the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The two lawmakers recently sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanding records on what they described as the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and immigrants by ICE agents.

The ICE tracker project drew swift condemnation from Bondi, who said such tools could compromise law enforcement operations and fuel organized hostility toward immigration officers.

“Shutdown Democrats are already refusing to pay our law enforcement agents. Now, @RepRobertGarcia and @SenBlumenthal are trying to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs,” Bondi said in an Oct. 22 post on X.

“@TheJusticeDept has ZERO tolerance for violence against law enforcement—we will prosecute any person who physically assaults our agents.”

Border czar Tom Homan said recent heated rhetoric, along with efforts to expose the movements and identities of ICE agents, have already correlated with a surge in organized attacks on law enforcement personnel and facilities.

Protestors demonstrate against ICE operations while blocking the Sixth Street Bridge between Boyle Heights and the downtown area of Los Angeles, on July 1, 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Death threats, attacks up over 1,000 percent,” Homan said in a recent interview on The Alex Marlow Show, attributing the escalation to “hateful rhetoric” by some media figures and politicians who compare ICE to Nazis or the Gestapo.

He said the Department of Justice (DOJ) was already investigating the financing of organized groups that attack ICE agents and facilities in a coordinated way

“They will find out who is funding this, and they will be held accountable,” Homan said, adding that the riots are “absolutely organized.”

The DOJ under the Trump administration previously pressured Apple and Meta to remove apps and social media pages that tracked ICE operations. Apple deleted an app called ICEBlock earlier this month following a DOJ request, citing potential risks to agents’ safety.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) at the Capitol in Washington on April 1, 2025. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times

Garcia has defended his proposal, saying that the tracker would expose civil rights violations by immigration officers.

Citing a recent ProPublica report, he said at least 170 U.S. citizens had been wrongly detained by ICE agents.

“Why? Because they look like me, because they are of Latino origin, or because they are suspected to not be a U.S. citizen, or because they are suspected of crimes that they have not committed,” Garcia said on Oct. 21.

After Bondi’s social media warning, Garcia responded in an online post: “Hey @AGPamBondi, ICE detaining over 170 U.S. citizens is not them ‘just doing their jobs.’”

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin rejected the criticism. She told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that the department “enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice.”

She said claims that ICE targets U.S. citizens or engages in racial profiling are “disgusting, reckless, and categorically false.”

McLaughlin added that assaults on ICE officers have risen by more than 1,000 percent amid “smears” from “sanctuary politicians,” and warned that anyone who obstructs or assaults law enforcement will face consequences.

She said that since June 6, ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have arrested more than 7,100 illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area.

Two MIT-trained brothers accused of stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency in just 12 seconds face trial this week in Manhattan federal court. Prosecutors call it a “first-of-its-kind” fraud. The defense says they simply outsmarted “predatory” trading bots in a lawless environment, according to Business Insider.

Anton Peraire-Bueno, 25, and James Peraire-Bueno, 29, are charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering — each count carrying up to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors say the brothers spent months planning an April 2023 Ethereum blockchain theft, researching “how to wash crypto,” “top crypto lawyers,” and even “money launder statue of limitations.” They allegedly used “bait transactions” to study three traders’ bots, then “lured” them into a trap with irresistible crypto trades. Once the bots took the bait, the brothers exploited a software “vulnerability” to view private data and “tamper” with transactions, prosecutors say.

BI writes that instead of profits, the victims’ $25 million bought worthless “junk crypto.” The theft took place in just 12 seconds — before the trades were permanently logged on the blockchain.

“Using the specialized skills developed during their education, as well as their expertise in cryptocurrency trading,” the brothers “exploited the very integrity of the Ethereum blockchain,” prosecutors wrote in their indictment. They say the pair hid their identities and funds through shell companies and foreign exchanges.

The defense calls the case an overreach. “There’s no central authority” on the Ethereum blockchain, attorney Patrick Looby argued in June. “And there’s no government regulations. Instead, economic incentives guide parties’ behavior.”

For fraud, “there needs to be a promise to the victim,” Looby said. “Here, there is no alleged communication at all between the Peraire-Buenos and the traders. And for that reason as well, there’s no alleged intent to defraud.”

The traders, he added, “made very risky bets on a strategy that didn’t pay out. But there was nothing stolen and there was no theft, as that word would normally be used.”

Earlier filings argue the victims lost funds “through pre-programmed trades without ever interacting with the Peraire-Buenos.” The defense wrote, “Before this indictment, no Ethereum user would have understood that thwarting a predatory attempt by ‘bots’ engaged in market manipulation could lead to criminal charges.”

“No court has ever applied these statutes to similar transactions,” they added. “And the Peraire-Buenos had no reason to know that their alleged conduct may be considered unlawful.”

The trial begins Tuesday and may run into early November.

Submitted by American Truckers United,

Three months ago, American Truckers United sounded the alarm: America’s highways are a war zone, thanks to an epidemic of illegal alien truck drivers barreling into stalled traffic at full throttle. 

🚨Non-Citizen Truck Drivers Involved in Highway Crisis

This is an urgent wake-up call for every American. Our highways are no longer safe. Reckless immigration policies and weakened licensing standards have unleashed a deadly crisis on our roads. pic.twitter.com/NXrQTivkos

— American Truckers 🚛🦅 (@atutruckers) July 10, 2025

Now, in a chilling echo, another semi-truck has plowed into a standstill at highway speeds, leaving a trail of twisted metal and shattered lives. This is the deadly harvest of “Strong Solo Sergey,” the sleazy tactic mega-carriers and brokerage giants cheer as their preferred business model.

Via Fox News reporter Bill Melugin: 

Per multiple ICE sources, Jashanpreet Singh, the semi-truck driver suspected of killing three people in a DUI crash on the 10 freeway in Ontario, CA yesterday, is an Indian illegal alien who was caught & released at the CA border by the Biden admin in March 2022. DHS photo of him attached via federal sources. I’m told ICE is placing a detainer request on Singh with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, where he is in custody on suspicion of DUI causing great bodily injury and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. He has not been formally charged yet. Police say Singh was speeding and under the influence, never hitting his breaks, when he crashed into slow moving traffic on the freeway, causing a devastating and deadly chain reaction crash that killed 3 people. The victims have not been identified yet.

BREAKING: Per multiple ICE sources, Jashanpreet Singh, the semi-truck driver suspected of killing three people in a DUI crash on the 10 freeway in Ontario, CA yesterday, is an Indian illegal alien who was caught & released at the CA border by the Biden admin in March 2022. DHS… pic.twitter.com/ewxt7ZGfJs

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) October 23, 2025

Specifically, I’m told Singh was first encountered by Border Patrol agents in their El Centro, California sector after he crossed there illegally in March 2022. He remains in his immigration proceedings after his release with a future court date.

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) October 23, 2025

For the uninitiated, “Strong Solo Sergey” is corporate code for exploiting dirt-cheap foreign drivers – your “Sergeys” from abroad – while flouting hours-of-service rules like they’re suggestions. These rookies, often non-citizens with fresh non-domicile CDLs, log 20-hour marathons behind the wheel, eyes glazing over from exhaustion. It’s a calculated gut-punch to honest American trucking outfits, undercutting us with rock-bottom rates and zero regard for safety. And the wreckage? It’s piling up. Just ask the family of Tiana Moore, a devoted single mom whose world ended in a fireball when one of these sleep-deprived phantoms misjudged a maneuver after 20+ hours on the clock. Tiana’s crash was no anomaly – it’s the grim routine for these invaders, turning our interstates into roulette wheels.

These aren’t the “Knights of the Road” we idolized in our youth – grizzled pros who knew every mile like their own heartbeat. No, the ATA’s fat-cat enablers are hell-bent on phasing them out, flooding the lanes with bargain-bin hazards to pad their profits. Unacceptable? It’s a national disgrace.

The Non-Domicile CDL issuance to Non-Citizens is a scandal that should be decisively dealt with. If you want to preserve the Non-Domicile CDL than ban all Non-Citizens from eligibility. The Non-Domicile CDL was intended for someone from one state to be eligible for issuance in… https://t.co/jcfzdMWsAV

— American Truckers 🚛🦅 (@atutruckers) October 20, 2025

Worse, our so-called leaders are fiddling while Rome burns. Take HB 5688, peddled by North Carolina’s David Rouzer as a “fix.” It’s theater – a flimsy facade that slams the front door while propping the back wide open. The next administration could easily just install another Alejandro Mayorkas clone as Transportation Secretary and unleash the floodgates anew, dooming more families to Tiana’s fate.

I introduced the Non-Domiciled CDL Integrity Act because too many states have been handing out CDLs to illegal immigrants without proper vetting. This year alone: 5 fatal crashes, 12 dead, 15 injured — all linked to non-domiciled drivers who should not have been extended CDLs in…

— Rep. David Rouzer (@RepDavidRouzer) October 12, 2025

Enough. American Truckers United calls for a total ban on issuing non-domicile CDLs to non-citizens. No loopholes, no half-measures. Secure our roads, protect our knights, and put America first – before the next Sergey turns your commute into a coffin.

From diabetes injectables to blockbuster blood thinners, a handful of drugs account for a sizable share of Medicare’s pharmacy bill.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, ranks the most common drugs by total Medicare spending in 2023, sourced from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

It tracks every claim, dosage, and dollar flowing through Medicare Part D, the federal prescription-drug benefit.

Blood Thinners Are America’s Most Common Drug

Eliquis (generic name: Apixaban) alone racked up $18.3 billion in Medicare spending in 2023, nearly double the next drug, Ozempic.

Alongside Xarelto, anticoagulants accounted for over $24 billion in 2023.

Their rise reflects both an aging population and expanding preventative treatment for stroke and atrial fibrillation.

With almost four million beneficiaries, Eliquis is prescribed to roughly one in 10 Part D enrollees.

ℹ️ Related: See the 25 countries that are projected have the most seniors in 2050.

Diabetes and Weight-Loss Therapies Surge in America

Four GLP-1 and SGLT2 diabetes drugs—Ozempic, Jardiance, Trulicity, and Farxiga—collectively totaled $29.7 billion.

Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro also double as weight-loss aids, driving demand beyond traditional type-2 diabetes patients.

This table lists cost per dose for the 10 most expensive drugs.

Their high list prices—Ozempic averages $356 per dose—illustrate how novel biologics multiply spending even with smaller patient counts.

ℹ️ Related: See where Americans skipped going to the doctor (even when they had to) in 2023.

Cancer and Autoimmune Biologics are Expensive Drugs

Revlimid, Humira, and Stelara each exceed $3 billion despite treating fewer than 100,000 beneficiaries each.

Revlimid’s $878 per dose and Stelara’s staggering $26,818 underscore why biologics dominate specialty-drug budgets.

Want more health-related data storytelling? Check out Ranked: Countries That Spend the Most Years in Poor Health on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Every time the US government has faced an existential financial crisis in its history, it has chosen to change the rules rather than honor its promises in full… usually by replacing gold or silver with paper.

From the War of 1812 when interest payments were missed, to the Lincoln’s Greenbacks, to Roosevelt voiding gold clauses in 1933, the end of silver redemption in 1968, and Nixon closing the gold window in 1971, Washington has defaulted five times before—often by shifting the terms of payment rather than admitting outright failure.

There’s no doubt these episodes were defaults. To claim otherwise would be like trying to unilaterally change the terms of your dollar-denominated mortgage or credit card bill so that you could pay your liabilities with Argentine pesos or Zimbabwe dollars—and then pretending that somehow it wasn’t a default.

The US government is essentially telling its creditors the same thing Darth Vader once said: “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

Just like in Star Wars, the message is clear—Washington will change the rules whenever it needs to. Creditors may get paid, but not in the way they were promised, and certainly not in the way they expected.

Today, the US government is once again in an existential financial bind. The national debt is unmanageable, federal spending is locked on an upward path, and interest on that debt has already surged past $1 trillion a year. At this pace, interest could soon overtake Social Security as the single largest item in the federal budget.

The largest expenditures are entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. No politician will cut them—in fact, they’ll keep growing. Tens of millions of Baby Boomers, nearly a quarter of the population, are moving into retirement. Cutting benefits is political suicide.

Defense spending, already massive, is also off-limits. With the most precarious geopolitical environment since World War 2, military spending isn’t going down—it’s going up.

Welfare programs are similarly untouchable.

The only way to meaningfully reduce spending would be to slash entitlements, dismantle the welfare state, shut down hundreds of foreign military bases, and repay a large portion of the national debt to lower the interest cost. That would require a leader willing to restore a limited Constitutional Republic.

However, that’s a completely unrealistic fantasy. It would be foolish to bet on that happening.

Here’s the bottom line: Washington cannot even slow the spending growth rate, let alone cut it.

Expenditures have nowhere to go but up—way up.

Tax revenue won’t save the day either.

Even if tax rates went to 100%, it would not be enough to stop the debt from growing.

According to Forbes, there are around 806 billionaires in the US with a combined net worth of about $5.8 trillion.

Even if Washington confiscated 100% of billionaire wealth, it would barely fund a single year of spending—and it wouldn’t do a thing to stop the unstoppable trajectory of debt and deficits.

That means interest expense will keep exploding. It has already surpassed the defense budget and is on track to exceed Social Security soon. At that point, interest could consume most federal tax revenue.

The old accounting tricks and fiat games won’t hide the reality for much longer.

In short, the skyrocketing interest bill is now an urgent threat to the US government’s solvency. I have no doubt Washington will soon find itself unable to meet its obligations once again.

So the question now is: what will the sixth default look like?

I don’t think the sixth default will be a dramatic, one-day event like in 1933 or 1971. It will be a slow-motion process: steady debasement of the dollar to cover a debt burden that cannot be serviced honestly. And just like in the past, Washington and its lackeys in the media will never admit it’s a default.

Unlike the past, the US no longer has obligations tied to gold or silver. Everything is denominated in fiat currency that the Federal Reserve can create without limit.

The mechanics are different, but the outcome will be the same: creditors will get stiffed with money worth far less than what was promised.

After the 1971 default, which cut the dollar’s last tie to gold, the unspoken promise was that Washington would be a responsible steward of its fiat currency.

At the core of that promise was the illusion that the Federal Reserve would act independently of political pressures. The idea was simple: without at least the appearance of independence, investors would see the Fed for what it is—a funding arm for spendthrift politicians—and confidence in the dollar would collapse.

That illusion is now shattering.

The government must issue ever-growing amounts of debt while keeping rates low to contain exploding interest costs.

That’s where the Federal Reserve comes in.

Backed into a corner, Washington will force the Fed to slash rates, buy Treasuries, and launch wave after wave of monetary easing. These measures will debase the dollar while destroying the illusion of Fed independence.

That’s why I believe the collapse of the Fed’s credibility as an independent institution will define the sixth default.

One of the clearest signs is Trump’s push to consolidate power over the Fed.

Let’s be clear: central banks were never “independent.” They exist to siphon wealth from the public through inflation and funnel it to the politically connected. The Fed’s independence was always a mirage—and now it’s disappearing fast.

Trump is simply doing what any leader in his position would do. No one believes China’s central bank is independent of Xi. If any nation faced a similar crisis, its central bank would fall in line with government demands.

I expect Trump will get his way with the Fed. The Fed will bend to his demands, debasing the dollar to keep the debt burden from spiraling out of control. He will either force Powell to get in line or replace him outright, stacking the Fed with loyalists. The result will be money printing on a scale we’ve never seen before.

Trump’s efforts are already starting to work. At Jackson Hole, Powell admitted that “the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” signaling that rate cuts could come soon.

And that’s exactly what happened. On September 17, the Fed cut rates by 25bps and indicated more to come.

Further, Stephen Miran, Trump’s most recent successful nominee to the Federal Reserve Board, has been pushing the idea of what he calls the Fed’s “third mandate.”

Traditionally, the Fed has two mandates: price stability and maximum employment. Miran’s proposed third mandate would be for the Fed to “moderate long-term interest rates.”

What that really means is that the Fed would openly finance the federal government by creating new dollars to buy long-term debt, keeping yields artificially low. In other words, the so-called third mandate is an explicit admission that the Fed is no longer independent. It would become a political tool used to fund government spending.

Without this support, massive federal spending would flood the market with Treasuries, pushing interest rates much higher. But with the Fed stepping in, Washington can keep borrowing while holding rates down—at least for a while. The catch is that this comes at the cost of debasing the dollar. Eventually, that debasement will force investors to demand higher yields anyway, which only worsens the problem.

I believe it’s only a matter of time before the Fed fully capitulates, shattering the illusion of independence once and for all.

Mike Wilson, CIO at Morgan Stanley, recently made it explicit:

“The Fed does have an obligation to help the government fund itself.”

“I’d be nervous if the Fed was totally independent. The Fed needs to help us get out of this deficit problem.”

This is the essence of the sixth default.

It won’t come through missed payments or rewritten contracts. It will come through the collapse of the myth that the Fed is independent. Once monetary policy is fully political, the fallout will be enormous—for the dollar, for Treasuries, and for gold.

And it’s not happening in isolation. As Washington sinks deeper into debt, the rest of the world sees exactly what’s coming. Central banks are moving to protect themselves. I believe they know debasement is inevitable, and they don’t intend to be left holding the bag. Their response has been clear: abandon paper promises and move back toward gold.

In short, the sixth default won’t be a headline—it will be a bleed-out.

When the dollar is quietly debased and the Fed’s “independence” finally cracks, it will be too late to reposition.

If you’ve read this far, you already sense the window is closing. Do not wait for confirmation from the evening news.

The question now is not if but how this crisis will unfold, and whether you’ll be on the losing end of it.

That’s why I’ve prepared a special report, The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… and the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now.

Inside, you’ll learn what risks are ahead, what they mean for your wealth and personal freedom, and the practical steps you can take today to protect yourself. Click here to get your free PDF copy.

Authored by Wanjiru Njoya via The Mises Institute,

In his article “Is the Constitution Broken beyond Repair?” David Gordon draws attention to a phenomenon that is often overlooked, namely, the great rejoicing among some constitutional lawyers over the fact that “to establish the new Constitution, Lincoln overthrew the first one… he replaced the old, immoral Constitution with a new one based on equality.” This is indeed one reason why some of Lincoln’s admirers still celebrate the burning of the South by the Union Army—the devastation and destruction of the South symbolizes for them the brave new world of equality and social justice forged by a righteous army through fire and steel.

Most people, if they understood what was really being celebrated here, would be bewildered. Although Abraham Lincoln and the Union Generals Ulysses Grant and William Sherman are generally admired for saving the Union by those who do not consider the consent of states to be necessary, they may not necessarily think the war was commendable in itself or worthy of celebration; they merely consider that war was necessary for Lincoln to advance his righteous cause. They would view the claim that Lincoln rejected the constraints set by the Constitution as some sort of critique, at the very least—while we can and do debate matters of constitutional interpretation, surely we all accept the premise that a president should not actually overthrow the Constitution? Shouldn’t any president at least try to pretend to uphold the Constitution, even as he brazenly drives a coach and horses through it? Even if he is an unashamed hypocrite who believes double standards always apply to his conduct, he should at least make a show of believing that he sees his actions as constitutional, and should by no means concede to complaints that he is subverting the law.

But, rather surprisingly, some Lincolnite constitutionalists do not see matters that way. They believe that deliberately subverting the Constitution is actually very good if it is done with good intentions—namely, intentions of which progressives approve. As they see it, the new Constitution created by Lincoln’s war is more egalitarian and just than the old one written by slave owners. They believe the overthrow of the old Constitution ought to be welcomed by everyone who upholds “the idea of America”—the “idea” being, of course, progressivism. Nor is this desire to destroy the Constitution new. In the 19th century, the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison described the Constitution as an “agreement with hell”:

Garrison then produced a copy of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law and put a match to it. Amid cries of “Amen” the hated document burned to a cinder… As Martin Luther had burned copies of canon law and the papal bull excommunicating him from the Catholic Church for heresy, Garrison consigned each to the flames. Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he branded it as “the source and parent of all the other atrocities–‘a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.’” As the nation’s founding document burned to ashes, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

The abolition of slavery in 1865 only fanned the flames of this revolutionary fever. The new rallying cry was that steps must be taken to ensure that slavery “by a different name” would never return, and Reconstruction amendments were accordingly forced through. Tennessee, which was the only state in the South to “willingly” ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, only did so after threats of force.

In Tennessee, opponents of the Amendment absented themselves from the House in order to prevent a quorum. This did not stop the supporters of the Amendment, who forcibly seized two absent members and held them in a committee room. The House ignored a court order to release the two and overruled the Speaker, who ruled there was no quorum present.

To many people this might seem, at the very least, mildly embarrassing but nevertheless understandable in the tumultuous aftermath of war. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and the use of force is not part of that process, so at the very least these irregularities ought to be condemned. But for progressives, overthrowing the old Constitution by any means necessary is praiseworthy, because the Fourteenth Amendment brought equality and justice! Let justice be done by any means necessary! In his foreword to Raoul Berger’s Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Forrest McDonald observes that activist courts enthusiastically endorsed the Reconstruction amendments without any qualms. He explains that “advocates of judicial activism began to assert that neither the words of the Constitution nor the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant.” After all, the framers were “racist” so nobody should care what their original intentions were.

After 1865, the progressive amendment of the Constitution continued inexorably under the civil rights regime. When Christopher Caldwell wrote his critique of the Civil Rights Act usurping the Constitution, one reviewer summarized Caldwell’s analysis under the title “The Law that Ate the Constitution.” Now, many readers would assume that “the law that ate the Constitution” is a provocative title denoting an unwelcome development, and that the whole point of Caldwell’s analysis would surely have been to warn us that the Constitution was under threat. Even those committed to “the idea” of civil rights, who may never be persuaded that civil rights pose a threat to the constitution—the judges just need to be a bit more careful to avoid subverting the Constitution, right?—might nevertheless appreciate Caldwell’s attempt to warn us of a potential threat to which we may wish to be alert. But, astonishingly, some law professors view it not as a threat but as cause for celebration—if Caldwell is right that the civil rights law is now the de facto Constitution and has displaced the racist de jure Constitution, they would take that not as a warning but as a wonderful outcome that merits celebration.

Progressives favor the centralization of constitutional authority in the federal courts, and therefore, as they see it, if the courts indeed willfully distorted constitutional history to achieve that goal, so be it. After all, judges are distorting the Constitution for a good cause—in the service of equality, fairness, and justice. Raoul Berger, writing about the role of the Fourteenth Amendment as a platform for the “continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation,” notes how the progressive Warren Supreme Court was hailed as “keeper of the national conscience.” Therefore, when conservatives like Thomas Sowell warned about “the quiet repeal of the American Revolution,” progressives saw that not as cause for alarm but as evidence that they are winning. As they see it, activist courts are to be commended for deliberately replacing the American Revolution with a racially-enlightened social revolution. Far from denying that they have subverted the Constitution, they are supremely proud of themselves for having done so.

They have convinced themselves that the new de facto Constitution better reflects “American values.”

The point here is not simply that there are different schools of statutory interpretation, by reference to which some constitutionalists uphold a “purposive” or “living tree” approach which tries to give meaning to what they see as the underlying goals and values of the Constitution.

Most progressives who champion purposive interpretation do not claim that the old de jure Constitution should be altogether destroyed and replaced with a de facto new Constitution that is morally superior—most would at least attempt to offer some sort of argument that their inventions are a matter of reinterpretation and redefinition of the words actually written in the original Constitution.

The progressives who praise themselves for displacing the Constitution altogether make a very different argument.

They do not claim to be engaged in creative reinterpretation, but to be abolishing the de jure Constitution altogether in order to replace it with a more worthy compact rooted in their civil rights revolution.