The Folly Of Establishing A US Military Base In Damascus

Authored by José Niño via The Libertarian Institute

Recent reports indicate the United States is preparing to establish a military presence at an airbase in Damascus, allegedly to facilitate a security agreement between Syria and Israel. This development represents yet another misguided expansion of American military overreach in a region where Washington has already caused tremendous damage through decades of failed interventionist policies.

The United States currently operates approximately 750 to 877 military installations across roughly eighty countries worldwide. This staggering number represents about 70 to 85% of all foreign military bases globally. To put this in perspective, the next eighteen countries with foreign bases combined maintain only 370 installations total. Russia has just twenty-nine foreign bases, and China operates merely six. The American empire of bases already dwarfs every other nation combined, and the financial burden is crushing. Washington spends approximately $65 billion annually just to build and maintain these overseas installations, with total spending on foreign bases and personnel reaching over $94 billion per year.

These figures are not abstract accounting entries. They translate directly into American lives placed in volatile environments, as demonstrated by the recent insider attack in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, where a purported "ISIS infiltrator" embedded in local government security forces turned his weapon on a joint U.S. Syrian patrol, killing two U.S. soldiers and one U.S. civilian during what was described as a routine field tour. The incident underscores how the sprawling U.S. basing network increasingly exposes American personnel to unpredictable and lethal blowback in unstable theaters far from home.

Syria itself already hosts between 1,500 and 2,000 American troops, primarily concentrated in the northeastern Hasakah province and at the Al Tanf base in the Syrian Desert. The Pentagon recently announced plans to reduce this presence to fewer than 1,000 personnel and consolidated operations from eight installations to just three. Yet now, despite this supposed drawdown, Washington reportedly plans to establish a new presence in Damascus itself, either at Mezzeh Air Base or Al Seen Military Airport. This contradictory expansion reveals the hollow nature of promises to reduce American military commitments abroad.

Since the fall of Bashar al Assad in December 2024, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Syrian military and civilian infrastructure while occupying parts of southern Syria including Quneitra and Daraa. Israel has systematically violated the 1974 disengagement agreement and expanded control over buffer zones. These actions align disturbingly well with the Yinon Plan, a 1982 Israeli strategic document by Israeli foreign policy official Oded Yinon that envisions the dissolution of surrounding Arab states into smaller ethnic and religious entities. The plan explicitly calls for fragmenting Syria along its ethnic and religious lines to prevent a strong centralized government that could challenge Israeli interests.

A permanent American military presence in Damascus would effectively serve as a tripwire guaranteeing continued U.S. involvement in securing Israeli strategic objectives in the Levant. Rather than protecting American interests or enhancing national security, such a base would entrench Washington deeper into regional conflicts that have consistently proven disastrous for both American taxpayers and Middle Eastern populations.

The human cost of American intervention in Syria should give any policymaker pause. The Syrian proxy war has resulted in between 617,000 and 656,000 deaths, including civilians, rebels, and government forces. More than 7.4 million people remain internally displaced within Syria, while approximately 6.3 million Syrian refugees live abroad. This catastrophic toll stems partly from Operation Timber Sycamore, the CIA covert program that ran from 2012 to 2017 to train and equip Syrian rebel forces.

Timber Sycamore represented a joint effort involving American intelligence services along with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The CIA ran secret training camps in Jordan and Turkey, providing rebels with small arms, ammunition, trucks, and eventually advanced weaponry like BGM 71 TOW anti-tank missiles. Saudi Arabia provided significant funding while the United States supplied training and logistical support.

The program proved to be counterproductive. Jordanian intelligence officers stole and sold millions of dollars worth of weapons intended for rebels on the black market. Even worse, U.S.-supplied weapons regularly fell into the hands of the al Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, and ISIS itself. The program strengthened the very extremists Washington was ostensibly fighting.

The failure of Timber Sycamore illustrates a fundamental problem with American interventionism in Syria. Washington has pursued regime change in Damascus in various forms for decades, yet these efforts have consistently backfired, creating power vacuums filled by jihadist groups and prolonging devastating conflicts. The current enthusiasm for establishing a military presence in Damascus suggests American policymakers have learned absolutely nothing from these failures.

Our entire National Guard family mourns the loss of Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, Iowa-the Iowa Army National Guard Soldiers who were ambushed and killed in Syria. Their mission was in support of… pic.twitter.com/eXcyCquOwb

— Gen. Steven Nordhaus (@ChiefNGB) December 15, 2025

The figure now leading Syria exemplifies the moral bankruptcy of this entire enterprise. Ahmed al Sharaa, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al Julani, currently serves as president of Syria’s interim government. This represents a stunning rehabilitation for a man who founded al Nusra Front in 2012 as an al-Qaeda affiliate and later formed Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) by merging various rebel factions. Under the name Abu Mohammad al Julani, he was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the United States on July 24, 2013, with a $10 million bounty maintained on his head.

Al Sharaa’s terrorist designation stemmed from his leadership of al Nusra Front, which perpetrated numerous war crimes including suicide bombings, forced conversions, ethnic cleansing, and sectarian massacres against Christian, Alawite, Shia, and Druze minorities. He fought with al-Qaeda in Iraq, spent time imprisoned at Camp Bucca between 2006 and 2010, and was dispatched to Syria by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in 2011 with $50,000 to establish al Nusra. His close associates have faced accusations from the United States of overseeing torture, kidnappings, trafficking, ransom schemes, and displacing residents to seize property. The New York Times reported that his group was accused of initially operating under al-Qaeda’s umbrella.

Yet in November 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2799, removing al Sharaa and Interior Minister Anas Khattab from the ISIL and al-Qaeda sanctions list. The U.S. Treasury Department followed suit, delisting him from the Specially Designated Global Terrorist registry. This reversal came after the State Department revoked HTS’s Foreign Terrorist Organization designation in July 2025. Washington essentially decided that a former al-Qaeda commander who oversaw sectarian massacres was now a legitimate partner worthy of American military support. This absurd rehabilitation demonstrates how completely untethered American foreign policy has become from any coherent moral framework or strategic logic.

Critics rightly question whether al Sharaa has truly broken from his extremist roots or merely engaged in calculated political rebranding. The speed with which Washington embraced him as a legitimate leader suggests American policymakers care far more about advancing Israeli interests and maintaining regional influence than about genuine counterterrorism or protecting religious minorities.

The blatant lies and cover-up by U.S. officials after the attack in Syria show one thing clearly: they don’t give a damn about American troops. They’re treated as expendable cannon fodder to further consolidate the al-Qaeda regime in Damascus. https://t.co/kS0xCWPGZk

— Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) December 14, 2025

The United States needs to pursue a fundamentally different approach to foreign policy. Rather than establishing yet another military base to advance Israeli strategic objectives in Syria, Washington should implement a comprehensive drawdown of overseas military commitments. The hundreds of foreign bases it maintains abroad represent an unsustainable burden that diverts resources from genuine national security priorities like border security and stability in the Western Hemisphere. American taxpayers deserve better than footing the bill for an empire that consistently fails to advance their interests while enriching defense contractors and serving foreign powers.

Syria offers a perfect case study in the futility of American interventionism. Decades of attempts at regime change through covert programs like Timber Sycamore and direct military presence have produced nothing but chaos, empowered jihadist groups, created millions of refugees, and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The rehabilitation of a former al-Qaeda commander into Syria’s president illustrates how divorced American policy has become from any coherent strategy or values.

Rather than doubling down on failed policies, the United States should pursue strategic restraint, scale back its sprawling network of foreign bases, and allow regional powers to sort out their own affairs without American military involvement. That represents the path toward a more sustainable, affordable, and morally defensible foreign policy. The Damascus base proposal deserves to be rejected outright as yet another wasteful expansion of an already overextended military empire.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 03:30

Europe Establishes Hague-Based Reparations Commission For Ukraine

Top European officials met on Tuesday in The Hague in order to establish an international commission to oversee eventual reparations to compensate Ukraine for Russia's military invasion. President Volodymyr Zelensky and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas were present for the high level talks in The Netherlands.

The International Claims Commission for Ukraine will assess and decide on claims for reparations, and will determine and discharge any amount to be paid out. This is likely to see hundreds of billions of dollars eventually flow to Ukraine for the sake of rebuilding and keeping the civic services sector afloat after nearly four years of war.

via European Union

The treaty to establish the commission has been signed by 35 countries at Tuesday's conference. It also has the involvement of Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, which is a 46-nation group protecting human rights on the continent. The new commission is going to be based in The Hague.

Zelensky welcomed the newly established mechanism, declaring that Russia "paying for its crimes" was "exactly where the real path to peace begins." He added: "This war and Russia’s responsibility for it must become a clear example so that others learn not to choose aggression," and followed with, "We must make Russia accept that there are rules in the world."

Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel agreed, explaining that "Without accountability, a conflict cannot be fully resolved. And part of that accountability is also paying damages that have been done."

All this comes as EU leadership is trying to push through a scheme not just to permanently freeze Russian assets held chiefly in Belgium, but to use the funds for Ukraine's long-term defense and reconstruction.

But Russia’s Central Bank has this week filed a lawsuit seeking 18.2 trillion rubles ($229 billion) in damages from Belgium-based Euroclear, which is meant as a loud shot across Brussels' bow.

The EU's Kallas has lately admitted that the issue of using Russian frozen assets had become "increasingly difficult" ahead of a summit of European leaders which is set for Thursday. The EU is seeking to bypass obvious objectors such as Hungary, and is seeking legal loopholes which would allow a plan to pass based on simple majority vote among EU members.

NOW - Secretary General of the Council of Europe announces the establishment of the "International Claims Commission" and says that work is underway for a "special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine." pic.twitter.com/XlVYKUPtzb

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 16, 2025

The World Bank has estimated the cost of reconstruction due to the war, only figuring in numbers up to December 2024, at $524 billion.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 02:45

The Military Story Ken Burns Missed In The Revolution

Authored by David Stewart via RealClearDefense,

Ken Burns’ documentary on the American Revolution has generated much commentary, some supportive and some critical. Across social media, complaints abound that he paid too much, or too little, attention to the traditional Founding Fathers—Washington, Hamilton, Monroe, Jefferson. Critics pillory him for overemphasizing one specific type of history—military, political, economic, or social—while minimizing or ignoring the other types. In nearly every interview, Ken Burns repeatedly asserts that he sought to complicate the traditional narrative about the Revolution, to insert more nuance into the conversation, and these various criticisms from across the ideological spectrum might seem to suggest he has done so.

The major flaw in the documentary, however, is not that he presented the Founders in the wrong light nor that he complicated the traditional story. Rather, in his attempt to invoke a more nuanced narrative, Burns in fact obscured the most important elements of that narrative.

Some conservative commentators object, for example, to the documentary discussing Major-General Horatio Gates’ actions after the Battle of Camden. In August 1780, Gates’ 4.000-man American army suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Lieutenant-General Cornwallis’ 2.000 British in the South Carolina midlands. In the waning moments of the battle, Gates abandoned his army, riding almost 200 miles before stopping near Durham, North Carolina. Does this make Gates look bad? Yes; deservedly so. Is it the whole story, or even the most important element? Not at all.

Congress quickly replaced Gates, appointing Major-General Nathanael Greene to command the Southern Department. He inherited a remnant army of fewer than 2.000 soldiers—isolated, defeated, and out of supply. Over the next several months, Greene doubled the size of his army as he slowly withdrew northward, drawing Cornwallis after him. As they moved north, the Americans fought a series of skirmishes and battles, losing almost every encounter—a process of strategic retreats Greene famously summarized as “we get beat, rise, and fight again.” But in this series of defeats, the Americans drew Cornwallis far beyond his supply lines, leading him to abandon the Carolinas completely and to march on Yorktown.

Notably, Greene had far more men in his army by the Fall of 1781 than he had inherited a year earlier. This strongly suggests some important values drove those American soldiers, that they fought for more than money. They did not endure a year of hard marching, a string of tactical defeats, constant food shortages, chronic undersupply, and hundreds of casualties in the hope that this feeble army or a fragile government would someday reward them with land or cash. Those men believed in some higher cause, fought for principles. This is the story Burns’ documentary should emphasize—the context that frames Gates’ cowardice.

The soldiers at Valley Forge spoke a variety of languages—that’s interesting. But why did they suffer through that winter? Why did men dive repeatedly into a frozen Hudson River in January 1776? Why did soldiers volunteer to lead a forlorn hope at Stony Point? Why did three hundred Maryland riflemen choose to die rather than retreat during as the American army crumbled in the Battle of Brooklyn? We can all easily understand why men lie, embezzle, flee, or compromise their principles. It is heroism and self-sacrifice that demand explanation, and Burns’ documentary deserves criticism for failing to explain the extraordinary.

As a trained military historian, I’ve limited my comments to military history. Other scholars, far more qualified than I, have suggested similar reservations about the documentary’s discussions of Native Americans, Blacks, women, political thought, and economic history.

Ken Burns did not make General Gates look bad—Gates did that himself. My objection is that Burns, rather than nuancing or complicating the story of the Revolution, simply marginalized one set of much-discussed actors and substituted a new set, and thereby missed the real story.

David Stewart is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and a founding faculty member of the college’s Center for Military History and Grand Strategy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 23:25

Hegseth Planning Massive Overhaul Of US Commands, Fewer Generals, Smaller Presence In Europe

More major Pentagon reshuffling is coming down the line, driven by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, but this time it's being reported this will involve far more than just staffing and personnel changes - it will impact the entire US global command and headquarters structure.

Washington Post reports this week that the Pentagon is drafting a sweeping overhaul of American military command structures that would downgrade several major headquarters and reshape the balance of influence among senior generals.

via Associated Press

The plan is reportedly being driven in large part by Hegseth’s pledge to "break the status quo" and reduce the number of four-star generals across the armed forces, sources quoted in WaPo say. He's also long been talking about purging the 'woke agenda' from within military ranks.

The restructuring would diminish the standing of US Central Command, US European Command, and US Africa Command by bringing these theatres under a newly created entity called US International Command.

Also of note will be the creation of an "Americom," according to the report. Currently it is US Southern Command and US Northern Command which are responsible for military operations across the Western Hemisphere, but now these will be placed under the US Americas Command.

"To ensure that America remains the world's strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come, our country needs a coherent, focused strategy for how we interact with the world … The US must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity," the strategy says, based on the report. 

According to another interesting note in the WaPo report:

"Pentagon officials also discussed creating a US Arctic Command that would report to Americom, but that idea appears to have been abandoned."

This comes on the heels of the recently published new National Security Strategy issued by the White House.

Within the 33-page national security document is the laying out of a "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine: "The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region," the document states.

"The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined," it adds.

One thing the potential revamping of conventional global command sectors does is to provide a more centralized structure under Pentagon top leadership, and it seems this is what Hegseth is aiming for.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 23:00

Catholics, Trump, And Affordability

Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics,

Catholics have been some of Trump’s most important voters. But right now, 55% of Catholics give Trump a D or F grade on handling inflation. Affordability is the central issue for most Americans, especially swing voters. Patriotic middle-class Catholic families feel the squeeze, so this new populist coalition is being tested.

Back in 2016 Trump won the Catholic vote by 8 points, but in 2020 he split the Catholic vote nationally with Biden. Last November, Trump surged to a 12-point win among the faithful in 2024. That massive shift within the largest denomination in America drove the popular vote victory.

Now, this determinative group of voters watches closely, increasingly disenchanted with the state of the economy. So, we commissioned a survey of 1,483 registered voters in Wisconsin, the consummate swing state and one of the most Catholic states in America.

Overall, the Wisconsin economic outlook is grim. When asked to give a letter grade on Trump and the economy, here is the Badger State breakdown:

A - 10%

B - 18%

C – 17%

D – 19%

F – 33%

On inflation specifically, Midwest women deliver some harsh marks, with only 6% giving an A vs. 45% an F grade. Those grades are notable because women are disproportionately the CFOs and shoppers in households.  

Trump’s job approval in Wisconsin is -11% net: 41% approve vs. 52% disapprove. Trump remains very popular among Republicans, with 82% approval, but sinks to only 28% approval among independents. For Wisconsin Catholics, Trump remains more popular at only -4% net, with 45% job approval vs. 49% disapproval.

So … what can be done?

There are fixes, both in policy and in framing/messaging, beginning with blunt honesty with the American people, from Wisconsin Catholics to California agnostics. Recognize and acknowledge the very real angst out there.

The pain of cumulative inflation for five years takes a material toll on both the psyche and the bank accounts of hard-working Americans. The pain is especially acute for the masses of modest earners who have not enjoyed the benefits of asset inflation via stocks and real estate. Culturally, Catholics embrace a very middle-class mindset, even those who have achieved material financial success. They still identify with the mores and habits of their Irish, Mexican, and Italian grandparents.

So, empathy is crucial. Many on the right routinely – and understandably – mock Bill Clinton for his insincere “I feel your pain” tagline, but guess what? It is effective in politics. People need to believe that their leaders care.

So, here are the three points:

1. Level with people and show authentic concern. Communicate clearly that the present angst is real and justified, after years of economic hardship for regular citizens.
2. Detail the current positive trajectory of some key metrics, backed by data and evidence. President Trump and other Republicans can rightly claim serious early progress, using real world numbers.

-Real Wages jump higher, meaning pay adjusted for inflation.

-Residential rents finally trend lower.

-National gasoline prices dipped below $3/gallon for the first time in four years.

3. Accelerate these wins! How? Continue to negotiate for the best possible trade deals for America. Continue to attract massive flows of foreign capital into America. And keep pushing to get illegal aliens out of America, raising wages for citizens and easing the pressure on the scarce supply of housing.

Taken together, these strategies will work for all Americans, including the crucial Catholic population. Catholics are not locked-in partisans. They are practical and patriotic. Appeal to their common sense and persuade them of the efficacy of the plan, from the businessman leader who created the amazing first Trump Boom during the first term into 2019.

The faithful rallied big to Trump in 2024. They now have valid concerns. Repay their loyalty with honest, clear messaging … confirmed by tangible kitchen-table results. Then, Trump and his allies can once again earn robust Catholic support for the 2026 midterms, and beyond.

Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 22:35

Susie Wiles Let's Slip She Stands With Massie On War Powers & Venezuela

Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles said the following as part of the controversial Vanity Fair interview in reference to Venezuela policy: "If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress."

But only last month when President Trump was asked about this issue, he said, "We don’t have to get their approval. But I think letting them know is good."

All of this could come to a head if enough Congressional leaders, especially on the Republican side, decide to grow a spine and stand up to the White House's foreign policy adventurism down south - which polls show is not supported by most Americans.

The House is expected to vote Thursday on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution. It aims to halt any potential attack on Venezuela after Trump has threatened that the US military hitting land targets would happen 'soon'.

AFP via Getty Images

Introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the bipartisan bill has 31 co-sponsors, including three Republicans: Reps. Thomas Massie (KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE).

Massie has of course been at the forefront of Trump criticisms, and he's again helping lead the charge on Venezuela pushback, amid the huge American presence in the southern Caribbean.

"The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States," Massie said in a statement upon the bill being introduced. '

"Congress has the sole power to declare war against Venezuela. Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." This viewpoint is precisely what Wiles has voiced in her comments to Vanity Fair.

According to a brief summary of the Trump admin's rationale: 

A central legal question is whether the administration can treat anti-cartel maritime strikes as a form of armed conflict falling within the President’s independent Article II power or within some existing statutory authorization.

CRS reports the Trump administration has asserted drug trafficking and terrorism “involving or associated with Maduro” threaten U.S. national security, and that it reportedly told Congress U.S. forces are in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels – an assertion that other experts and government lawyers reportedly questioned. This framing signals the administration’s likely legal posture without requiring anyone outside government to guess at classified briefings.

Also, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is simultaneously seeking to reign in the drone strikes on alleged drug boats with his own war powers legislation. No Republicans have signed on to his initiative.

Recently, the President announced land strikes against Venezuela. No U.S. President is authorized to commit acts of war in a sovereign country without authorization from Congress. I cosponsored this War Powers Resolution to force Congress to vote “for or against” this action. pic.twitter.com/GfIaeQUiny

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 13, 2025

He said: "the Trump Administration has not provided a credible rationale for its 21 unauthorized military strikes on vessels in the Western Hemisphere, which have resulted in the extrajudicial killings of dozens of individuals."

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 22:10

WSJ's Fearmongering Doesn't Survive Contact With Evidence

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

Legally armed civilians, we’re told, pose a major danger. They shoot innocent bystanders, justifiably kill others whenever they personally believe “force is reasonably necessary,” and rely on racist self-defense laws.

At least these concerns are the case in several recent news articles in the Wall Street Journal. On Monday, with the story on the front page of the Journal, reporter Mark Maremont continued his attacks on people legally carrying concealed handguns. His article presents four stories from 2021 to the present where citizens who used a gun in self-defense accidentally shot a bystander.

But with more than 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year, almost 21 million permit holders, and 29 constitutional-carry states where a permit to carry isn’t necessary, four cases over four years offers little perspective.

Even worse, only two of the four cases even involve people who were legally carrying concealed handguns in public (one case each from Massachusetts and Michigan). In the Ohio case, the convenience store employee had the gun at her workplace, so concealed-carry laws didn’t apply. In the California case, the state required a permit, but there is no evidence that the individual had a permit.

The Wall Street Journal article warns about the dangers of constitutional carry (what it calls “permitless carry”) and quotes gun-control advocates claiming that “When untrained or panicked shooters miss their target, it’s children, neighbors and bystanders who pay the price.” Yet, not a single one of the article’s examples involved constitutional carry.

To examine the issue more directly, the Crime Prevention Research Center, which I head, used ChatGPT and Grok to search news reports and compile a list of cases from the past decade in which concealed-carry permit holders accidentally shot an innocent bystander. Since 2016, we have also collected cases where people legally carrying guns in public have used them to stop crimes and we have reviewed those cases. All together there were four cases from 2016 through nearly all of 2025. One listed incident involved a security guard, who arguably should not be counted.

From 2016 to 2025, including the security-guard case, permit holders accidentally shot five bystanders – two killed and three wounded. Excluding the security guard, permit holders shot three bystanders – two killed and one wounded.

But the issue isn’t one of perfection. The question is: What is the alternative?

We then did the same review of police incidents from 2016 to 2025 and found 20 cases in which officers accidentally shot a total of 28 bystanders: six killed and 22 wounded. In one case, an officer wounded six people; in another, three officers wounded three people. Some news stories do not make clear whether the criminal or the police shot the bystander, so these numbers may understate the total number of bystanders shot by police.

Overall, police accidentally wounded 5.6 times as many bystanders as civilians (including the security-guard case), killed three times as many, and wounded seven times as many. Excluding the security guard, police shot seven times more bystanders, killed three times more, and wounded 22 times more. Without the security guard case, bystanders were seven times more likely to be accidentally shot by police than by civilians.

Other research using the FBI’s active-shooter definition confirms this pattern. We looked at cases from 2014 to 2024 – cases where individuals actively attempt to kill people in a public area and excluding shootings tied to other crimes – showing that armed civilians consistently act safely and effectively. They stopped over half of the attacks in places where they could legally carry, more frequently than police.

Police are extremely important in stopping crime, and research shows they are the single most important factor. But their uniforms make them operate at a real tactical disadvantage in stopping these shootings. Attackers can wait for officers to leave, strike elsewhere, or shoot them first. As a result, police were killed at eleven times the rate of intervening civilians and accidentally killed civilians or fellow officers five times – or five times more than civilians accidentally shot bystanders.

Attackers don’t just avoid police officers – they risk encountering far fewer of them than permit holders. In 2020, the U.S. had roughly 671,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers, and typically fewer than 240,000 were on duty at any given time, amounting to less than 0.1% of the population. By contrast, almost 21 million adults held concealed-carry permits, representing about 7.8% of the adult population.

Permit holders are also extremely law-abiding, losing their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of 1 percentage point. Police rarely commit crimes, but concealed handgun permit holders are even more law-abiding, facing a conviction rate for firearms offenses that is just 1/12th the rate of police convictions.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the only recent problem with the Wall Street Journal news articles. Another long article co-authored by Maremont at the end of October warns that justifiable homicides increased after Stand Your Ground laws made it easier for people to defend themselves. What the article ignores is that while justifiable self defense killings rose, in the first five years after Stand Your Ground laws are adopted, murder rates fell on average by more than 8%.

The article misstates the legal principal that governs what is justifiable self-defense. It claims that anyone can shoot another person by simply claiming they thought force was “reasonably necessary.” But that isn’t the standard. The law requires that a reasonable third party believe the defendant faced a serious risk of injury or death from the attack.

But the fact that there were fewer murders and more self-defense uses is exactly what the proponents of Stand Your Ground would predict. On top of that, yet another Journal piece attacked these laws as racist because “Nationwide, Black men and boys account for almost two-thirds of the victims in civilian justifiable homicides, according to the Journal analysis of FBI data from 2019 to 2024.” Yet, the Journal ignores past research showing that blacks, who are the most likely victims of violent crime, are also by far the most likely to use Stand Your Ground laws as a legal defense. It is also important to note that about 90% of murders of blacks are committed by other blacks.

The Wall Street Journal alarms readers by focusing on anecdotes, yet it ignores extensive evidence showing that armed civilians pose little risk – and far less risk to bystanders than police. Permit holders regularly stop crimes and active shooters with minimal collateral harm. Stand Your Ground laws are not racist nor do they cause excessive violence; instead, they have reduced murder rates and empowered vulnerable communities – especially black victims – to defend themselves legally. By prioritizing sensational stories over solid data, such news stories ultimately undermine public safety.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 21:45

Side Effects Of 30 Antidepressants Ranked And Compared: Lancet Study

Authored by Cara Michelle Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Not all antidepressants are created equal when it comes to your waistline, heart, and blood pressure, according to a sweeping study published in The Lancet that analyzed data from more than 58,000 people to create the first comprehensive ranking of drug side effects.

The Epoch Times/Shutterstock

The analysis compared 30 antidepressants, some of which are not available in the United States, from older tricyclics such as amitriptyline to newer selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as sertraline (Zoloft).

Experts said that the side effects listed are not new or surprising.

The study affirmed well-known observations about antidepressant side effects, Dr. Joseph Goldberg, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times in an email.

What’s new, Goldberg noted, is the comprehensive review of the literature that reassures us, and helpfully quantifies for us, that many of these common side effects tend to have only modest impacts.

The findings reinforce the need for personalized choices and regular monitoring, especially for long-term users, because side effects can build over time.

Weight Gain, Blood Pressure, and Cholesterol Changes

People on antidepressants experienced a 9-pound difference in weight change across drugs.

The most extreme weight changes occurred in those taking agomelatine (Valdoxan) and maprotiline (Ludiomil), with the former associated with a weight loss of about five pounds and the latter with a weight gain of about four pounds.

Both of these drugs, however, are not approved for use in the United States.

Differences in heart rates exceeded 20 beats per minute, from fluvoxamine (Luvox), which slowed the heart by calming the nervous system, to nortriptyline (Pamelor), a stimulant that increased heart rates.

Blood pressure shifts were also notable, with the upper (systolic) number differing by about 11 points between certain tricyclics such as nortriptyline and doxepin (Silenor). These drugs directly act on the body’s nervous system and blood vessel receptors, which can raise or lower blood pressure.

“These are not alarming effects,” Dr. Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist and chair of the psychiatry department at MelroseWakefield Healthcare, part of the Tufts Medicine network, who was not involved in the study, said in an email to The Epoch Times, “but the paper reinforces the value of simple monitoring—blood pressure, weight, and labs—especially for patients with heart or metabolic risk.”

“Some of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors—like duloxetine and venlafaxine—caused  small but measurable increases in blood pressure and cholesterol, which makes it worth checking those numbers periodically.”

For people with diabetes, hypertension, or heart problems, small increases in weight gain and heart measurements can affect blood-sugar levels or add strain to the heart and blood-vessel system.

Common Antidepressants and Potential Side Effects

The following is not a complete list of potential side effects, and the effects listed vary by person, with not everyone experiencing them.

Why Different Drugs Have Different Effects

About 20 million Americans take antidepressants for depression or anxiety. Beyond mood, these drugs can influence your metabolism, often in very different ways.

Antidepressants affect brain chemicals that lift mood—the same chemicals that regulate appetite, metabolism, blood vessels, and the heartbeat.

Depending on the specific medication, appetite may increase or decrease, blood vessels may relax or constrict, and the heart’s rate may shift slightly.

For example, agomelatine, which causes weight loss and regulates the sleep-wake cycle, may help reduce appetite, while maprotiline, which is linked with weight gain, increases appetite.

Outside of drug side effects, weight gain can also occur when an antidepressant lifts mood—people who were eating less due to depression may return to their usual appetite.

Side effects aren’t the same for everyone, which is why it’s important to consider a person’s overall health, symptoms, and sensitivities when choosing a treatment.

Risks vs. Benefits

“Side effects are not necessarily equal-opportunity offenders,” Goldberg said. “Every patient is unique, and almost all medications carry some side effects—even placebos.”

Some antidepressants that are more effective at treating difficult-to-treat depression carry a higher risk of weight gain, and it would be a disservice to patients if their doctor were to avoid prescribing them simply due to a higher risk of weight gain, Goldberg said.

The patient would be at risk of persistent depression, having functional impairment, and possibly even suicide if their depression went untreated.

“It all starts with a conversation about whether the depression is severe enough to merit medication versus therapy,” Carlat said. “If we do decide to try a medication, I start with those that offer the best balance of benefit and tolerability—typically an SSRI like sertraline or escitalopram. Bupropion is also high on my list because it rarely causes sexual side-effects or weight gain.”

In children and young adults, antidepressants can provoke or exacerbate suicidal thoughts, while older adults appear to be somewhat protected from this side effect, Goldberg said. Additionally, patients with anxiety may also be more prone to developing such side effects.

Some symptoms of depression may also overlap with side effects from medication, Goldberg said. Appetite changes, weight gain, and sexual issues can stem from either depression or medication use.

Clinicians, therefore, need to consider all factors and make personal decisions for each patient. Maintaining open communication between patients and doctors is essential.

Age, anxiety level, genetics, and the use of multiple medications also influence side effect risk. The study did not address why some people are more vulnerable to side effects than others, or how clinicians can identify higher-risk patients.

What to Know Before Starting an Antidepressant

According to Goldberg and Carlat, for patients considering antidepressants, shared decision-making with doctors is key. Common concerns, according to the study’s researchers, include:

• High Blood Pressure: Ask about medications known to raise blood pressure, such as amitriptyline or venlafaxine.
• Weight Gain: Options such as agomelatine, sertraline, or venlafaxine may lead to smaller average weight changes.
• Cholesterol: Some SSRIs, such as citalopram and escitalopram, appeared more neutral on cholesterol compared with paroxetine or duloxetine.
• Usage Period: Ask questions like, “How long will I need this medication?” and, “Are there non-drug options—such as group therapy or exercise—that could work as well?”

Because most of the trials covered in the study lasted only eight weeks, the long-term physical effects of antidepressants remain uncertain, thus experts recommend routine checks of weight, blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol for anyone on long-term therapy.

“There are seldom absolutes,” Goldberg said. “A person with high risk for heart disease may be a poorer candidate for a drug that causes weight gain or raises blood sugar.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 20:55

"He'll Be Lucky To Have A Bookmobile": The Future Of Joe Biden's Presidential Library In Doubt As Donations Fail To Come In

Former President Joe Biden’s planned monument to his presidency is becoming a brutal reality check on his legacy. 

In September, the Biden camp announced plans to build his presidential library in Delaware - assembling a team of former aides, friends, and political allies to oversee the project, which is supposed to include a museum and archive.

A senior member of the Biden Foundation described the project to CBS News as a “vibrant and lasting space where history, learning, and civic leadership come together, inspiring future generations to lead with purpose, serve their communities, and strengthen our nation.” 

However, a recent New York Times report suggests Biden will likely have to scale back the project.

“Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has raised only a small fraction of the money needed to construct a presidential library,” the paper reported Saturday, “leaving uncertainty about when a library might be built and its viability as a stand-alone project, according to public filings and interviews with his donors.”

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Biden’s library foundation revealed that it had not received any new donations in 2024, the final year of his presidency. The foundation was instead seeded entirely with $4 million left over from his 2021 inauguration.

The library foundation declined to say what it had raised in 2025. It said that Mr. Biden was only now beginning to actively raise money. He is holding the first event for potential library donors on Monday in Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood.

Still, Mr. Biden’s foundation told the I.R.S. this year that it expected to bring in just $11.3 million, total, by the end of 2027. That would be far below the pace set by other recent presidents, and far less than the $200 million that Mr. Biden’s aides say they want to raise eventually.

 As a result, Biden insiders say there’s talk of folding the potential Biden library into existing Biden-related projects at the University of Delaware. According to four anonymous sources, this could let the library ride on the millions the university—Biden’s own alma mater—has already raised for a “Biden Hall” project.

It appears that no matter what happens with the project, donations will be hard to come by. The New York Times reports that even some of Joe Biden’s most reliable donors say nobody has reached out to them about contributing to his presidential library. Others in the Democratic donor class sound even less enthusiastic, and say they plan to pour their resources into battling President Trump. Others admit that bitterness over Biden’s time in office has closed their wallets entirely.

“The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him,” explained John Morgan, a longtime Democratic donor. “He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile.”

Morgan was previously one of Biden’s top bundlers.

Biden now plans to personally start raising money for his library, beginning with a Georgetown cocktail event billed as a casual meet-and-greet. But the Joe and Jill Biden Foundation doesn’t sound particularly confident in his ability to raise funds. According to IRS filings, the foundation expects to raise only about $11.3 million by the end of 2027. For comparison, George W. Bush raised $500 million before cutting the ribbon on his library. Obama’s center costs around $850 million. Trump’s team is projecting close to $900 million. 

What’s happening to Biden is simple. The Democratic Party needed a placeholder to stop Trump in 2020, but there was never any genuine enthusiasm for him. When doubts about his cognitive decline became impossible to spin, his party kicked him to the curb. Now, to the Democratic donor class, Biden’s brand equity is virtually nonexistent, and the people who once filled his campaign war chest have moved on.

Joe Biden wanted a monument. What he’s getting is a mausoleum nobody wants to build.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 20:30

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Wednesday:
• At 7:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

• During the day: The AIA's Architecture Billings Index for November (a leading indicator for commercial real estate).

Will The US Hit A Deflationary Wall Or Will The Fed Inflate Again In 2026?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

In a system dominated by Keynesian economics the word “deflation” is considered taboo; like saying Donald Trump’s name out loud in a crowded Seattle yoga studio. The screeching reaction you will get is rarely worth the effort of arguing the point. Every element of modern financial policy is designed to prevent a deflationary event. Every central bank policy is designed to artificially drag the economy out of deflation using whatever fiat stimulus is necessary.

Of course, deflation is not always a bad thing. It’s the harsh tasting medicine sometimes needed to correct the many problems caused by bad investments, corporate fraud, consumer debt addiction, government interference in markets, etc. We saw this during the crash of 2008, but the Federal Reserve refused to let the treatment run its course.

The US, like many countries, has become disconnected from the concept of financial consequences. But when America’s massive system dodges accountability, the cost to future generations can be immense.

So now we’re stuck with 17 years of persistent monetary intervention and the inevitable stagflationary crisis it created. The fact that Keynesians like Paul Krugman, Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke downplayed or outright denied the existence of the inflationary threat shows, at the very least, that they know inflation is a bad thing for the general public (otherwise, why would they try to hide it?).

They denied reality so hard it made them look stupid when 2022 hit the US with a 9.1% CPI rate. The consequences of stimulus driven policies are now undeniable and the Keynesian “experts” have been proven useless, but this doesn’t mean anything is going to change for the better.

My ongoing question with the return of Donald Trump to the White House has been this: How are the banks going to pull the rug out from under this administration? Will it be a deflationary crisis, or an even bigger inflationary crisis?

As I noted last month in my article “Inflection Point: US Government Shutdown And Strange Economic Signals”, gold and silver prices seem to be on the verge of going parabolic (beyond the price explosion we’ve already seen this year), which indicates incoming inflationary pressures. Or, at the very least, a global expectation among investors and central banks of a crisis event which will precipitate further inflation.

I suspect this is partially due to the monolithic interest payments that the US government is required to make on existing debt ($250 billion every 3 months currently). Central banks and investors are snapping up gold and silver, perhaps with the expectation that US debt will become unstable, thus affecting dollar value or triggering a new round of QE.

Furthermore, despite Federal Reserve intervention in interest rates, consumer spending has not significantly slowed down and debt borrowing continues to climb to record highs. CPI growth has slowed dramatically from the Biden era, but prices have not dropped enough to give relief to average Americans. If the Fed’s goal in jacking up interest rates was to slow demand, they failed miserably.

As I’ve noted in the past, the central bank had to hike interest rates to over 20% in the early 1980s to finally end the decade long stagflation crisis – We didn’t come anywhere close to that post-pandemic. Meaning, the Fed put a band aid on an inflationary gunshot wound.

But is deflation just around the corner? There are some signs that this is happening. For example, job availability has dropped by 500,000 openings in the past year, and keep in mind around 30% of all advertised employment opportunities are actually “ghost jobs” that don’t actually exist.

There have been increases in job layoffs in 2025, but 27% of those are connected to DOGE cuts to government bureaucracy. White collar jobs have seen a increase in layoffs of around 19% for the year.

The US national debt increased by $2.2 trillion in 2025. Consumer credit debt is increasing by around $190 billion every quarter. Total household debt has hit $18.5 trillion. Eventually, the debt expansion is going to drag down consumption, but this doesn’t seem to be happening yet.

There hasn’t been a noticeable slowdown in retail spending, nor in credit borrowing. Prices remain significantly higher compared to before the pandemic despite softening of the CPI. The elements needed for deflation to pull prices down just don’t exist.

I continue to suspect that a deflationary event is coming, but I think this will only happen after another round of inflation hits the economy. If the Fed cuts rates to the point that CPI spikes sharply again (which won’t take long), then rising prices will ultimately hobble consumer spending. If they don’t, then the Fed will hike rates well beyond recent highs, just as they did in the 1980s.

It’s the Catch-22 trap that I have been talking about for years and it’s not going away. The choice is really up to the Fed – To increase interest rates far beyond what they did in the past three years, or stimulate. In other words, the roller coaster starts in 2026 as the central bank continues to cut. Watch for returning instability in the CPI in the summer and fall.

Trump’s tariffs, if they are still in effect, will likely be blamed despite the fact that tariffs have avoided the kind of cost crisis that many critics were predicting. How did this happen? Well, because the critics don’t take into account the massive mark-up from manufacturers overseas to retail prices on the shelf.

Prices on many goods are jacked up by 250% on average once they reach the US. Some apparel items see a markup of over 900% before they hit the shelf. The price of labor and materials in Asia is exceedingly low, and the charges on final products in America are exceedingly high. This is why most international corporations can eat the tariff taxes without much trouble to consumers.

Tariffs are estimated to have caused an increase in CPI of 0.7% since they began according to Harvard research data; a negligible amount compared to the disastrous predictions of many mainstream economists.

That said, inflation continues to loom and tariffs make for a useful scapegoat simply because most people don’t understand them. There has been no deflationary correction, not since 2008 and not since the pandemic stimulus. Which means high demand has not been quelled and savings are not increasing (the US personal savings rate declined to record lows in 2024-2025). Excess dollars are still increasing in circulation and FRED M2 continues to climb. The system never took its medicine.

This means that as the central bank returns to lower rates, borrowing will explode to even higher levels.  Inflation will resurface, likely by the third quarter of 2026 if the Fed continues to cut interest rates into next year.

The Trump Administration is taking measures that could help mitigate prices. Mass deportations will certainly reduce domestic demand for goods and housing, which means more supply and falling prices. But this won’t happen at the kind of pace we need unless Trump finds a way to at least double the current annual deportations. The effects will be cumulative and will take years to affect markets.

Overall, I don’t see a way to escape more inflation in the near term without dramatic changes to economic conditions, or a historic move by the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates to levels not seen since the stagflation crisis 50 years ago.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 20:05

House Oversight Report Says DC Police Chief Manipulated Crime Data

A few years ago a propaganda narrative was launched by Democrat leaders and the left-wing media asserting that conservative red states are the greatest source of criminal activity in the US.  The narrative was designed to misdirect the public, distracting from the ongoing problem of progressive soft-on-crime policies which help violent offenders stay out of prison while putting the population at risk.    

In reality, red states only have a crime problem because of blue cities.  Democrat controlled cities suffer the most criminal activity by far.  Data shows that 27 out of 30 of the most violent cities in the US are Democrat run. The leftist propaganda backfired, leading to wider discussions on blue city decay and liberal delusions that crime is a "product of society" rather than a product of inherent psychopathy. 

The situation is far worse than reports indicate. For many years evidence has been mounting that reveals a pattern of suppression when it comes to blue city crime stats.  One city that has been placed under a microscope is Washington DC - A new report from the House Oversight Committee alleges former D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith played a considerable role in the overall Democrat effort to hide true crime stats from the general public.

The report, based on evidence and testimony collected over the course of the past several months, alleges that Smith pressured officers to manipulate crime data. The committee released the report on Sunday, less than a week after Smith announced she was stepping down.  

DC crime stats have been under suspicion for many years, but suppression did not come to light until Donald Trump initiated a crackdown on DC crime, deploying the National Guard to the city leading to an immediate drop in reported violence.  DC police officials claimed that there was no crime problem, boasting of a 30-year-low in murders and assaults.  This claim is now under dispute after the House Oversight report.

The report's key findings include:

1)  Chief Smith used a pressure campaign against staff which led to inaccurate crime data. Testimony from MPD commanders revealed that Chief Smith prioritized lowering publicly reported crime numbers over reducing actual crime, placing intense pressure on district commanders to produce low crime statistics by any means necessary.

2)  Commanders also testified that Chief Smith pushed for more frequent use of lesser, intermediate charges - which are not publicly reported - and required certain crimes to be reviewed by her office, actions that together amounted to manipulating crime data to present the illusion of lower crime in the District. 

3)  Chief Smith punished and removed officers for reporting accurate crime numbers and fostered a toxic culture. Commanders described a culture of fear and stated that Chief Smith propagated an ecosystem of retaliation and toxicity. Testimony reveals commanders were berated for reporting rising crime and faced retaliation.  

4)  D.C. crime statistics are still at risk of manipulation.  Crime classifications - which affect reported MPD crime data - have been and are still at risk of being artificially reduced to manipulate crime statistics at the expense of public safety, even after Chief Smith’s abrupt resignation. 

5)  MPD commanders also confirmed that President Trump’s federal law enforcement surge in D.C. has been effective in lowering crime.  

While Smith has not yet publicly responded to the report, she's previously denied allegations of manipulating crime data, saying the investigation did not play a factor into her decision to step down at the end of the year.  Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser also released a statement Monday, writing in part that “the interim report betrays its bias from the outset, admitting that it was rushed to release."

This argument doesn't address the damning testimony from transcribed interviews with the commanders of all seven D.C. patrol districts and a former commander currently on suspended leave.  The Democrat position is, as usual, that everyone else is lying and only they are telling the truth.  When faced with questions about the testimonies, Mayor Bowser asserted that the Police Chief's "management style" was none of Congress' business.  

This is the kind of blatant corruption that is suffocating many US cities.  

According to current crime stats from the Metropolitan Police Department, since Trump's federal law enforcement surge started in August, total violent crime is down 26%. Homicides are down 12% and carjackings 37%.  

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 19:40

Trump Wants Tiny Cars In America: What To Know

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Microcars could be driving on a street near you.

The affordability issue has also extended to the car market. At a time when the average price of a brand-new automobile is almost $50,000, the White House is seeking to offer motorists other affordable options.

Honda Motor's new N-BOX mini-vehicles at the company's headquarters in Tokyo on Aug. 31, 2017. Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP via Getty Images

Japan may have inspired President Donald Trump’s latest decision to allow U.S. manufacturers to produce tiny automobiles—also known as kei cars.

Administration Actions

Trump, speaking at a White House event on Dec. 3, expressed admiration for tiny cars after seeing them in Japan, comparing these models to the classic Volkswagen Beetle.

“They’re very small; they’re really cute,” Trump told reporters. “And everyone seems to think they’re good, but you’re not allowed to build them.”

He confirmed that he authorized Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to “immediately approve the production” of these smaller vehicles, which are common throughout Malaysia and South Korea.

“So, you’ll be able to buy [them],” the president said.

In a Dec. 5 Truth Social post, Trump reiterated the charm of these miniature cars.

“Manufacturers have long wanted to do this, just like they are so successfully built in other countries. They can be propelled by gasoline, electric, or hybrid,” the president wrote.

“These cars of the very near future are inexpensive, safe, fuel efficient and, quite simply, amazing!!! Start building them now!”

In a Dec. 4 interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Duffy stated that if there is market support for low-cost microcars, he wants to afford U.S. manufacturers the opportunity to satisfy consumer demand.

While they might not be functional on freeways, the secretary noted that they could work in urban settings.

“If that’s where you drive, it could be a great solution for you,” he said. “And, by the way, much more affordable than other options that are on the market today.”

Terminating CAFE Standards

The president’s comments came as he moved to dismantle his predecessor’s fuel‑economy rules, formally scrapping the Biden administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

The original program required automakers to average 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031, but Trump’s rollback lowers the target to 34.5 miles per gallon over the next six years.

The White House estimates that the change will trim at least $1,000 from sticker prices and deliver about $109 billion in consumer savings over the next five years.

Driving a Kei Car

Emerging in the late 1940s and ‘50s, tiny automobiles—kei cars—were created to provide low-cost personal transportation during Japan’s postwar reconstruction. Their compact size suited the era’s infrastructure, when most roads were narrow, winding, and frequently unpaved.

The federal government does not explicitly ban Japanese-style microcars. However, regulatory exclusions effectively prevented automakers from producing these types of vehicles, forcing them to manufacture larger, heavier cars.

People cross a street under the hot sun in Tokyo on June 20, 2025. Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP via Getty Images

Since the 1970s, the United States has implemented modern federal crash-safety and highway-safety standards under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This includes airbags, crash-test performance, side-impact protection, and structural strength.

Kei cars—designed with small dimensions and engines—cannot comply with these standards without adding weight and size, ultimately undermining the very concept.

‘Game Changer’ for US Automakers

The president’s public support and policy actions regarding kei cars are a “game changer,” said Lauren Fix, a sector analyst and industry expert at Car Coach Reports.

“This is not an overnight process, but the tooling could be shipped to the U.S. and produced within a year,” Fix told The Epoch Times.

One automaker is already putting the pedal to the metal to see if Americans want smaller cars.

Chrysler parent Stellantis said on Dec. 8 that it will begin offering an all-electric small car called the Fiat Topolino—translated to “little mouse”—in the United States in 2026.

Fiat CEO Olivier François stopped short of providing more information, but he said in a statement that more details would be shared in 2026.

“The Fiat Topolino, our small, joyful, colorful car that is now everywhere in Europe, has made several appearances in the U.S. over the past year, including last month at the LA Auto Show, where it’s creating tremendous excitement among consumers,” François said in the statement.

“So much so that I’m happy to share that we’ll be bringing the Fiat Topolino to the U.S., with more details to come next year.”

Trump’s enthusiasm for tiny cars, meanwhile, could also lead to savings for families, according to Fix.

Affordability Versus Market Demand

In Japan, brand-new gasoline-powered kei cars range from $8,000 to $14,000—electric alternatives can run as high as $27,800.

Stellantis sells the Topolino in Europe for approximately $11,500.

By comparison, the average transaction price of a new automobile in the United States is almost $50,000, according to Cox Automotive’s Kelley Blue Book report, released on Dec. 9.

But availability and cost may not be enough to entice motorists to hop into a kei car anytime soon.

Two in five Americans say an SUV or crossover is their primary vehicle, according to YouGov survey data—and that preference is reflected clearly in the country’s best-selling models.

The U.S. auto market remains dominated by SUVs and pickup trucks—sedans account for a smaller share of domestic sales. In the first seven months of 2025, the top-selling cars have been the Ford F-Series, Chevrolet Silverado, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Ram Trucks’ pickup.

If there is market demand, models such as Toyota’s Hilux pickup truck or the Fiat Topolino could be hitting U.S. streets in the coming years.

Travis Gillmore contributed to this report

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 19:15

Nick Reiner Charged With Murdering His Parents

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

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

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

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

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

Their bodies were discovered Sunday.

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

Hochman declined to say whether the weapon has been located.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Reiner is currently being held without bail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 18:50

The Trauma Of Inflation Hits Hard In 2025

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

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

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

We are left with a sense of rage against everything.

But this doesn’t happen immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 18:25

Trump Considering Executive Order To Reclassify Marijuana

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

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

A marijuana grow site in California’s Mendocino County on Oct. 9, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking Up Where Biden Left Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 17:40

FBI Agents Thought Clinton's Uranium One Deal Might Be Criminal - But McCabe, Yates Stonewalled Investigation: Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigators disputed statute-of-limitations claims

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

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

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

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

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

Internal emails show morale collapse among agents

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

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

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

Political scrutiny and congressional oversight

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

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

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

Fallout continues amid uranium supply concerns

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

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

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

Travis Tue, 12/16/2025 - 17:20

FDA Not Adding 'Black Box' Warning To COVID-19 Vaccines: Commissioner

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The academy counts Pfizer and Moderna among its partners.

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 17:00

Pew Research's 'Most Striking' Findings From 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 16:20

USDA Must Give States More Time To Implement Food Stamp Restrictions: Judge

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

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

A sign advertises that "Food Stamps (EBT)" are accepted at a convenience store in Chelsea, Mass., on Oct. 24, 2025. Brian Snyder/Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/16/2025 - 14:45