The Unsettling Truths The Epstein Files Reveal About Power And Privilege

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The public fixation on the Epstein files has settled, predictably, on the most lurid elements of the story.

This is understandable.

Sexual exploitation, particularly of the young, is among the most corrosive of crimes, and the scale of Epstein’s abuse, as well as the apparent indifference of powerful institutions to it, demands moral outrage.

But to focus exclusively on the sexual scandal is to miss the deeper and more unsettling lesson the affair reveals.

Documents that were included in the U.S. Department of Justice release of the Jeffrey Epstein files are photographed on Jan. 2, 2026. Jon Elswick/AP Photo

What the Epstein files expose, above all, is the social and moral estrangement of American elites from the people they claim to govern.

Epstein was not merely a predator who gained access to power. He was a node within a closed world of wealth, influence, and immunity. The scandal is not that powerful people behaved badly in private—history shows many such examples—but that they did so with a confidence rooted in the belief they were insulated from the consequences of their behavior.

They moved through a transnational elite culture that had largely severed itself from ordinary moral constraints, legal accountability, and civic obligation. That culture did not merely tolerate Epstein but normalized him.

This echoes the point Christopher Lasch made decades ago, long before private islands and hedge-fund philanthropy became familiar symbols of elite excess. In his 1994 book “The Revolt of the Elites,” Lasch argued that the modern American ruling classes had stopped seeing themselves as stewards of a shared national project. Instead, they increasingly saw themselves as a mobile, globalized caste, educated in the same institutions, moving through the same cities, governed by the same tastes, and primarily accountable only to each other. Citizenship was seen as a minor inconvenience. Nationhood and patriotism were just sentimental relics from less enlightened times.

The Epstein affair reads like a case study in Lasch’s thesis.

Here was an individual whose wealth was opaque, whose sources of income were rarely scrutinized, and whose social standing seemed immune to ordinary reputational risk. He functioned as a social broker among financiers, politicians, academics, royalty, and celebrities, many of whom publicly advocated policies of moral uplift, social justice, and global responsibility. Yet in private, they inhabited a world defined by indulgence, entitlement, and a contempt for limits.

Elite detachment today is not only economic but also existential, and it is hardly confined to Americans. The governing classes of advanced democracies increasingly inhabit a world defined by mobility, abstraction, and insulation from consequence. Their loyalties are professional rather than civic, global rather than national, and managerial rather than moral. They experience society less as a shared inheritance than as a set of problems to be administered at a distance. In such a world, attachment to place, memory, and common fate appears parochial, even suspect, while belonging itself is quietly redefined as an obstacle to progress.

Those who create policies affecting immigration, policing, education, public health, and national security rarely face the consequences themselves. They do not send their children to failing schools, live in high-crime neighborhoods, compete for scarce housing, or navigate broken public institutions. Their lives are shielded by wealth, location, private services, and increasingly by law itself.

The Epstein files sharpen this reality because they reveal not just hypocrisy, but impunity. Despite extensive documentation, repeated warnings, and credible testimony, accountability arrived slowly and incompletely. This is not because the crimes were ambiguous, but because the accused moved within a protected sphere where consequences were negotiable and enforcement discretionary. Justice, like morality, was something applied elsewhere for other people.

What enrages the public is not prurience, but recognition. The scandal resonates because it confirms a growing suspicion among ordinary people that there is one moral universe for the governing class and another for everyone else. Elites preach restraint, sustainability, and responsibility while living lives of extraordinary consumption and indulgence. They urge social sacrifice while exempting themselves from its costs. They speak the language of progress while practicing a refined form of decadence.

Lasch warned that such a ruling class would eventually forfeit legitimacy, not because of ideology, but because of character. A society cannot be governed indefinitely by people who do not believe they belong to it. When elites become tourists in their own countries, financially global, culturally unrooted, and morally untethered, their authority rests on little more than coercion and spectacle.

The Epstein files should therefore be read less as an aberration than as a symptom. They reveal a governing class that has lost the habits of self-restraint that once justified its power, and the sense of common fate that once bound leaders to citizens.

For many, the salient point of the Epstein files is the scandal. I think it is more accurately seen as a disclosure.

The danger is not merely that such elites are corrupt, but that they are bored. Bored with limits, bored with norms, bored with accountability, and ultimately bored with democracy itself. That boredom, Lasch understood, is the precondition of revolt, not by the masses, but by those who no longer feel answerable to them.

If the Epstein affair provokes lasting anger, it is because it crystallizes a truth many citizens already sense, that the people shaping the future live in a world apart, governed by different rules, and increasingly incapable of moral seriousness. No society can long endure that division without consequence.

The question is not whether further revelations will emerge. It is whether the public will finally insist that elites once again live under the same moral and civic conditions as those they presume to lead.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 23:25

Germany, France Hold Secret Talks On Continental Nuclear Shield In Pivot From US

Has Europe really embarked on a nuclear reset, rethinking its US-led deterrent architecture? For the first time since the Cold War, major European capitals are openly debating the need for an independent nuclear deterrent - an emerging theme on clear display this week at the Munich Security Conference.

We've reported before that the turning point came in March, when Washington temporarily halted battlefield intelligence sharing with Ukraine - a move that forced allies to confront the prospect that Washington may no longer serve as a dependable security guarantor, also as ratcheting Trump rhetoric increasingly highlights Europe needing to shoulder its own defense burden.

France's Macron and Germany's Merz held "confidential talks" on European nuclear deterrence, the German chancellor has confirmed. Still, he tried to downplay the full implications in his Friday remarks: "We Germans are adhering to our legal obligations. We consider this strictly within the context of our nuclear sharing within NATO and we will not allow zones of differing security to emerge in Europe," Merz said.

via Reuters

However, President Macron on the same day was a little more forthright, describing amid the backdrop of ongoing direct talks between Moscow and the United States: "We will live with Russia in the same place, and the Europeans at the same place, and I don't want this negotiation to be organized by someone else," he said. And more bluntness on the nuclear issue:

Macron told the gathering in Munich, which focuses on security and brings together world leaders, future parameters of security may include a new, more holistic nuclear deterrence among European allies. Until now, deterrence has been a strictly national domain and a highly delicate issue because of its implications on sovereignty.

The French leader teased a "new strategic dialogue" on nuclear arms.

"We have engaged a strategic dialogue with Chancelor Merz and (other) European leaders in order to see how we can articulate our national doctrine" with special cooperation and common security interests in some key countries, he said.

"This dialogue is important because it's a way to articulate nuclear deterrence in a holistic approach of defense and security, Macron continued. "This is a way to create convergence in our strategic approach between Germany and France."

Macron's remarks before the Munich audience were tinged with implicit (negative) references to the US administration: "We need a much more positive mindset. There has been a tendency in this place and beyond to overlook Europe and sometimes to criticise it outright," he stated.

"Caricatures have been made, Europe has been vilified as an aging, slow, fragmented construct sidelined by history. As an overregulated economy that shuts innovation, as a society preyed by migration that would corruption its precious traditions."

"And most curiously yet, in some quarters, as a repressive continent," he added. "Everyone should take a cue from us, instead of trying to divide us."

Merz had some similarly dramatic things to say on 'lost American leadership'...

"The leadership claim of the U.S. is being challenged, perhaps already lost," Merz said during the opening of the Munich Security Conference, laying out the starkest assessment yet from Berlin of a world increasingly defined by great-power rivalry. “In the era of great powers, our freedom is no longer simply guaranteed. It is under threat.”

He argued the global system itself may already have collapsed. "The international order based on rights and rules… no longer exists in the way it once did," he said.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The Europeans are fundamentally worried that any new regional architecture related to potential settlement to the Russia-Ukraine war could leave the continent weakened and exposed, and that the Trump admin might be willing to cede too much in the way of compromise to Russia.

We underscored previously that ff the US and Russia craft the final settlement, Europe must either accept it or refuse and confront the consequences alone. And yet, neither Paris nor Berlin is prepared for the latter scenario. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 23:00

Germany, France Hold Secret Talks On Continental Nuclear Shield In Pivot From US

Has Europe really embarked on a nuclear reset, rethinking its US-led deterrent architecture? For the first time since the Cold War, major European capitals are openly debating the need for an independent nuclear deterrent - an emerging theme on clear display this week at the Munich Security Conference.

We've reported before that the turning point came in March, when Washington temporarily halted battlefield intelligence sharing with Ukraine - a move that forced allies to confront the prospect that Washington may no longer serve as a dependable security guarantor, also as ratcheting Trump rhetoric increasingly highlights Europe needing to shoulder its own defense burden.

France's Macron and Germany's Merz held "confidential talks" on European nuclear deterrence, the German chancellor has confirmed. Still, he tried to downplay the full implications in his Friday remarks: "We Germans are adhering to our legal obligations. We consider this strictly within the context of our nuclear sharing within NATO and we will not allow zones of differing security to emerge in Europe," Merz said.

via Reuters

However, President Macron on the same day was a little more forthright, describing amid the backdrop of ongoing direct talks between Moscow and the United States: "We will live with Russia in the same place, and the Europeans at the same place, and I don't want this negotiation to be organized by someone else," he said. And more bluntness on the nuclear issue:

Macron told the gathering in Munich, which focuses on security and brings together world leaders, future parameters of security may include a new, more holistic nuclear deterrence among European allies. Until now, deterrence has been a strictly national domain and a highly delicate issue because of its implications on sovereignty.

The French leader teased a "new strategic dialogue" on nuclear arms.

"We have engaged a strategic dialogue with Chancelor Merz and (other) European leaders in order to see how we can articulate our national doctrine" with special cooperation and common security interests in some key countries, he said.

"This dialogue is important because it's a way to articulate nuclear deterrence in a holistic approach of defense and security, Macron continued. "This is a way to create convergence in our strategic approach between Germany and France."

Macron's remarks before the Munich audience were tinged with implicit (negative) references to the US administration: "We need a much more positive mindset. There has been a tendency in this place and beyond to overlook Europe and sometimes to criticise it outright," he stated.

"Caricatures have been made, Europe has been vilified as an aging, slow, fragmented construct sidelined by history. As an overregulated economy that shuts innovation, as a society preyed by migration that would corruption its precious traditions."

"And most curiously yet, in some quarters, as a repressive continent," he added. "Everyone should take a cue from us, instead of trying to divide us."

Merz had some similarly dramatic things to say on 'lost American leadership'...

"The leadership claim of the U.S. is being challenged, perhaps already lost," Merz said during the opening of the Munich Security Conference, laying out the starkest assessment yet from Berlin of a world increasingly defined by great-power rivalry. “In the era of great powers, our freedom is no longer simply guaranteed. It is under threat.”

He argued the global system itself may already have collapsed. "The international order based on rights and rules… no longer exists in the way it once did," he said.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The Europeans are fundamentally worried that any new regional architecture related to potential settlement to the Russia-Ukraine war could leave the continent weakened and exposed, and that the Trump admin might be willing to cede too much in the way of compromise to Russia.

We underscored previously that ff the US and Russia craft the final settlement, Europe must either accept it or refuse and confront the consequences alone. And yet, neither Paris nor Berlin is prepared for the latter scenario. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 23:00

Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Commentary

Among the consolations of youth is the certainty with which one holds beliefs about the world. There is comfort in the conviction that one’s moral bearings are firmly set, that one’s understanding of complex questions is not only sincere but also correct. The world appears legible; right and wrong seem sharply drawn; doubt and nuance are dismissed as weakness or evasion.

The 68th Grammy Awards Premiere Ceremony at Peacock Theater in Los Angeles on Feb. 1, 2026. Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for The Recording Academy

There is rarely a single moment when these certainties collapse. They loosen instead through the slow accumulation of experience. Over time, one discovers that life resists easy judgments. Circumstances complicate principles. Good intentions collide with unintended consequences. Our friends betray us. The world proves denser, more conflicted, and less amenable to neat and tidy conclusions than youthful confidence would suggest.

This recognition of complexity, fallibility, and the limits of one’s own certainty is among the quiet achievements of maturity. It marks the point at which conviction learns restraint and moral seriousness acquires humility. 

Yet much of our public culture now moves in precisely the opposite direction. It rewards juvenile certainty while punishing hesitation, qualification, or good-faith disagreements. Confidence is applauded regardless of depth; slogans substitute for argument; restraint is recast as moral failure.

That inversion was on clear display at the recent Grammy Awards, when Billie Eilish declared to enthusiastic applause that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” It was left unspecified just whose land was being referenced, by whom it was stolen, and according to what historical or legal criteria that claim could be made.

The audience, however, needed no clarification. Eilish’s statement was rewarded exactly because it avoided complexity and invited no questions.

What was on display was not moral seriousness but a high school performance, an adolescent sense of righteousness delivered with absolute certainty and accepted as self-evident truth. One might charitably attribute such unthinking, categorical statements to Eilish’s youth. Alas, hers is a posture that we have come to expect from many of Hollywood’s men and women: confident, declarative, and curiously uninterested in the burdens of thought that genuine moral judgment requires.

This brings us to the core issue. The greatest threat to free expression today isn’t obvious censorship or government orders. Instead, it’s a more subtle and widespread force: cultural groupthink. This informal but influential system of rewards and punishments quietly limits the range of acceptable opinions, shaping what people feel allowed to say, what they hesitate to voice, and which questions are no longer asked.

Nowhere is this trend more evident than in modern celebrity culture. Hollywood and the broader entertainment sector have become models of ideological conformity, especially on divisive social and political topics. From climate change and gender issues to racial justice and international conflicts, Hollywood repeats the same messages, all delivered with youthful confidence. The same moral language, slogans, and conclusions are echoed with ritualistic consistency.

The Eilish episode was not an aberration but a symptom. It illustrated a broader pattern in which public speech functions less as a means of inquiry than as a test of ideological conformity. The cost of dissent is not a thoughtful and considered rebuttal. Rather, it takes the form of reputational damage through social media pile-ons, calls for boycotts, professional exclusion, or quiet blacklisting. Under such conditions, silence is often the rational choice. Most people have families to support and livelihoods to protect.

The greater danger lies in the lesson this celebrity culture teaches: that there is only one permissible way to think and speak about certain issues, and that deviation signals not error but moral failure. Political and social questions are reduced to dogma rather than debated. Once moralized in this way, disagreement becomes illegitimate by definition.

This logic now extends well beyond Hollywood. Similar patterns can be found in journalism, medicine, academia, corporate governance, and even the legal profession. Approved vocabularies narrow discussion; certain premises must be affirmed before conversation can begin; others may not be questioned at all. Arguments are no longer answered on their merits but dismissed as evidence of bad character or suspect motives.

The consequences for democratic culture are profound. Democracies do not depend on unanimity but on citizens who can weigh competing claims, tolerate uncertainty, and revise their views in light of evidence and argument. Groupthink undermines these capacities by rewarding conformity and punishing independent judgment. Over time, public discourse loses its corrective function. Errors persist not because they are persuasive, but because questioning them carries too high a cost.

When dialogue is replaced by dogma, democratic societies become brittle. They lose their ability to self-correct and grow more intolerant of internal differences. Public conversations turn into moral theater, where the goal is no longer understanding opposing views but performing virtue and condemning heresy. Speech persists only in its performative form, losing its role in testing ideas and correcting errors.

The defense of free speech, therefore, is not a defense of cruelty, indifference, or provocation for its own sake. It is a defense of intellectual diversity and the recognition that complex problems seldom have simple solutions; progress relies on the open debate of ideas. Democracies do not demand that citizens agree; they require honest argument, careful listening, and acceptance that disagreement is not a moral flaw but a civic essential.

It is a hard truth that others, who are just as committed, moral, or intelligent as we are, nonetheless see the world differently. The challenge is in accepting that our opponents are not simply ignorant or malicious but may have reached their conclusions through reasons as serious as our own. This common insight strips away the adolescent comfort of moral superiority. It forces us to face the possibility that we, too, may be wrong.

Such humility is rarely celebrated. But it is among the foundational virtues of democratic life. The alternative is a culture of silence and self-censorship, in which people say only what is safe and believe only what is approved. Such cultures may appear stable—even virtuous—but they are dangerously fragile. When reality intrudes, as it always does, societies that have lost the habit of open debate are poorly equipped to respond.

The strongest defense of democratic life is not enforced consensus but the courage to dissent, the patience to listen, and the willingness to engage in genuine dialogue, where we can change our minds. 

Free speech, properly understood, is not a threat to democracy. It is its foundation.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 22:35

Stolen Land At The Grammys: How Hollywood Groupthink Threatens Democracy

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Commentary

Among the consolations of youth is the certainty with which one holds beliefs about the world. There is comfort in the conviction that one’s moral bearings are firmly set, that one’s understanding of complex questions is not only sincere but also correct. The world appears legible; right and wrong seem sharply drawn; doubt and nuance are dismissed as weakness or evasion.

The 68th Grammy Awards Premiere Ceremony at Peacock Theater in Los Angeles on Feb. 1, 2026. Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for The Recording Academy

There is rarely a single moment when these certainties collapse. They loosen instead through the slow accumulation of experience. Over time, one discovers that life resists easy judgments. Circumstances complicate principles. Good intentions collide with unintended consequences. Our friends betray us. The world proves denser, more conflicted, and less amenable to neat and tidy conclusions than youthful confidence would suggest.

This recognition of complexity, fallibility, and the limits of one’s own certainty is among the quiet achievements of maturity. It marks the point at which conviction learns restraint and moral seriousness acquires humility. 

Yet much of our public culture now moves in precisely the opposite direction. It rewards juvenile certainty while punishing hesitation, qualification, or good-faith disagreements. Confidence is applauded regardless of depth; slogans substitute for argument; restraint is recast as moral failure.

That inversion was on clear display at the recent Grammy Awards, when Billie Eilish declared to enthusiastic applause that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” It was left unspecified just whose land was being referenced, by whom it was stolen, and according to what historical or legal criteria that claim could be made.

The audience, however, needed no clarification. Eilish’s statement was rewarded exactly because it avoided complexity and invited no questions.

What was on display was not moral seriousness but a high school performance, an adolescent sense of righteousness delivered with absolute certainty and accepted as self-evident truth. One might charitably attribute such unthinking, categorical statements to Eilish’s youth. Alas, hers is a posture that we have come to expect from many of Hollywood’s men and women: confident, declarative, and curiously uninterested in the burdens of thought that genuine moral judgment requires.

This brings us to the core issue. The greatest threat to free expression today isn’t obvious censorship or government orders. Instead, it’s a more subtle and widespread force: cultural groupthink. This informal but influential system of rewards and punishments quietly limits the range of acceptable opinions, shaping what people feel allowed to say, what they hesitate to voice, and which questions are no longer asked.

Nowhere is this trend more evident than in modern celebrity culture. Hollywood and the broader entertainment sector have become models of ideological conformity, especially on divisive social and political topics. From climate change and gender issues to racial justice and international conflicts, Hollywood repeats the same messages, all delivered with youthful confidence. The same moral language, slogans, and conclusions are echoed with ritualistic consistency.

The Eilish episode was not an aberration but a symptom. It illustrated a broader pattern in which public speech functions less as a means of inquiry than as a test of ideological conformity. The cost of dissent is not a thoughtful and considered rebuttal. Rather, it takes the form of reputational damage through social media pile-ons, calls for boycotts, professional exclusion, or quiet blacklisting. Under such conditions, silence is often the rational choice. Most people have families to support and livelihoods to protect.

The greater danger lies in the lesson this celebrity culture teaches: that there is only one permissible way to think and speak about certain issues, and that deviation signals not error but moral failure. Political and social questions are reduced to dogma rather than debated. Once moralized in this way, disagreement becomes illegitimate by definition.

This logic now extends well beyond Hollywood. Similar patterns can be found in journalism, medicine, academia, corporate governance, and even the legal profession. Approved vocabularies narrow discussion; certain premises must be affirmed before conversation can begin; others may not be questioned at all. Arguments are no longer answered on their merits but dismissed as evidence of bad character or suspect motives.

The consequences for democratic culture are profound. Democracies do not depend on unanimity but on citizens who can weigh competing claims, tolerate uncertainty, and revise their views in light of evidence and argument. Groupthink undermines these capacities by rewarding conformity and punishing independent judgment. Over time, public discourse loses its corrective function. Errors persist not because they are persuasive, but because questioning them carries too high a cost.

When dialogue is replaced by dogma, democratic societies become brittle. They lose their ability to self-correct and grow more intolerant of internal differences. Public conversations turn into moral theater, where the goal is no longer understanding opposing views but performing virtue and condemning heresy. Speech persists only in its performative form, losing its role in testing ideas and correcting errors.

The defense of free speech, therefore, is not a defense of cruelty, indifference, or provocation for its own sake. It is a defense of intellectual diversity and the recognition that complex problems seldom have simple solutions; progress relies on the open debate of ideas. Democracies do not demand that citizens agree; they require honest argument, careful listening, and acceptance that disagreement is not a moral flaw but a civic essential.

It is a hard truth that others, who are just as committed, moral, or intelligent as we are, nonetheless see the world differently. The challenge is in accepting that our opponents are not simply ignorant or malicious but may have reached their conclusions through reasons as serious as our own. This common insight strips away the adolescent comfort of moral superiority. It forces us to face the possibility that we, too, may be wrong.

Such humility is rarely celebrated. But it is among the foundational virtues of democratic life. The alternative is a culture of silence and self-censorship, in which people say only what is safe and believe only what is approved. Such cultures may appear stable—even virtuous—but they are dangerously fragile. When reality intrudes, as it always does, societies that have lost the habit of open debate are poorly equipped to respond.

The strongest defense of democratic life is not enforced consensus but the courage to dissent, the patience to listen, and the willingness to engage in genuine dialogue, where we can change our minds. 

Free speech, properly understood, is not a threat to democracy. It is its foundation.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 22:35

WhatsApp & YouTube Blocked In Russia, Telegram Throttled As State "Super-App" Falters

The West has been calling Russia's ever-tightening internet regulations on its citizenry a "digital Iron Curtain". Already over a period of months and years of the Ukraine war, various popular US-based social media apps have been throttled and even banned, but this week things have escalated with YouTube and WhatsApp being blocked in Russia:

Russia's internet regulator Roskomnadzor has removed"youtube.com" from its DNS (Domain Name System) servers. If a user tries to access the site directly without a VPN (Virtual Private Network), their router can no longer assign the address to its IP address.

This means that You Tube is no longer accessible in Russia. The WhatsApp domain has also disappeared from Roskomnadzor's servers. The Russian government has also launched a campaign against the messenger app Telegram, leading analysts to say Roskomnadzor is cracking down on platforms beyond its control.

But perhaps even more impactful - in terms of Russians quickly getting news, information, and public statements (even from their own government channels) - is the new move to throttle and block Telegram.

An interesting theory, especially in the wake of the shocking Wagner mutiny of 2023...

I still say the Russian MoD is killing Telegram use in Russia because Putin is afraid Telegram will be used as a means to organize a Russian Army Coup attempt. https://t.co/2NvJmKfGOR

— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) February 13, 2026

Russia’s state media watchdog Roskomnadzor has tightened the screws on Telegram, accusing the messaging giant of failing to curb fraud and safeguard user data, which ironically is similar to what the French government accused the company of when it famously detained billionaire Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov.

The platform has an estimated over 93 million Russian users, which is more than 60% of the total population, but the Kremlin hopes to replicate with its state-backed messenger, Max. The all-in-one 'super-app' has been described in the following:

Max, a state-backed messenger developed by VK, is being positioned as a patriotic alternative to WhatsApp and Telegram — platforms that in recent weeks have suffered complete or partial disruptions to voice and video calls across the country.

Max is further being dubbed a "state app":

Beyond the glitzy marketing, Max is built to serve a political purpose. Officials want it integrated with the state services portal Gosuslugi via the Unified Identification and Authentication System (ESIA). That would allow citizens to log into government platforms, pay utility bills or sign documents directly through the app, in effect making Max a digital gateway to basic civil services.

But at a government commission meeting in early August, the Federal Security Service (FSB) initially blocked Max's immediate connection to ESIA, citing the risk of personal data leaks. According to IT industry sources cited by Russian media, the FSB submitted a multi-page list of requirements ranging from certified encryption systems to source code audits. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Grigorenko, who oversees the project, voiced similar concerns.

BBC has pointed out: "Moscow has made extensive efforts to push Russians to its state-developed Max app, which critics say lacks end-to-end encryption."

As for Telegram, it's loss will be huge for Russians, given that for starters every major Russian media outlet operates a Telegram channel, some even publishing there exclusively.

Major state and legacy outlets including RIA Novosti, TASS, RBC, Interfax, and Kommersant maintain large, highly active channels. In border regions like Belgorod, battered by power outages and municipal disruptions from Ukrainian strikes, Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov uses Telegram to deliver updates directly to residents.

The same goes for many oblasts across Russia's south which have remained a frontline of sorts when it comes to cross-border attacks out of Ukraine.

Moskva News Agency

The other problem in getting rid of Telegram is that Russia's Defense Ministry pushes near-daily battlefield briefings, combat footage, and soldier interviews to its several hundreds of thousands of followers. So clearly any kind of major 'transition' - as is now apparently being forced on the population, won't come easy.

The Kremlin has long warned against Western intelligence infiltration and data exploitation especially via US-based platforms. It has also long battled what it deems 'propaganda' via content on these apps. But to some degree they are also mediums where Russian and Ukrainian officials can directly address the other side, serving the cause of public diplomacy, or at least clarifying each's position.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 22:10

WhatsApp & YouTube Blocked In Russia, Telegram Throttled As State "Super-App" Falters

The West has been calling Russia's ever-tightening internet regulations on its citizenry a "digital Iron Curtain". Already over a period of months and years of the Ukraine war, various popular US-based social media apps have been throttled and even banned, but this week things have escalated with YouTube and WhatsApp being blocked in Russia:

Russia's internet regulator Roskomnadzor has removed"youtube.com" from its DNS (Domain Name System) servers. If a user tries to access the site directly without a VPN (Virtual Private Network), their router can no longer assign the address to its IP address.

This means that You Tube is no longer accessible in Russia. The WhatsApp domain has also disappeared from Roskomnadzor's servers. The Russian government has also launched a campaign against the messenger app Telegram, leading analysts to say Roskomnadzor is cracking down on platforms beyond its control.

But perhaps even more impactful - in terms of Russians quickly getting news, information, and public statements (even from their own government channels) - is the new move to throttle and block Telegram.

An interesting theory, especially in the wake of the shocking Wagner mutiny of 2023...

I still say the Russian MoD is killing Telegram use in Russia because Putin is afraid Telegram will be used as a means to organize a Russian Army Coup attempt. https://t.co/2NvJmKfGOR

— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) February 13, 2026

Russia’s state media watchdog Roskomnadzor has tightened the screws on Telegram, accusing the messaging giant of failing to curb fraud and safeguard user data, which ironically is similar to what the French government accused the company of when it famously detained billionaire Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov.

The platform has an estimated over 93 million Russian users, which is more than 60% of the total population, but the Kremlin hopes to replicate with its state-backed messenger, Max. The all-in-one 'super-app' has been described in the following:

Max, a state-backed messenger developed by VK, is being positioned as a patriotic alternative to WhatsApp and Telegram — platforms that in recent weeks have suffered complete or partial disruptions to voice and video calls across the country.

Max is further being dubbed a "state app":

Beyond the glitzy marketing, Max is built to serve a political purpose. Officials want it integrated with the state services portal Gosuslugi via the Unified Identification and Authentication System (ESIA). That would allow citizens to log into government platforms, pay utility bills or sign documents directly through the app, in effect making Max a digital gateway to basic civil services.

But at a government commission meeting in early August, the Federal Security Service (FSB) initially blocked Max's immediate connection to ESIA, citing the risk of personal data leaks. According to IT industry sources cited by Russian media, the FSB submitted a multi-page list of requirements ranging from certified encryption systems to source code audits. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Grigorenko, who oversees the project, voiced similar concerns.

BBC has pointed out: "Moscow has made extensive efforts to push Russians to its state-developed Max app, which critics say lacks end-to-end encryption."

As for Telegram, it's loss will be huge for Russians, given that for starters every major Russian media outlet operates a Telegram channel, some even publishing there exclusively.

Major state and legacy outlets including RIA Novosti, TASS, RBC, Interfax, and Kommersant maintain large, highly active channels. In border regions like Belgorod, battered by power outages and municipal disruptions from Ukrainian strikes, Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov uses Telegram to deliver updates directly to residents.

The same goes for many oblasts across Russia's south which have remained a frontline of sorts when it comes to cross-border attacks out of Ukraine.

Moskva News Agency

The other problem in getting rid of Telegram is that Russia's Defense Ministry pushes near-daily battlefield briefings, combat footage, and soldier interviews to its several hundreds of thousands of followers. So clearly any kind of major 'transition' - as is now apparently being forced on the population, won't come easy.

The Kremlin has long warned against Western intelligence infiltration and data exploitation especially via US-based platforms. It has also long battled what it deems 'propaganda' via content on these apps. But to some degree they are also mediums where Russian and Ukrainian officials can directly address the other side, serving the cause of public diplomacy, or at least clarifying each's position.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 22:10

Amazon's Ring And Google's Nest Unwittingly Reveal The Severity Of The U.S. Surveillance State

Authored by Glenn Greenwald via Substack,

That the U.S. Surveillance State is rapidly growing to the point of ubiquity has been demonstrated over the past week by seemingly benign events. While the picture that emerges is grim, to put it mildly, at least Americans are again confronted with crystal clarity over how severe this has become.

One of Google’s Nest surveillance cameras, whose recordings can be accessed by Google even if users don’t subscribe to the security firm’s services. CC Photo Lab / Shutterstock

The latest round of valid panic over privacy began during the Super Bowl held on Sunday. During the game, Amazon ran a commercial for its Ring camera security system. The ad manipulatively exploited people’s love of dogs to induce them to ignore the consequences of what Amazon was touting. It seems that trick did not work.

The ad highlighted what the company calls its “Search Party” feature, whereby one can upload a picture, for example, of a lost dog. Doing so will activate multiple other Amazon Ring cameras in the neighborhood, which will, in turn, use AI programs to scan all dogs, it seems, and identify the one that is lost. The 30-second commercial was full of heart-tugging scenes of young children and elderly people being reunited with their lost dogs.

But the graphic Amazon used seems to have unwittingly depicted how invasive this technology can be. That this capability now exists in a product that has long been pitched as nothing more than a simple tool for homeowners to monitor their own homes created, it seems, an unavoidable contract between public understanding of Ring and what Amazon was now boasting it could do.

Amazon’s Super Bowl ad for Ring and its “Search Party” feature.

Many people were not just surprised but quite shocked and alarmed to learn that what they thought was merely their own personal security system now has the ability to link with countless other Ring cameras to form a neighborhood-wide (or city-wide, or state-wide) surveillance dragnet. That Amazon emphasized that this feature is available (for now) only to those who “opt-in” did not assuage concerns.

Numerous media outlets sounded the alarm. The online privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Ring’s program as previewing “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything — human, pet, and otherwise.”

Many private citizens who previously used Ring also reacted negatively. “Viral videos online show people removing or destroying their cameras over privacy concerns,” reported USA Today. The backlash became so severe that, just days later, Amazon — seeking to assuage public anger — announced the termination of a partnership between Ring and Flock Safety, a police surveillance tech company (while Flock is unrelated to Search Party, public backlash made it impossible, at least for now, for Amazon to send Ring’s user data to a police surveillance firm).

The Amazon ad seems to have triggered a long-overdue spotlight on how the combination of ubiquitous cameras, AI, and rapidly advancing facial recognition software will render the term “privacy” little more than a quaint concept from the past. As EFF put it, Ring’s program “could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone.”

Those concerns escalated just a few days later in the context of the Tucson disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of long-time TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie. At the home where she lives, Nancy Guthrie used Google’s Nest camera for security, a product similar to Amazon’s Ring.

Guthrie, however, did not pay Google for a subscription for those cameras, instead solely using the cameras for real-time monitoring. As CBS News explained, “with a free Google Nest plan, the video should have been deleted within 3 to 6 hours — long after Guthrie was reported missing.” Even professional privacy advocates have understood that customers who use Nest without a subscription will not have their cameras connected to Google’s data servers, meaning that no recordings will be stored or available for any period beyond a few hours.

For that reason, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos announced early on “that there was no video available in part because Guthrie didn’t have an active subscription to the company.” Many people, for obvious reasons, prefer to avoid permanently storing comprehensive daily video reports with Google of when they leave and return to their own home, or who visits them at their home, when, and for how long.

Despite all this, FBI investigators on the case were somehow magically able to “recover” this video from Guthrie’s camera many days later. FBI Director Kash Patel was essentially forced to admit this when he released still images of what appears to be the masked perpetrator who broke into Guthrie’s home. (The Google user agreement, which few users read, does protect the company by stating that images may be stored even in the absence of a subscription.)

Image obtained through Nancy Guthrie’s unsubscribed Google Nest camera and released by the FBI.

While the “discovery” of footage from this home camera by Google engineers is obviously of great value to the Guthrie family and law enforcement agents searching for Guthrie, it raises obvious yet serious questions about why Google, contrary to common understanding, was storing the video footage of unsubscribed users. A former NSA data researcher and CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Patrick Johnson, told CBS: “There's kind of this old saying that data is never deleted, it's just renamed.”

It is rather remarkable that Americans are being led, more or less willingly, into a state-corporate, Panopticon-like domestic surveillance state with relatively little resistance, though the widespread reaction to Amazon’s Ring ad is encouraging. Much of that muted reaction may be due to a lack of realization about the severity of the evolving privacy threat. Beyond that, privacy and other core rights can seem abstract and less of a priority than more material concerns, at least until they are gone.

It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security.

But the core premise of the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is that those trade-offs are never worthwhile. Americans still all learn and are taught to admire the iconic (if not apocryphal) 1775 words of Patrick Henry, which came to define the core ethos of the Revolutionary War and American Founding: “Give me liberty or give me death.” It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty-versus-security trade-off the U.S. was intended to fall.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 21:45

Amazon's Ring And Google's Nest Unwittingly Reveal The Severity Of The U.S. Surveillance State

Authored by Glenn Greenwald via Substack,

That the U.S. Surveillance State is rapidly growing to the point of ubiquity has been demonstrated over the past week by seemingly benign events. While the picture that emerges is grim, to put it mildly, at least Americans are again confronted with crystal clarity over how severe this has become.

One of Google’s Nest surveillance cameras, whose recordings can be accessed by Google even if users don’t subscribe to the security firm’s services. CC Photo Lab / Shutterstock

The latest round of valid panic over privacy began during the Super Bowl held on Sunday. During the game, Amazon ran a commercial for its Ring camera security system. The ad manipulatively exploited people’s love of dogs to induce them to ignore the consequences of what Amazon was touting. It seems that trick did not work.

The ad highlighted what the company calls its “Search Party” feature, whereby one can upload a picture, for example, of a lost dog. Doing so will activate multiple other Amazon Ring cameras in the neighborhood, which will, in turn, use AI programs to scan all dogs, it seems, and identify the one that is lost. The 30-second commercial was full of heart-tugging scenes of young children and elderly people being reunited with their lost dogs.

But the graphic Amazon used seems to have unwittingly depicted how invasive this technology can be. That this capability now exists in a product that has long been pitched as nothing more than a simple tool for homeowners to monitor their own homes created, it seems, an unavoidable contract between public understanding of Ring and what Amazon was now boasting it could do.

Amazon’s Super Bowl ad for Ring and its “Search Party” feature.

Many people were not just surprised but quite shocked and alarmed to learn that what they thought was merely their own personal security system now has the ability to link with countless other Ring cameras to form a neighborhood-wide (or city-wide, or state-wide) surveillance dragnet. That Amazon emphasized that this feature is available (for now) only to those who “opt-in” did not assuage concerns.

Numerous media outlets sounded the alarm. The online privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Ring’s program as previewing “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything — human, pet, and otherwise.”

Many private citizens who previously used Ring also reacted negatively. “Viral videos online show people removing or destroying their cameras over privacy concerns,” reported USA Today. The backlash became so severe that, just days later, Amazon — seeking to assuage public anger — announced the termination of a partnership between Ring and Flock Safety, a police surveillance tech company (while Flock is unrelated to Search Party, public backlash made it impossible, at least for now, for Amazon to send Ring’s user data to a police surveillance firm).

The Amazon ad seems to have triggered a long-overdue spotlight on how the combination of ubiquitous cameras, AI, and rapidly advancing facial recognition software will render the term “privacy” little more than a quaint concept from the past. As EFF put it, Ring’s program “could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone.”

Those concerns escalated just a few days later in the context of the Tucson disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of long-time TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie. At the home where she lives, Nancy Guthrie used Google’s Nest camera for security, a product similar to Amazon’s Ring.

Guthrie, however, did not pay Google for a subscription for those cameras, instead solely using the cameras for real-time monitoring. As CBS News explained, “with a free Google Nest plan, the video should have been deleted within 3 to 6 hours — long after Guthrie was reported missing.” Even professional privacy advocates have understood that customers who use Nest without a subscription will not have their cameras connected to Google’s data servers, meaning that no recordings will be stored or available for any period beyond a few hours.

For that reason, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos announced early on “that there was no video available in part because Guthrie didn’t have an active subscription to the company.” Many people, for obvious reasons, prefer to avoid permanently storing comprehensive daily video reports with Google of when they leave and return to their own home, or who visits them at their home, when, and for how long.

Despite all this, FBI investigators on the case were somehow magically able to “recover” this video from Guthrie’s camera many days later. FBI Director Kash Patel was essentially forced to admit this when he released still images of what appears to be the masked perpetrator who broke into Guthrie’s home. (The Google user agreement, which few users read, does protect the company by stating that images may be stored even in the absence of a subscription.)

Image obtained through Nancy Guthrie’s unsubscribed Google Nest camera and released by the FBI.

While the “discovery” of footage from this home camera by Google engineers is obviously of great value to the Guthrie family and law enforcement agents searching for Guthrie, it raises obvious yet serious questions about why Google, contrary to common understanding, was storing the video footage of unsubscribed users. A former NSA data researcher and CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Patrick Johnson, told CBS: “There's kind of this old saying that data is never deleted, it's just renamed.”

It is rather remarkable that Americans are being led, more or less willingly, into a state-corporate, Panopticon-like domestic surveillance state with relatively little resistance, though the widespread reaction to Amazon’s Ring ad is encouraging. Much of that muted reaction may be due to a lack of realization about the severity of the evolving privacy threat. Beyond that, privacy and other core rights can seem abstract and less of a priority than more material concerns, at least until they are gone.

It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties: allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas; allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly; giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security.

But the core premise of the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is that those trade-offs are never worthwhile. Americans still all learn and are taught to admire the iconic (if not apocryphal) 1775 words of Patrick Henry, which came to define the core ethos of the Revolutionary War and American Founding: “Give me liberty or give me death.” It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty-versus-security trade-off the U.S. was intended to fall.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 21:45

Tim Walz Demands Federal Government Foot Bill For Minnesota’s 'Recovery' From Anti-ICE Riots

Last month, President Donald Trump sent Homan to Minnesota to personally oversee immigration enforcement operations and end the chaos, after ICE and CBP officers shot two protesters and the situation began to spiral out of control. Soon after, Homan successfully convinced Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to allow local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agents, prompting an initial drawdown of 700 agents.

“Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we will draw down seven hundred people effective today. Seven hundred law enforcement personnel,” Homan said at the time.

TOM HOMAN: “Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we'll draw down 700 people effective today.” pic.twitter.com/uKPt9LPT4p

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 4, 2026

On Thursday, Homan announced the end of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, declaring it a successful mission accomplished. The operation, which began in early December with approximately 3,000 immigration enforcement officers deployed to the sanctuary state, achieved thousands of arrests.

Border Czar Tom Homan said this morning in Minneapolis that the federal immigration enforcement surge operation for Minnesota is coming to an end.

He also said that fraud investigations will continue.

"With that, and success that has been made arresting public safety threats… pic.twitter.com/H8phRav8Ih

— Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld) (@AureliusStoic1) February 12, 2026

Despite the operation’s obvious success, Gov. Tim Walz spun the news as a victory for the agitators and thanked Minnesotans for driving federal agents out. 

“Minnesota, on behalf of not just this state but the country, thank you. That same energy now needs to be directed towards recovery, to finding ways that people have done during these challenging months to go forward,” he said.

Walz then promptly pivoted to pushing the narrative that Minnesota needs to recover from immigration enforcement efforts that took place.

“So, I want to say, this damage is still being assessed, but we do know … we’re going to be proposing a reinstitution of our small business emergency fund. It’s what we use very successfully during COVID in the recovery, the economic recovery that we saw in Minnesota that outpaced most of the rest of the country. We’re going to be proposing a first-time $10 million one-time targeted loans, forgivable loans that we know, and I want to be very clear, is a very small piece of this.”

And Walz wants the federal government to pay for it.

“But what I am going to challenge, as we get ready to start here in a few days the legislative session, this legislative session needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us,” Walz continued. “I am also asking our team—and I’m going to make appeals to our federal delegation—the federal government needs to pay for what they broke here.”

According to a report, the city of Minneapolis spent $1 million in rental assistance for those impacted by the raids, and burned through $4.3 million in police overtime during the anti-ICE riots and protests, and that figure is still climbing. The department had only 600 officers trying to manage the chaos created by anti-ICE rioters destroying property.

“They are going to be accountability [sic] on the things that happen, but one of the things is the incredible and immense costs that were born by the people of this state,” Walz continued. “The federal government needs to be responsible. You don’t get to break things and then just leave without doing something about it.”

While Walz talks tough about demanding that the federal government pay for the mess he and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey created, he appeared to concede that the effort to get the federal government to fund this “recovery” plan would fail.

“So the changes that need to be made, the investments that need to come back, they need to show—they being the federal government and they being this administration—they need to do more. But I’m not going to hold my breath that the federal government is going to do the right thing.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 21:20

Tim Walz Demands Federal Government Foot Bill For Minnesota’s 'Recovery' From Anti-ICE Riots

Last month, President Donald Trump sent Homan to Minnesota to personally oversee immigration enforcement operations and end the chaos, after ICE and CBP officers shot two protesters and the situation began to spiral out of control. Soon after, Homan successfully convinced Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to allow local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agents, prompting an initial drawdown of 700 agents.

“Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we will draw down seven hundred people effective today. Seven hundred law enforcement personnel,” Homan said at the time.

TOM HOMAN: “Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we'll draw down 700 people effective today.” pic.twitter.com/uKPt9LPT4p

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 4, 2026

On Thursday, Homan announced the end of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, declaring it a successful mission accomplished. The operation, which began in early December with approximately 3,000 immigration enforcement officers deployed to the sanctuary state, achieved thousands of arrests.

Border Czar Tom Homan said this morning in Minneapolis that the federal immigration enforcement surge operation for Minnesota is coming to an end.

He also said that fraud investigations will continue.

"With that, and success that has been made arresting public safety threats… pic.twitter.com/H8phRav8Ih

— Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld) (@AureliusStoic1) February 12, 2026

Despite the operation’s obvious success, Gov. Tim Walz spun the news as a victory for the agitators and thanked Minnesotans for driving federal agents out. 

“Minnesota, on behalf of not just this state but the country, thank you. That same energy now needs to be directed towards recovery, to finding ways that people have done during these challenging months to go forward,” he said.

Walz then promptly pivoted to pushing the narrative that Minnesota needs to recover from immigration enforcement efforts that took place.

“So, I want to say, this damage is still being assessed, but we do know … we’re going to be proposing a reinstitution of our small business emergency fund. It’s what we use very successfully during COVID in the recovery, the economic recovery that we saw in Minnesota that outpaced most of the rest of the country. We’re going to be proposing a first-time $10 million one-time targeted loans, forgivable loans that we know, and I want to be very clear, is a very small piece of this.”

And Walz wants the federal government to pay for it.

“But what I am going to challenge, as we get ready to start here in a few days the legislative session, this legislative session needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us,” Walz continued. “I am also asking our team—and I’m going to make appeals to our federal delegation—the federal government needs to pay for what they broke here.”

According to a report, the city of Minneapolis spent $1 million in rental assistance for those impacted by the raids, and burned through $4.3 million in police overtime during the anti-ICE riots and protests, and that figure is still climbing. The department had only 600 officers trying to manage the chaos created by anti-ICE rioters destroying property.

“They are going to be accountability [sic] on the things that happen, but one of the things is the incredible and immense costs that were born by the people of this state,” Walz continued. “The federal government needs to be responsible. You don’t get to break things and then just leave without doing something about it.”

While Walz talks tough about demanding that the federal government pay for the mess he and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey created, he appeared to concede that the effort to get the federal government to fund this “recovery” plan would fail.

“So the changes that need to be made, the investments that need to come back, they need to show—they being the federal government and they being this administration—they need to do more. But I’m not going to hold my breath that the federal government is going to do the right thing.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 21:20

Tim Walz Demands Federal Government Foot Bill For Minnesota’s 'Recovery' From Anti-ICE Riots

Last month, President Donald Trump sent Homan to Minnesota to personally oversee immigration enforcement operations and end the chaos, after ICE and CBP officers shot two protesters and the situation began to spiral out of control. Soon after, Homan successfully convinced Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to allow local law enforcement to coordinate with federal agents, prompting an initial drawdown of 700 agents.

“Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we will draw down seven hundred people effective today. Seven hundred law enforcement personnel,” Homan said at the time.

TOM HOMAN: “Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately, we'll draw down 700 people effective today.” pic.twitter.com/uKPt9LPT4p

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 4, 2026

On Thursday, Homan announced the end of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, declaring it a successful mission accomplished. The operation, which began in early December with approximately 3,000 immigration enforcement officers deployed to the sanctuary state, achieved thousands of arrests.

Border Czar Tom Homan said this morning in Minneapolis that the federal immigration enforcement surge operation for Minnesota is coming to an end.

He also said that fraud investigations will continue.

"With that, and success that has been made arresting public safety threats… pic.twitter.com/H8phRav8Ih

— Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld) (@AureliusStoic1) February 12, 2026

Despite the operation’s obvious success, Gov. Tim Walz spun the news as a victory for the agitators and thanked Minnesotans for driving federal agents out. 

“Minnesota, on behalf of not just this state but the country, thank you. That same energy now needs to be directed towards recovery, to finding ways that people have done during these challenging months to go forward,” he said.

Walz then promptly pivoted to pushing the narrative that Minnesota needs to recover from immigration enforcement efforts that took place.

“So, I want to say, this damage is still being assessed, but we do know … we’re going to be proposing a reinstitution of our small business emergency fund. It’s what we use very successfully during COVID in the recovery, the economic recovery that we saw in Minnesota that outpaced most of the rest of the country. We’re going to be proposing a first-time $10 million one-time targeted loans, forgivable loans that we know, and I want to be very clear, is a very small piece of this.”

And Walz wants the federal government to pay for it.

“But what I am going to challenge, as we get ready to start here in a few days the legislative session, this legislative session needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us,” Walz continued. “I am also asking our team—and I’m going to make appeals to our federal delegation—the federal government needs to pay for what they broke here.”

According to a report, the city of Minneapolis spent $1 million in rental assistance for those impacted by the raids, and burned through $4.3 million in police overtime during the anti-ICE riots and protests, and that figure is still climbing. The department had only 600 officers trying to manage the chaos created by anti-ICE rioters destroying property.

“They are going to be accountability [sic] on the things that happen, but one of the things is the incredible and immense costs that were born by the people of this state,” Walz continued. “The federal government needs to be responsible. You don’t get to break things and then just leave without doing something about it.”

While Walz talks tough about demanding that the federal government pay for the mess he and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey created, he appeared to concede that the effort to get the federal government to fund this “recovery” plan would fail.

“So the changes that need to be made, the investments that need to come back, they need to show—they being the federal government and they being this administration—they need to do more. But I’m not going to hold my breath that the federal government is going to do the right thing.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 21:20

US-Controlled ATACMS Missiles Deployed In South China Sea, 10km Off China's Mainland

Authored by Drago Bosni

Mere days after the US-backed government in Taipei launched the so-called Joint Firepower Coordination Center (JFCC), defined as “an enhanced firepower coordination effort in close cooperation with the United States”, multirole sources have confirmed that the Chinese breakaway island province of Taiwan is deploying the overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced M142 HIMARS MLRS (multiple launch rocket system) to the islands of Penghu and Dongyin.

The US-made system is also equipped with ATACMS missiles, extending its reach to 300 km. Taipei insists that this will “strengthen the effectiveness of the kill chain”, while its Ministry of Defense (MoD) stressed that the increase in HIMARS orders to 111 units was undertaken specifically to forward-deploy them to the islands closest to China’s mainland.

US-made ATACMS long-range missile. Wiki Commons

Dongyin, the northernmost island of the Matsu archipelago in the East China Sea, (see Map) is located around 10 km from mainland China. Deploying missiles such as the ATACMS there puts virtually the entire Fujian province within range, including key cities like Fuzhou, Ningde and Quanzhou.

However, the situation is even worse, given that the US controls those missiles through the JFCC. Its establishment and the permanent deployment of American personnel at command and control facilities in Taipei to oversee planning and potential use of ATACMS missiles in case of yet another US/NATO-orchestrated escalation are deeply troubling and concerning for Beijing.

However, Taipei is still trying to present it as “harmless assistance in coordination and supervision”. They’re just not saying for what.

Obviously, China is not buying it and for good reason. Namely, the JFCC allows Washington DC to select targets and finalize attack plans.Formally, this is done jointly with local forces, but we all know how the Pentagon uses vassals and satellite states, especially when it comes to striking strategic assets such as critical industrial and scientific infrastructure, both of which are found in abundance across mainland China.

Taiwanese Defense Minister Koo Li-hsiung says these concerns are “incorrect and misleading”, insisting that US troops on the island are “not acting as supervisors or monitors”. Koo claims that “the presence of US staff reflects longstanding, institutionalized cooperation mechanisms focused on strengthening Taiwan’s defensive and combat capabilities rather than any form of foreign oversight”.

However, empirical evidence makes it very difficult to take such claims seriously. Namely, the Pentagon effectively launched hundreds of strikes on Russia in the last four years, using the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict as a way to test and probe the Russian military, as well as the Kremlin’s strategic reactions and posturing. Many of these attacks were launched at purely civilian targets, the most notorious of which was on June 23, 2024. On that day, at least four US-made ATACMS missiles were shot down by Russian air and missile defenses above Sevastopol, Crimea. The banned cluster submunitions (primarily used against infantry) of at least one missile exploded above the crowded beaches at Uchkuyevka and Lyubimovka on the northern outskirts of Sevastopol.

The attack, nearly coinciding with the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Russia, killed four civilians and injured over 150 others. At the time of this act of terrorism, US/NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets were present above the Black Sea, prompting Moscow’s direct response.

The US, aided by its numerous vassals and satellite states, could easily use a similar scenario in a potential confrontation with China, particularly if the warmongers and war criminals in Washington DC manage to escalate yet another conflict, just this time over Taiwan. Beijing is certainly aware that the JFCC can facilitate such escalation and understands the political West’s terrorist nature and tendency to target civilians all across the globe in an attempt to provoke a violent response.

This is then unmistakably framed as Russian, Chinese, Serbian, Iranian or anyone else’s supposed “aggression”, while the populace is galvanized for “defensive” wars that are somehow always tens of thousands of kilometers away from America’s shores. Worse yet, the fact that the Taipei regime is using virtually identical weapons as the Neo-Nazi junta is also very telling, particularly platforms such as HIMARS.

It should be noted that the ATACMS missiles were provided to the Taiwanese military years ago and even tested during 2025 live-fire drills, all coordinated (or should we say commanded) by the Pentagon. This includes the first publicly reported use of the HIMARS, pointing to Taipei’s intent to integrate these systems into its broader military architecture, all under American supervision.

Obviously, the ATACMS is by no means a match to China’s hypersonic weapons, as the US is decades behind in such technologies. In addition, the Chinese military uses some of the most advanced ABM (anti-ballistic missile) defenses on the planet, most notably the HQ-19 and HQ-29. However, Beijing is still concerned that the HIMARS and its munitions (particularly the ATACMS) could be used against Chinese civilians in the neighboring Fujian province. Naturally, this is most definitely not in the interest of Taiwan or its people, as it could trigger China’s direct response, one that would obliterate virtually any target on the island.

However, the US might reckon this is an ideal opportunity to not only undermine Chinese efforts to peacefully resolve the Taiwan crisis, but also to cement hatred and enmity between Beijing and Taipei.

Sadly, this is precisely what happened in NATO-occupied Ukraine, where tens of millions of ethnic Russians were not only brainwashed into becoming “Ukrainians”, but also galvanized into pathological hatred toward other ethnic Russians. Moscow still tried to localize the resulting conflict and prevent it from spreading beyond the Donbass.

However, it was precisely Washington DC’s ability to direct violence virtually everywhere in NATO-occupied Ukraine that eventually forced the Kremlin to respond. Although nearly four years have passed and millions have died thanks to the political West’s obsession with wars, death and destruction (among other things, such as its pedophile-cannibalistic tendencies), the conflict’s end is still not in sight. The US/NATO sees this strategy of “controlled chaos” as an ideal way to destabilize virtually the entire world.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 20:55

India Explores Gas Power Boost To Stabilize Grid During Peak Hours

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

India considers boosting the run rates of its gas-fired power plants during evening peak hours to support the grid amid the surge in renewable power generation, India’s Power Secretary Pankaj Agarwal said on Friday.  

“For the last three years we have been studying whether gas plants can run for eight hours in the evening and remain shut during the rest of the day,” Agarwal said at a meeting with power plant executives, as carried by Reuters. 

India has reduced in recent years its gas-fired power fleet from 25 gigawatts to 20 GW, due to idled plants for years that are now unfit to operate. 

However, the country, where coal remains king but renewables rapidly expand, looks to keep the 20 GW gas-fired capacity to provide flexible baseload capacity to offset the intermittency of solar and wind power. 

India is expected to import about 29 million tons of LNG this year, while its goal to almost double the share of gas in the energy mix to 15% will need import capacity of around 100 million tons, Kumar Singh, chief executive at Petronet Ltd, the biggest Indian LNG importer, said at the India Energy Week conference last month.

India, however, needs liquefied natural gas prices in Asia to nearly halve from current levels in order to significantly raise LNG imports and consumption, the executive added. 

India is in no hurry to sign long-term LNG delivery deals as the country’s price-sensitive buyers stall talks and wait for the coming supply glut to pressure sellers into agreeing to lower prices.

But later this year, the LNG market is expected to tilt into oversupply and in a buyer’s market, in which India - and other price-sensitive buyers in Asia - could have the upper hand in negotiations with long-term LNG sellers.

Meanwhile, NITI Aayog, the policy think tank of the Indian government, said this week that India’s coal demand could more than double by 2050 from current levels under current policies.  

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 20:05

"Low Profile" Doomsday Nuclear Bunker Hits Market, Just 3 Hours From DC

Continuing our coverage of privately owned nuclear bunkers for sale, we generally find Cold War-era underground sites clustered in the Midwest. However, a recently listed bunker in the hills of central Pennsylvania sits roughly a three-hour drive from Washington, D.C., and New York City, offering a rare Mid-Atlantic bug-out option.

Coldwell Banker real estate agents Blain Berrier and Greg Rothman listed the Cold War-era underground nuclear bunker, originally constructed in the late 1960s as part of what they describe as the AT&T Long Lines project. It was engineered for durability, redundancy, and long-term self-sufficiency.

The 4,800-square-foot, below-grade, reinforced-concrete bunker was renovated 15 years ago and used to secure a data and communications site.

"Power infrastructure includes commercial electric service with automatic transfer capability and a 150 kVA diesel generator supported by on-site fuel storage designed for extended runtime," the agents said.

And there is more:

Here's what's special about the bunker on Weikert Road in Millmont, central Pennsylvania: its proximity to major cities across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

The amenities get even better:

4,800+ square foot below-grade reinforced concrete bunker, configured with multiple secured rooms, hardened corridors, and support areas. Several rooms include private bathrooms, and the layout was designed for both manned and unmanned operations.

. . .

Mechanical systems include multiple heat pumps utilizing a closed-loop well water system for heating and cooling, originally engineered to operate continuously and efficiently. Environmental systems incorporate multi-stage air filtration and water purification components, designed for long-duration occupancy. The facility also includes specialized mechanical rooms, utility areas, and hardened support spaces typical of secure infrastructure installations.

This is important:

The site benefits from controlled access, substantial setbacks, and a low-profile footprint.

And did we mention price??

Is this a near-perfect bug-out nuclear bunker for the Mid-Atlantic corridor?

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 19:40

When It Comes To Climate And Energy, Let's Retire The Politics Of Fear

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

A light display created using drones is performed near the U.N. headquarters ahead of the 78th U.N. General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 15, 2023. Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images

The story added: “The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data. In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900—the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.”

As usual, our most affordable and reliable fuel sources were blamed.

“The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” according to Samantha Burgess, the “strategic lead on climate” for the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus, according to the report.

Sometimes it feels like the climate change crusaders are oblivious to everything going on around them. For decades, they’ve been resorting to the same tired strategies to convince us that doom and gloom are just around the corner if we don’t change our ways. What they ignore is that their tactics aren’t working—more people than ever are tuning them out.

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense. In fact, so badly has science become blatantly politicized that the number of people who have a great amount of trust in science keeps shrinking.

That fact was backed up by a recent Pew Research Center report that found that “Americans’ confidence in scientists remains lower than it was prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.” To many of us, it is now obvious that the inconsistent guidance on COVID-19 and many COVID-19 pandemic edicts that were later found to be ineffective and even misleading demonstrated that science was not above being overtly politicized.

While the Pew study noted a Democrat–Republican disparagement regarding trust in science (Democrats trust it more, Republicans less), only 28 percent of all U.S. adults said they have “a great deal” of confidence in scientists “to act in the public’s best interest.”

I recently noted the welcome admission by manmade climate change believer Noah Kaufman, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, who, writing for The Atlantic, said flatly that “the full effects of climate change are unknowable, and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.” Whether in regard to vaccines, dietary guidelines, or climate change, in recent years science has too often found itself at the center of partisan political debates and has thus lost the trust of many Americans by appearing to support certain causes over others based on ideology rather than pure scientific data.

But we can’t afford to let that happen when it comes to making energy decisions. Why? Because no one can deny that affordable energy is the key to economic prosperity for U.S. households and businesses.

When energy costs are low, manufacturers can produce goods at a lower cost, resulting in more-competitive products domestically and internationally.

When fuel is affordable—whether diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel—all modes of transportation, including airlines, trucking and shipping companies, can charge less, resulting in savings for all consumers.

Heating, cooling, and transportation costs represent the most significant share of most families’ budgets. When energy costs are reasonable, household spending on other goods and services increases, not only helping individual families but also contributing to overall economic growth.

In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty—and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.

Consider the billions that the Biden administration doled out to political cronies on its way out the door in the name of the climate cause. Consider also the Obama administration giving more than $500 million dollars to Solyndra, the solar panel company accused of engaging in “a pattern of false and misleading assertions,” only to see it go bust—all at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans.

That’s why it’s important to remove the manipulation of the energy sector from the politicization that has infiltrated the scientific community. Americans should not be pawns in the effort to frighten our people or our government into abandoning our most reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy sources.

There’s a better way. By passing the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), Congress can codify into law the guarantee that Americans will always have access to low-cost energy, regardless of the effort of progressive political groups to weaponize science in order to funnel tax dollars to prop up “alternatives.”

Anyone can manipulate data to come up with horrifying “what if” scenarios designed to frighten or intimidate people into making their preferred choices. That’s not how to make public policy. We need to pass ARC-ES to move past the days when the science that fewer people trust is manipulated to justify changes in energy policy that few people want. When it comes to science, let’s trade the politics of panic for the integrity of facts.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 19:15

From Border Incursions To Stadiums: Counter-Drone Systems To Protect World Cup Games

Whether the brief shutdown of El Paso airspace was driven by a reported U.S. military directed-energy counter-drone weapon or what senior U.S. officials characterized as a Mexican cartel drone incursion remains unresolved at the moment.

Our assessment is that, with FIFA World Cup matches just months away, the Trump administration is racing to deploy counter-drone systems. After all, President Donald Trump signed last year's "Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty" executive order, which set the stage for accelerating counter-UAS and airspace security technology.

On Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that, through the federal Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) Grant Program, four New York public safety agencies will use $17.2 million to fund equipment and systems that "detect, identify, track, monitor and/or mitigate unmanned aircraft systems" during the FIFA World Cup matches.

"With the evolution of technology comes new ways it can be used to harm others," Governor Hochul said. "This funding will go a long way to keep New Yorkers safe while allowing historic events like the 2026 World Cup and our nation's 250th birthday to be celebrated safely and securely."

Earlier this morning, defense tech firm Fortem Technologies announced it had received a multimillion-dollar contract to deploy its net-equipped DroneHunter at U.S. venues during soccer games this summer.

Last month, U.S. military, federal agencies, and local authorities gathered for a two-day summit near U.S. Northern Command headquarters, bringing together federal agencies, 11 U.S. host committees, and FIFA's security heads to prepare for matches across the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

"We're never going to not worry about a dirty bomb," Miami-Dade County Sheriff Rosanna Cordero-Stutz, who participated in the planning session, told Politico. "But we also recognize that there's a lot of other things that we need to worry about as well."

"You can't just give counter-UAS mitigation equipment to law enforcement that hasn't learned how to use it yet," said White House FIFA World Cup Task Force Coordinator Andrew Giuliani, who coordinated the federal government's role in tournament preparations and addressed the drone threat at the summit.

To FIFA officials and U.S. government leaders, the fastest-growing threat to the host cities across North America will be drones.

Last month, we outlined the theme that the rise of "Next-Gen Counter-Drone Security" was certainly upon us, but our focus was on securing data centers.

We pointed out that Wall Street analysts largely end their analysis at the financing and construction of next-generation data centers, with limited discussion regarding the modern security architecture required once these facilities are built and become instant high-value targets for non-state actors or foreign adversaries (read this); traditional perimeter measures such as metal chain-link fencing and standard surveillance systems are rendered utterly useless in the world of emerging AI threats, including coordinated autonomous drone or swarm-based attacks.

Our view is that the counter-drone industry is set to see a rush of investment in companies developing and deploying detect-and-identify systems, as well as defeat systems such as soft-kill or hard-kill options that could include kinetic sentry systems.

If you're wondering what a hard-kill option looks like ... 

... Allen Control Systems has that covered. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 18:50

FBI Warns Of Romance Scams Ahead Of Valentine's Day

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Love is in the air, but it might be too good to be true for some hopeful romantics searching for love online, according to the FBI.

A woman holds a phone displaying the TikTok app, in this file photo taken on Aug. 11, 2024. Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

The FBI warned dating app surfers ahead of Valentine’s Day to beware of criminals using romance scams.

“The criminals who carry out romance scams are experts at what they do and will seem genuine, caring, and believable,” the FBI said in a statement on Feb. 11. “Con artists are present on most dating and social media sites.”

Scammers want to establish a relationship as quickly as possible, endearing themselves to their victims to gain trust, according to the FBI.

The scammers may propose marriage and make plans to meet in person, but that never happens. Then, they ask for money, the FBI said.

The con artists often claim they work in the building-and-construction industry and are based outside the United States.

“That makes it easier to avoid meeting in person—and more plausible when they ask for money for a medical emergency or unexpected legal fee,” the FBI stated.

If someone asks to meet online and needs bank account information or asks to deposit money, they are most likely using the account information to carry out theft or fraud schemes, the FBI warned.

In one case, Glenda, 81, fell for an online romance scam and landed in custody charged with federal crimes, according to a video on the FBI’s YouTube channel.

Glenda, whose last name was withheld, said in 2014 she met someone online who worked in Nigeria. The scammer said he needed money to leave the country and sent her electronics to pawn and send him the money. She said she eventually fell in love with the scammer and became a money mule.

In 2021, she pled guilty to two federal felonies, according to the video posted by the FBI.

Romance scams are a huge problem, according to AARP.

Reported losses totaled $1.12 billion in 2023, with median losses per person of $2,000. This is the highest reported form of any imposter scam loss, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

A survey in 2023 by the FTC shows the most commonly used lies that romance scammers adopted were:

·      “I or someone close to me is sick, hurt, or in jail.”

·      “I can teach you how to invest.”

·      “I’m in the military or far away.”

·      “I need help with an important delivery.”

·      “We’ve never met … but let’s talk about marriage.”

·      “I’ve come into some money or gold.”

·      “I’m on an oil rig or ship.”

·      “You can trust me with your private pictures.”

The FBI advises people to search for photos and profiles online to see whether the image, names, and details appear elsewhere.

The agency also suggests asking many questions, being suspicious, and never sending money to anyone without meeting them in person.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 18:25

Hamptons Real Estate Surges To New Highs As 2026 Rental Demand "Strong As Ever"

The Hamptons is once again in the spotlight as one of the country’s hottest luxury real estate markets.

Known for its beaches, upscale villages, and sprawling estates, this stretch of Long Island has seen home prices climb to record levels.

At the same time, summer rentals for 2026 are being booked far earlier than usual, showing that demand for the area remains as strong as ever, according to Vocal.Media. 

By the end of 2025, home values in the Hamptons had reached new highs.

The median price rose to about $2.3 million, while average luxury sales approached $3.8 million. Properties priced above $5 million are selling in greater numbers than before, and even homes in the lower luxury range are commanding steep premiums. Limited inventory and steady interest from high-income buyers have made competition especially intense.

Several factors are fueling this surge. There are simply fewer homes available than buyers want, which keeps pressure on prices. At the same time, wealthy buyers from finance, technology, and entertainment continue to view the Hamptons as both a lifestyle destination and a long-term investment. Its proximity to New York City, along with ocean views, privacy, and prestige, adds to its appeal.

The report says the rental market is just as competitive. Many properties for the summer of 2026 have already been leased months in advance.

Seasonal rates vary widely, with entry-level homes starting around $50,000, mid-range properties reaching well over $150,000, and top-tier oceanfront estates climbing toward $1 million or more.

Homes with pools, modern interiors, and prime locations tend to rent the fastest.

Rental patterns are also shifting.

July has become more popular than August, and renters are planning further ahead than in the past.

While some landlords adjust pricing closer to the season to fill remaining vacancies, the most desirable homes rarely remain available for long.

For buyers, the current market means facing stiff competition and historically high prices.

Acting quickly and working with experienced local agents can make a significant difference. Renters, meanwhile, need to secure properties well in advance and remain flexible about timing or location to improve their chances of finding good options.

Looking ahead, there are few signs that the Hamptons market is slowing down.

With strong demand, limited supply, and growing interest from affluent buyers and renters, the area continues to stand out as a place where luxury living, investment potential, and coastal lifestyle come together.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 18:00

Mainstream Media Silent As Alleged Hate Crime Hoax Leads To Major Civil Award

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a major verdict out of Texas where a mother and an attorney were ordered to pay millions for perpetuating an alleged hate crime hoax that was eagerly spread by the mainstream media.

Asher Vann, a minor at the time, was labeled a racist maniac who tortured SeMarion Humphrey, his black classmate, with other classmates.

After the jury found that the allegations constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the same media that spread the story remained conspicuously silent.

Crickets.

Major media outlets from NBC to CBS to the Daily Mail published the account of how Humphrey was tortured, shot with BB guns, and forced to drink urine during a sleepover.

The NAACP and Black Lives Matter protested the lack of action from officials ignoring the alleged racist attack.

Good Morning America aired a segment featuring ABC host Linsey Davis, who promoted a GoFundMe account that raised approximately $120,000 for “therapy and private schooling.”

In her interviews, Humphrey’s mother, Summer Smith, called Vann “evil” and described his depravity to enabling reporters like Linsey Davis.

Some, however, were not convinced. 

Washington Free Beacon reported that Smith spent less than $1,000 of the donated funds toward her son’s schooling while spending funds on items including a designer dog, dining, travel, beauty products, liquor and vapes.

Parents rallied around the Humphrey family and held events at the school.

Eventually, the case against Vann was submitted to a grand jury, despite later testimony by Plano Police Department officer Patricia McClure that she did not believe there was probable cause for any charge. Given the pressure campaign, it was given to a grand jury anyway. The grand jurors then refused to indict.

Vann sued and testified that the alleged racist act occurred at a camp that was caught in a snowstorm.  Unsupervised, the teenagers engaged in dumb games and pranks. He said that, after unsuccessfully searching for small game, they decided to shoot each other. All of the kids were wearing thick clothing and shot each other with the BB guns for fun.

He testified that Humphrey participated in the game with everyone else in both being shot and shooting others.

The urine was described as a prank that was played on various boys, according to Vann, but no one actually drank from the cup.

Under the common law, the elements of the tort of an intentional infliction of emotional distress require a plaintiff to show that the defendant “(a) intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff considered outrageous and intolerable in that it offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (b) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and (c) that severe emotional distress resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant’s conduct.”

A racially diverse jury handed down a verdict against Humphrey’s mother and the family attorney, Kim Cole. The inclusion of the lawyer in the verdict makes this a relatively rare case.

Smith and Cole were ordered to pay $3.2 million in damages to Vann, now an adult in college. Both the mother and the lawyer were ordered to pay $1,599,000.00.

The case raised obvious analogies to other cases that were eagerly promulgated by the media but later disproven, such as the Jussie Smollett hoax.

The Smollett story of MAGA-associated racists roaming the streets of Chicago was irresistible as politicians like Nancy Pelosi and others piled on. ABC’s Robin Roberts gave Smollett an interview that was breathtaking in its lack of substantive questions or even curiosity about glaring red flags in his account. Roberts described Smollett as “bruised but not broken” and nodded as he described his narrow escape from being lynched in America. She concluded the interview with “Beautiful, thank you, Jussie.”

The Texas case followed the same trajectory as the media built up the story and then went silent as countervailing facts were produced by the family.

Once again, the role and liability of counsel Cole is particularly interesting. We discussed a claim of defamation by counsel in the Depp-Heard case.

Attorneys are protected by absolute privilege in court in making harmful and even false statements. This privilege is best stated in the Restatement of Law (Second) of Torts section 586 “to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceedings.”

However, it also means that “statements made during an occasion outside a judicial proceeding are not covered.” Thus, while “[t]he duties and actions of a lawyer in representing a client are not confined to judicial proceedings,” the court ruled that interviews with a reporter would fall outside of the privilege. Most courts reject the notion of an absolute privilege while considering a more limited possible privilege for out-of-court statements. See Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 182 A.2d 54, 58 (1962) (the “absolute privilege will not attach to counsel’s extrajudicial publications, related to the litigation, which are made outside the purview of the judicial proceeding”).

Likewise, actions by counsel can be deemed as the intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as privacy violations. This can be a dangerously fluid line, since all litigation causes some degree of emotional distress, particularly in tort cases, where reputations are attacked. Moreover, lawyers often assist clients in seeking donations to GoFundMe accounts, which may help defray legal fees. Such public advocacy, however, entails a greater risk of liability.

The key in this case was the actions taken outside of the court as well as the alleged falsity of the underlying representations.

The targeting of a minor is particularly notable in this case and raises memories of the disgraceful media attacks on Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media continued to attack him.

The Vann case is likely to be reviewed by many lawyers outside Texas.

It is a case that could be replicated in future cases involving lawyers accused of fueling reckless or inflammatory public claims.

The fact that the damages were evenly divided between the mother and the lawyer shows the level of culpability that the jury assigned to the role of the lawyer.

Here is the jury verdict form: Jury-Verdict

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/13/2026 - 17:40