Zero Hedge

Joe Rogan Defines Chaos In Minneapolis As "Color Revolution"

Joe Rogan Defines Chaos In Minneapolis As "Color Revolution"

Left-wing unrest in Minneapolis and elsewhere across the country - whether protests or riots over the past few weeks or over the last decade targeting President Trump and the America First agenda - is being framed as a color revolution operation fueled by dark-money-funded NGOs, and that narrative is now reaching a wider audience.

Democrats are uneasy that this framing is gaining traction after the left-wing revolution was most recently discussed on The Joe Rogan Experience, where host Joe Rogan and guest Andrew Wilson, a conservative podcaster, discussed it.

Rogan discussed how, shortly after Nick Shirley’s investigation into alleged large-scale Somali-linked daycare and autism fraud, there was an immediate “narrative shift” that appeared to coincide with what he described as a coordinated pressure campaign on the ground against federal agents - something Rogan characterized as a “color revolution.”

"For people that don't, it's a coordinated effort to cause chaos, and this is a very coordinated thing," Rogan said.

He continued, "The idea that this is an organic protest, these riots are organic, is nonsense. It's probably nonsense because now they have access to the Signal chats."

From the beginning, we have framed much of the left-wing pressure campaigns as far from organic, pointing instead to dark-money-funded NGOs supporting activist groups on the ground opposing federal deportation operations. It was not until “Signal Gate,” however, that the nation could see how heavily coordinated these efforts allegedly were...

Now these left-wing NGOs are seeking spring protests, as they have riled up young people to carry out their anti-ICE agenda.

They also plan to launch campaigns nationwide:

As well as targeting critical economic chokepoints.

The chaos in Minneapolis is part of the left-wing's protest industrial complex that moves from one high-profile news event to another - from George Floyd protests to pro-Palestinian demonstrations - mobilizing activists with aims at revolution.

There is good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat down with journalist Christopher Rufo earlier this month to discuss plans to investigate dark-money-funded NGOs sowing chaos nationwide.

Let's remind readers about retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's comments in late November:

As warmer weather approaches, the protest industrial complex will be operating at full steam. Rogan’s characterization of the chaos in Minneapolis as resembling a color revolution presents optically displeasing headlines for Democrats, as that framing increasingly circulates to wider and wider audiences.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/01/2026 - 08:45

Convicted Terrorist Who Plotted To Bomb British Consulate Now Standing For Election In UK

Convicted Terrorist Who Plotted To Bomb British Consulate Now Standing For Election In UK

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Shahid Butt, a 60-year-old Muslim activist with a conviction for conspiring to bomb the British consulate in Yemen, is now gunning for a seat on Birmingham City Council. 

Yes, really.

Convicted in 1999 and sentenced to five years in a Yemeni prison, Butt was found guilty of forming an armed gang to target the consulate, an Anglican church, and a Swiss-owned hotel.

Butt claims the charges were bogus, insisting he was forced to confess and that they weren’t terrorism-related. Yet reports link him to an armed Islamist jihadi group that kidnapped 16 Westerners in 1998. In the early 1990s, he headed to Bosnia as an “aid worker” before joining a foreign fighters brigade in the Bosnian army. Back in Birmingham during the 1980s, he racked up trouble with a notorious gang and even served prison time for violence.

Now, as a pro-Gaza independent candidate in the Sparkhill ward—where around 80% of residents are Muslim—Butt is openly urging the city’s Muslim youth to “work out at the gym and learn to fight” in preparation for potential attacks. He calls for Muslims to “stand together and hold their ground” against “disbelievers” of other faiths.

Victims of Islamist attacks aren’t buying the redemption story. Groups representing terror survivors slammed the candidacy as making “a mockery of our political system,” according to The Telegraph. 

One source told the paper: “Allowing someone with this history to run for office undermines everything we stand for in fighting extremism.”

GB News host Patrick Christys tore into the development, asking: “Are you mental?!” in a blistering monologue. He highlighted Butt’s past, from the Yemen plots to his calls for Muslims to arm up against non-believers.

This isn’t an isolated case of the UK rolling out the red carpet for radicals. Just last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer personally celebrated the release and return of British-Egyptian extremist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who has a track record of praising Osama bin Laden, denying the Holocaust, and calling for violence against Jews and police. Starmer called it a “top priority” for his government.

Meanwhile, ordinary Brits face the full force of the law for far less. Take Lucy Connolly, who served time for a heated tweet about immigration after the Southport attacks and now faces re-imprisonment for sharing a satirical joke about Starmer. 

The contrast couldn’t be starker: extremists with bomb plots and hate-filled rhetoric get platforms and welcomes, while native Brits get jail cells for memes and jokes. 

Birmingham’s council elections in May could mark another win for sectarian politics, fueled by unchecked migration and a government more interested in appeasing radicals than protecting its own citizens.

As communal tensions rise, with anti-Israel protests turning violent and Jewish groups raising alarms, allowing figures like Butt to run exposes the rot in Britain’s system.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/01/2026 - 08:10

UBS CIO Americas: AI Remains "Underhyped And Underappreciated"

UBS CIO Americas: AI Remains "Underhyped And Underappreciated"

Building on Goldman analyst Brian Singer’s comparison of the AI data-center buildout to the U.S. shale boom, where AI remains in the early "appraisal phase” of the innovation cycle, a stage historically most bullish for infrastructure spending and equity multiple expansion, fresh commentary earlier this week from UBS CIO Americas reinforces the view that bubble conditions have not yet been met.

Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, CIO of Global Equities at UBS Global Wealth Management, spoke at the Latin America Investment Conference, where she said AI remains underhyped in the near term.

Ulrike continued:

AI is underhyped and underappreciated in the short term, and it is one of the biggest investing opportunities in human history, Ulrike Hoffman Burchardi, UBS CIO Americas, said at the Latin America Investment Conference.

She said there are three things needed to be successful in AI:

1) AI algorithmic talent – it is very important to have strong AI researchers;

2) energy to power computers; and

3) chips.

Previously, she was focused on the picks and shovels, or what she calls the AI 7 (three chip companies and four hyperscalers), but now it’s time to move into the application layer of AI – the companies using AI to their benefit.

She said that for AI to be in a bubble, three conditions would need to be met:

  1. loose financial conditions,

  2. a transformational narrative, and

  3. prices becoming reflexive.

She doesn’t think the third box is checked yet, especially not in public markets.

Ulrike noted that valuations are extended, but this is not the key thing to focus on.

On the other hand, she said private markets are bubblier, and that investors need to do a lot of due diligence there.

Circling back to Singer’s note on the shale innovation cycle, that cycle lasted from 2003 to 2020, roughly 17 years.

Read the note here.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/01/2026 - 07:35

Brussels Versus Washington

Brussels Versus Washington

Authored by Cláudia Ascensão Nunes via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

For years, Europe has tried to convince itself that it could regulate its way to technological greatness.

Instead of becoming a technological powerhouse, it produced rules, many rules, with effects now extending far beyond its own borders.

In 2026, those rules are colliding head on with an American president who refuses to accept that U.S. innovation could be governed from Brussels.

Two regulations sit at the center of this escalating tension. The Digital Markets Act, or DMA, applies to the world’s largest digital platforms, the so-called gatekeepers, and forces them to open their ecosystems, share data, and abandon business practices that are central to their models. 

The Digital Services Act, or DSA, regulates platform content and algorithms, requiring the removal of information deemed illegal or harmful, with all the subjectivity this entails.

This risks granting a supranational authority direct power over online speech by compelling platforms to remove content that fails to comply with regulatory guidelines.

These laws, which entered into force in 2022 for the DSA and 2024 for the DMA, appear designed with America’s largest technology firms in mind. Five of the six companies designated as DMA gatekeepers are U.S.-based, as are the overwhelming majority of platforms subject to the DSA.

This has placed companies such as Apple, Google, and Meta under constant supervision by Brussels, forcing them to modify products in order to operate in the European market, with consequences not only for firms themselves but also for consumers and innovation more broadly.

In 2025, under the DMA alone, Apple was fined 500 million euros and forced to open iOS to rival app stores and payment systems. Meta was fined 200 million euros and required to alter how it uses user data.

Under EU competition law, Google also received a historic 2.95 billion euro fine for alleged abuse of market dominance in the digital sector and was forced to redesign key aspects of its search engine and advertising business.

Upon taking office, Donald Trump identified this European interventionism as disguised tariffs that artificially raise costs for American firms and strip them of competitive advantages.

He threatened to invoke Section 301 of U.S. trade law, the same tool used against China, to retaliate, significantly intensifying tensions between Brussels and Washington.

In December 2025, that tension took on a face: X. The European Commission fined Elon Musk’s platform 120 million euros under the DSA, accusing it of failing to manage so-called systemic risks linked to the circulation of political information. For Musk, this amounted to an assault on free speech. The episode appears to have triggered a broader transatlantic diplomatic and commercial escalation. Washington responded by imposing visa bans on five European officials and experts associated with the DSA and threatened tariffs and restrictions against European firms such as SAP, Capgemini, and Mistral AI should Brussels fail to retreat.

The conflict has now spread beyond the European Union. The United Kingdom and Australia have begun discussing restrictions on X, citing risks related to misinformation and online safety, reinforcing the perception that Brussels is asserting itself as a global digital regulator.

Despite pressure from the Trump administration, the European Union shows no signs of slowing down. In 2026, another regulation enters fully into force, the AI Act, which appears once again tailored to American firms. It subjects artificial intelligence systems deemed high-risk, including AI used in hiring, credit, healthcare, public security, content moderation, and high impact generative tools, to mandatory risk assessments, human oversight, and constraints that exist in no other major market. These requirements will delay product launches, raise costs, and force companies to design technologies according to political criteria defined outside the United States.

As a result, 2026 is shaping up to be a particularly challenging year. From a geopolitical perspective, the most immediate risk is the erosion of the transatlantic relationship in a strategic sector. Technology today is an instrument of power, and this escalation among allies is likely to generate incompatible regulatory blocs, fragmenting the digital economy, weakening the West, and opening space for alternative models, particularly China’s state-controlled approach.

Consumers stand to lose most from this conflict, along two pillars central to any classical liberal order: first, the free market, as rising compliance costs will inevitably translate into higher prices; second, online free expression, increasingly constrained by incentives for excessive moderation and the preventive removal of lawful but controversial content.

At a moment when the world is rapidly advancing in artificial intelligence, automation, and the technologies that will define the next decade, the European Union is moving in the opposite direction, deepening an interventionism that exceeds the role a state should play.

The European Union must lower barriers, simplify rules, promote competition, and allow innovation to flourish without permanent political oversight.

In today’s world, as always, market liberalization is not a threat to consumers. It is their strongest protection and the true engine of progress.

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/01/2026 - 07:00

Five Insights Into The Trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US Talks

Five Insights Into The Trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US Talks

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Russia’s agreement to this format represents a significant policy shift.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the second round of the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks in Abu Dhabi will be held on 1 February.

There haven’t been many leaks from the first round so observers can only speculate about the subject and significance of this new format.

Nevertheless, it’s still possible to intuit some insight into this based on what’s known and has been reported, thus enabling folks to obtain a better understanding of this latest development. What follows are five important points:

1. Territory Is Reportedly The Last Remaining Issue

Putin’s top aide Yuri Ushakov said on the eve of the first round of talks that “bringing about a lasting settlement would be unlikely without addressing the territorial issue based on the formula as agreed in Anchorage.” This was followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that “The one remaining item … is the territorial claim on Donetsk.” Prior reports about Russia demanding Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donbass might therefore be true.

2. A Post-Conflict NATO Deployment Is Being Discussed

Rubo also told them that discussions over “security guarantees basically involve the deployment of a handful of European troops, primarily French and the UK, and then a US backstop”, which would require Russia’s consent. The US is still debating the wisdom of “be[coming] committed potentially in a conflict, in a future conflict”, however, despite Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner earlier signaling their country’s support for NATO troops in Ukraine. The second round will therefore likely involve this issue too.

3. A Quid Pro Quo Might Be In The Cards

The Financial Times reported that US security guarantees for Ukraine are dependent on its withdrawal from Donbass, while the New York Times reported that this Kiev-controlled part of that region could then become either a demilitarized zone or host neutral peacekeepers. A quid pro quo might therefore be in the cards whereby Ukraine withdraws from Donbass in exchange for US security guarantees and a NATO deployment, which Russia might agree to if neutral peacekeepers stand between them.

4. Trump Has Eschewed Publicly Pressuring Zelensky

For as promising as this potential quid pro quo might appear to be, at least in terms of achieving a ceasefire at minimum (provided that Russia reverses its formal opposition thereto), Zelensky remains defiant about withdrawing from Donbass. Trump has also eschewed publicly pressuring him to do so under pain of tangible consequences like irreversibly suspending arms sales to the EU that are destined for Ukraine, which therefore suggests that there are real limits to what the US will do in pursuit of a deal.

5. The US’ Diplomatic Role Is Now Indispensable

Despite these limits, the US’ diplomatic role is now indispensable as proven by Russia’s agreement to trilateralize its bilateral talks with Ukraine, which represented a significant policy shift. Russia therefore seems to believe that the US is sincere about negotiating a deal between it and Ukraine even though it won’t do everything in its power to that end. Now that the Russian-Ukrainian talks include the US, they’re unlikely to revert to the bilateral format until after Trump 2.0 if the conflict is still raging by then.

The five insights that can be intuited about the trilateral Russian-Ukrainian-US talks strongly suggest that Putin is considering far-reaching compromises on his maximum goals in the special operation as stipulated at its onset.

It’s premature to jump to conclusions about why that might be, but if such an outcome is officially enshrined in a legal agreement (whether a ceasefire, armistice, or peace treaty), then it’ll surely be analyzed to better understand why Putin would believe that it benefits Russia.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 23:20

Venezuela Unveils Amnesty Bill For Mass Release Of Political Prisoners 

Venezuela Unveils Amnesty Bill For Mass Release Of Political Prisoners 

Venezuela's US-backed and CIA-installed interim president Delcy Rodriguez has unveiled a sweeping amnesty bill that could pave the way for the release of hundreds of detainees, in a first major political move since former President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were ousted and whisked off to New York earlier this month.

"We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day," Rodriguez announced Friday. She issued her address before a who's who of government figures, including judges and federal magistrates, that the National Assembly would take up the bill "with urgency". There are believed to currently be at least 700 inmates deemed political prisoners nationwide.

via Associated Press

"May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fueled by violence and extremism," Rodriguez said in the televised address.

"May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans," she added.

Rodriguez has also declared the closure of El Helicoide, the notorious Caracas detention center run by the intelligence services, long accused by former inmates and independent rights groups of torture and systemic abuse.

The plan is to change it into a sports, social, and cultural complex serving nearby neighborhoods - though surely the country will still maintain its necessary and regular prison system.

Hopefully, Caracas and the US are also being somewhat selective on who they let walk free, given there could be hardened violent criminals and assassins in the mix.

A little over a week after the US incursion into Venezuela and change of government, the head of the country's National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, had first announced the release of a "significant number" of political prisoners.

Under Washington pressure, one prominent name among those freed was the following:

Rocío San Miguel, a vocal critic of Maduro and a defense expert, was the first prisoner confirmed to be freed. Her family told the New York Times that she was taken to the Spanish embassy in Caracas.

Arrested in 2024, she was accused of being involved in a plot to kill the then-president and faced charges of treason, conspiracy and terrorism. Her arrest shocked human rights activists and, because her whereabouts were unknown, was labelled as potential "enforced disappearance" by the UN Human Rights Office.

Rights groups have so far tallied that just over 300 prisoners have been released under Delcy Rodriguez - a small number which again suggests they are likely being selective about it. This new bill means hundreds are set to follow.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 22:45

Will He, Won't He 'TACO' On Iran?

Will He, Won't He 'TACO' On Iran?

Authored by Alastair Crooke via LewRockwell.com,

As so often these days, a decisive attack on Iran – comes down in the final analysis to Trump’s psychology, and his need to dominate the attention of everyone around him.

He understands that for however much his maximalist pronouncements look — and are — crazy, they nonetheless do usually default to a ‘strong man image’.

Trump’s career has been founded on the predicate that his base loves the ‘strong guy’ and any sign of weakness detracts from the illusion of strength. It is the thing that has generally worked for him.

European élites however, find this difficult to digest – perhaps understandably – and slide into paroxysms of outrage.

The key, as Trump-watcher Michael Wolff has suggested, is that after days with Trump saying that ‘this or that’ is going to be done, either “the easy way; or the hard way”, the tipping point usually comes when he has to manoeuvre to exit his maximalist positions, whilst always claiming it was all an ‘Art of the Deal’ success – the outcome being just what he had from the beginning intended.

On Iran, Trump’s messaging is again ultra-maximalist: Accept my conditions, or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle entirely your [Iran’s] political system. Trump’s envoys reinforce his stance that ‘every option remains on the table’ at every opportunity (though this rhetoric has become nothing more than an overworked cliché).

Trump’s threats towards Iran however, have triggered paroxysms of anxiety in the region, with leaders — even Netanyahu — fearing a long war with unpredictable and bloody consequences.

Trump’s conception of war is built around a fantasy that he can manipulate some lightening ‘in-boom-out’ stunt – one in which the U.S. loses no soldiers and its military infrastructure remains untouched. Reports from those regular ‘phone buddies’ of Trump say that he still says he wants a ‘guaranteed’ decisive outcome in Iran – a short, violently sharp, decisive war. He does not want casualties – especially American casualties. Neither does he want mass casualties or a long drawn-out conflict.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson explains that decisive is a military term of art. It means you’ve hit the enemy so hard they’re unable to respond. Or, in other words, it hints that Trump would like a ‘stunt’ like that of seizing Maduro.

Nothing is guaranteed in war, of course. And the insurrection in Iran fomented by externally-trained rioters drawing on the earlier Management of Savagery playbook failed.

The US had not deployed massively for this January episode because, in their (flawed) analysis, they had thought they might be able to simply ‘assist’ the rioters trying to overthrow the government – assistance that would not require much military muscle.

Well, that all fell apart. They had bought into the propaganda that Iran was a ‘house of cards’, destined to implode under the impact of the extreme violence of the rioters intended to sear into place the image of a crumbling, burning edifice with its leaders and occupants scrambling to escape.

It seems that in the wake of the ‘coup’ failure – yet still wanting to be pleasing to an exigent President – the Pentagon has come around to justifying and explaining the failed coup saying — in General Keane’s words –“We [have] had to bring in all this firepower”, (because they initially had thought they could manage with less).

So, now we have the narrative that “the U.S. has now deployed more forces to the Middle East than it did in the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined” – which US military expert Will Schryver derides as “absolute ridiculous nonsense”.

Schryver notes: “I have yet to see a military buildup in the region that would permit anything remotely approximating a ‘decisive’ strike against the Iranian military and its government”.

“A squadron of F-15s, a few tankers, and a couple dozen C-17 shipments of ordnance and/or AD systems has been sent to Jordan. That’s a modest defensive shield against drones and cruise missiles, at best. It’s certainly not a potent strike package … even with the carrier USS Gerald Ford in the mix … In total, the Navy could probably launch ~350 Tomahawks. But against a huge country like Iran, even if all 350 hit “something”, it’s not going to come close to disarming the Iranians”.

Schryver concludes:

“The US Navy is absolutely NOT going to venture into the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman. And it would be extremely high risk to fly refuelling tankers in Iranian airspace. So that is going to limit carrier strike aircraft to their fully loaded combat radius of ~600 miles — not nearly far enough to hit targets deep in Iran. And even if they flew a half-dozen B-2s, and a dozen B-52s / B-1Bs … t just doesn’t add up to much in the context of a one-off strike package. It’s just a few dozen more stand-off cruise missiles thrown into the mix”.

A short, violent decisive ‘win’ (as reported by the WSJ) that Trumps wants — and which ‘plays well’ at home — simply is not an option. Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi, more realistically, has warned:

“An all-out confrontation will certainly be messy, ferocious, and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House”.

Inside Iran, notes Ibrahim Al-Amine, “the leadership is operating on the assumption that the confrontation may reach its most extreme form. Preparations are unfolding along two tracks: strengthening defensive capabilities against a large-scale assault and tightening internal security to prevent domestic destabilization. This posture is now visible across the country”.

So, could it be that Trump will back out once again (i.e. TACO – ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’)? Schryver argues that Iran is not Venezuela. It is not a ‘tariffs and trade’ financial war. It is not some coup de théâtre in which Trump ‘chickening out’ can be explained away as another win, as part of his clever ‘Art of the Deal’ approach.

Actual full-on military conflict (not a Maduro stunt) by contrast, is ‘out there for all to see’, notes Will Shryver, and would be much harder to explain away should it go awry. Adding more fire-power will not eliminate the risks. Trump’s best option is to find himself an alternative ‘distraction’.

Israel, too, seems to be having second thoughts. Ronan Bergman, in Yedioth Ahoronot, reports Israeli Intelligence reports saying that “a week and a half ago the protests reached their peak throughout Iran … [since when] the scale of the protests and demonstrations has decreased dramatically … the security establishment and the intelligence community do not believe that the regime is currently in danger, certainly not in immediate danger … The central question is whether Trump missed the momentum – and if there was any momentum at all …”.

“[Nevertheless] suppose all the armed forces that the US is now transferring to the Persian Gulf were fully deployed … and suppose Israel were to join in with its firepower … Then what? Would they overthrow the government …? What is the optimistic scenario for such an event … without soldiers on the ground, but only air strikes? … In practice”, Bergman concludes, “such a regime has never fallen through external intervention”.

Recall that Trump’s disapproval rating, according to NY Times poll this week, now stands at 47%.

Quite apart from the strategic military calculus of Iran’s response to any attack, Trump certainly doesn’t need a messy war. He likes his ‘initiatives’ to be short and clean ’standout’ wins.

Last weekend, as the Greenland bruhaha tumbled into threats and counter threats of tariffs, the US bond market moved to the verge of collapse (as it so did on Liberation Day, with the tariff announcements). The ‘way out’ from developing bond market crisis was Trump going ‘TACO’ on the Greenland-linked tariffs on European states who did not support his Greenland takeover.

Is Trump getting the message that an Iran ‘win’ is not ‘Slam Dunk’? – in which case he might decide on a TACO, accompanied by bone-crushing economic threats to Iran – (possibly).

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 22:10

US Warns Iran Over Weekend Live Fire Drills Close To American Forces

US Warns Iran Over Weekend Live Fire Drills Close To American Forces

Iran's military starting Thursday issued a warning to ships at sea that it planned to run a drill starting this weekend which is to include live firing in the Strait of Hormuz, potentially disrupting traffic through a waterway which sees 20% of all the world's oil pass through it.

This prompted a US warning in response, given US forces are also in the region - but quite a bit further away. On Iran's two-day live-fire naval exercise, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it will not tolerate any unsafe behavior which threats US forces, and somewhat awkwardly called on IRGC forces to operate professionally.

AFP via Getty Images

"We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) actions including overflight of U.S. military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed overflight of U.S. military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat approaches on a collision course with U.S. military vessels, or weapons trained at U.S. forces," CENTCOM said in its statement Friday.

"US forces acknowledge Iran's right to operate professionally in international airspace and waters," it added, and noted that "any unsafe and unprofessional behavior near U.S. forces, regional partners or commercial vessels increases risks of collision, escalation, and destabilization."

Meanwhile the US forces build-up continues in the region:

A U.S. Navy destroyer made a port visit to the southern Israeli city of Eilat on Friday. The USS Delbert D. Black is one of six U.S. destroyers now in the Middle East, along with an aircraft carrier and three other combat ships.

China and Russia have just sent a big, resounding message to Washington in dispatching their own naval assets which have been sailing near Iranian vessels over the last several days - though this appeared for a prior, pre-planned joint drill.

According to the details of this prior joint exercise:

Ahead of the exercises, Iran issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), warning of live-fire military activity in the airspace surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the notice, military firing activity was conducted between January 27 and 29 within a five-nautical-mile radius. The airspace—from ground level up to 25,000 feet—was designated as restricted and hazardous throughout the duration of the maneuvers.

In parallel, the three countries just deepened trilateral ties:

In a dramatic geopolitical development... Iran, China and Russia formally signed a comprehensive strategic pact, marking one of the most consequential shifts in 21st-century international relations. While the full text of the agreement is being released in stages by the three governments, state media in Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have acknowledged the ceremony and described it as a cornerstone for a new multipolar order.

The pact comes against the backdrop of decades of growing cooperation between these three states. Iran and Russia earlier concluded a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty designed to deepen economic, political, and defense ties, and to blunt the impact of Western sanctions — a treaty that was signed in January 2025 and entered into force last year.  Meanwhile, Iran and China have been bound by a 25-year cooperation agreement first signed in 2021, aimed at expanding trade, infrastructure, and energy integration.

Source: Google Maps/Business Insider

Still, none of this has deterred the ongoing Pentagon build-up in the Middle East with an eye on Iran. One thing the White House should be able to perceive, however, is that any military action against Tehran is going to clearly be much more complex, and harder, than some one-off mission in Venezuela.

The potential for massive blow-back and for things to go seriously awry is much greater in the case of the Islamic Republic.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 19:15

New SNAP Work Requirement Rules To Start Feb. 1 In Multiple States

New SNAP Work Requirement Rules To Start Feb. 1 In Multiple States

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epcoh Times,

The new work requirements to gain or continue eligibility for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will start being implemented in several U.S. states beginning Feb. 1.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, instituted new work requirements for SNAP beneficiaries to continue receiving benefits, targeting able-bodied adults without dependents.

People ages 18 to 54 are required to meet these conditions to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months in a three-year period, according to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) must meet any of the following conditions—work at least 80 hours a month, participate in a work program for this duration, take part in a combination of work and work program hours for 80 hours a month at a minimum, or remain in a workfare for the required number of hours assigned each month, FNS said.

Millions of ABAWDs use SNAP benefits despite being able to work, compromising the true goal of the program, which is to provide financial support for vulnerable people who need help.

Some people are exempt from the work requirements, such as individuals who are unable to work due to mental or physical limitations, veterans, homeless people, and pregnant women, the agency said.

Individuals who meet the criteria but fail to fulfill work requirements will lose SNAP benefits after three months.

“To get SNAP again, you must meet the ABAWD work requirement for a 30-day period or become excused. Otherwise, you need to wait until the end of your three-year period, when you’ll get another three months under the time limit,” according to the agency.

The implementation dates of the SNAP work requirements vary from state to state.

In some states, people could lose benefits as soon as Feb. 1, if they can’t show they’re working. But many people have a month or more before their benefits are at risk.

Texas started its requirement in October, so people there could have exhausted their three months of benefits by Jan. 1 and already been removed from the rolls.

Several states started the three-month clock in November, opening the possibility of people losing benefits in the coming days. Among them are Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, and Hawaii.

The requirements take effect Sunday in other states, including Illinois and Ohio. In those places, people could lose benefits in May. Ohio says people will have to show proof of work starting in March.

Some states have exemptions because of relatively high unemployment rates, either statewide or in certain regions, that let them delay implementation, but most of those have ended or will soon. California’s waiver is scheduled to be in place until January 2027. For most of New York, the work requirement is to start in March.

Roughly 42 million Americans make use of the SNAP program and receive $177 per month on average, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Debate Over New Policy

The new work requirements for ABAWDs have faced criticism.

In an Oct. 21 statement, the advocacy group National Skills Coalition argued that the measure undermines workers.

Such requirements punish people for “systemic barriers outside their control,” it said. Losing out on SNAP benefits can make it harder for people to focus on their training or show up to work.

“Moreover, enforcing work requirements places a heavy administrative burden on states and workers. Human services agencies must notify recipients of the new requirements, verify work hours, track compliance, and process exemptions. In each of these activities there is room for error that can have devastating consequences for workers,” the National Skills Coalition said.

The group called on states to expand access to skill-building programs that connect SNAP beneficiaries with training and other supportive services, calling it a “better path forward” than enforcing punitive work rules.

In a May 15 statement published at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services secretary; Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the CMS; Brooke Rollins, secretary of Agriculture; and Scott Turner, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said the need for work requirements is justified.

Over the past decade, millions of able-bodied adults have been added to the SNAP program. Some of them do not work at all or work inconsistently throughout the year, the officials wrote.

The higher share of welfare spending taken by able-bodied individuals of working age disrupts the true goal of programs like SNAP—to help people in need.

“For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout. But too many able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all,” they wrote.

“Establishing universal work requirements for able-bodied adults across the welfare programs we manage will prioritize the vulnerable, empower able-bodied individuals, help rebuild thriving communities and protect the taxpayers.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 18:40

Huge Verdict Could Destroy 'Gender Transition For Minors' Industry

Huge Verdict Could Destroy 'Gender Transition For Minors' Industry

A jury on Friday found a psychologist and a surgeon liable for malpractice after they convinced a 16-year-old girl to lop off her breasts. This marks the first medical malpractice case involving a detransitioner to reach a verdict - and it has huge implications. 

Fox Varian, who identified as transgender at the time, was awarded $2 million in damages - which includes $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. Now 22, Varian identifies as a woman. 

The January 30 decision at Westchester County Courthouse in White Plains, New York, found both Dr. Kenneth Einhorn, a psychologist, and Dr. Simon Chin, a surgeon, liable for failing to meet standards of care before performing irreversible surgery on Fox Varian, as they had skipped over important steps while evaluating whether she should move forward with the surgery, and failed to adequately communicate with each other in a "departure from the standard of care." 

In closing arguments, Varian's attorney Adam Deutsch asked the jury for $8 million in damages, citing Varian's reaction to seeing her post-surgical chest scars. 

"I immediately had a thought that this was wrong, and it couldn’t be true," she said, adding that the surgery left her with 'searing hot' nerve pain that were 'ripping sensations across my chest.'

"Shame. I felt shame," she added. "It’s hard to face that you are disfigured for life."

The case centered on a referral letter Einhorn sent Chin in October 2019, roughly two months before the procedure. Deutsch argued the letter contained inaccuracies and omissions that left the surgeon without a complete picture of Varian's psychological state.

Even more tragic is the way that Varian felt pressured into her decision and the doctors never figured it out.

Elon Musk referred to the doctors as "modern day Mengeles."

The Free Press reported last year, “gender doctors acknowledge they perform life-altering procedures on vulnerable youth with no supportive evidence—and they are proud of it.” One clinician even admitted, “We’re all just winging it, you know? And which is okay, you’re winging it too. But maybe we can just, like, wing it together.” 

The defense also claimed that Varian expressed no regret about the surgery until she filed her lawsuit in 2023. But Varian explained her earlier positive statements reflected cognitive dissonance as she tried to maintain a brave face despite inner turmoil.

Varian's mother, Claire Deacon, testified she opposed the surgery but consented because she feared her daughter would commit suicide without it. This is a common occurrence with young people suffering from gender dysphoria. In 2024, the New York Times reported how parents of confused children are often emotionally blackmailed into consenting to these procedures when doctors tell them ‘Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?’

Parents are routinely warned that to pursue any path outside of agreeing with a child’s self-declared gender identity is to put a gender dysphoric youth at risk for suicide, which feels to many people like emotional blackmail. Proponents of the gender-affirming model have cited studies showing an association between that standard of care and a lower risk of suicide. But those studies were found to have methodological flaws or have been deemed not entirely conclusive.

As the Epoch Times continues, Varian wept and hugged her mother and attorney following the verdict, which concluded a three-week civil trial at the state Supreme Court in Westchester County.

“A jury of everyday Americans sent a clear message: justice will be served for vulnerable individuals who were misled into gender-transition procedures without appropriate safeguards,” said Josh Payne of the firm Campbell Miller Payne, who was not involved in the case but was in court observing Friday’s proceedings. His firm was founded three years ago to represent plaintiffs in cases similar to Varian’s.

The decision came after the young woman regretted the 2019 surgery and sued psychologist Dr. Kenneth Einhorn, surgeon Dr. Simon Chin, and their respective employers.

The six-member jury was not asked whether gender-related surgical procedures are appropriate for minors. The question was whether the therapist and doctor took the appropriate steps before the surgery was performed.

Varian’s attorney argued the healthcare professionals did not correctly diagnose and treat her for gender dysphoria—distress and anguish caused by a mismatch between one’s physical sex and their internal perception of their gender.

Chin and Einhorn’s attorneys argued that Varian did not express regret for the surgery until years later, when she filed the suit in 2023. They noted that she told Einhorn, Chin, and her mother that she was “happy” with the results, and continued to live as either male or non-binary for years after the procedure.

Neil Kornfeld, who represented Einhorn, read from an essay Varian wrote 10 months after the surgery to back up their claim.

“It’s such an immense relief to wake up and not feel at odds with my body,” she said at that time. On the witness stand, Varian said such comments came from “cognitive dissonance” as she tried to put on a brave face about her inner turmoil.

In October 2019, Einhorn wrote a referral letter to Chin supporting Varian’s decision to have the chest surgery; she had first brought up the idea to him in March that same year. Varian’s attorneys said that since the letter contained some omissions and inaccuracies, Chin didn’t have a clear picture of his patient’s psychological history.

Trial evidence showed that Einhorn didn’t have the full picture either.

Before the surgery, Varian had told staff at the Albany Pride Center that she felt she “felt pressure to decide” on a male identity or a female identity “by family, friends, and culture.” She also said she continued to question her gender identity, but was afraid she might “lose credibility” if she brought it up with her mother.

Einhorn said he might not have written the letter had he known; Chin also testified that had he known Varian was unsure of her gender identity, he would not have performed the surgery.

Deutsch said Einhorn should have reached out to Albany Pride Center for records of her time there; he also said Chin and Einhorn should have communicated with each other, at least once, by phone call.

He began the trial by suggesting that Einhorn “drove the train” and had been “putting ideas in Fox’s head” during attempts to change her gender.

But defense attorneys argued that Varian, not Einhorn, had spurred decisions like using “he/him” pronouns, cutting her hair short, and changing her name from Isabelle to Gabriel, then Rowan, then Fox. They said the decision to wear a chest binder, and later the breast removal, were also her idea.

Deutsch, in his closing statements, said that was the problem, describing Einhorn’s attitude as “Whatever the kid wants, the kid gets.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 18:05

Mainstream Expectations: Hope Vs. Potential Risk

Mainstream Expectations: Hope Vs. Potential Risk

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Mainstream expectations, those from Wall Street, economists, and corporate strategists, have congealed around a bullish economic outlook for 2026. Most forecasts project stronger economic growth, with contained inflation, and continued investment in technology and capital expenditure. As such, many institutional investors interpret this as a year of opportunity for markets and corporate earnings.That was a point we discussed at this year’s Investment Summit with the following slide.

But it isn’t just earnings that are expected to rise, but due to productivity increases (AI = Less Employment) corporate profit margins are expected swell to historic records.

However, whenever I see Wall Street becoming universally bullish, the contrarian investor in me is always reminded of Bob Farrell’s Rule #9:

“When all experts agree, something else will happen.”

As I noted in that linked article:

“Excesses are built by everyone on the same side of the trade. Ultimately, when the shift in sentiment occurs – the reversion is exacerbated by the stampede going in the opposite direction.”

Yet the broader risk landscape is significant as consensus optimism obscures important vulnerabilities. When investors anchor on expected outcomes and overlook low‑probability but high‑impact risks, those risks become amplified. History shows that markets rarely transition smoothly from one year to the next without shocks to inflation, monetary policy, geopolitics, or credit conditions. For example, on January 1st, no one expected President Trump to slap additional tariffs on Europe over the potential purchase of Greenland.

But it happened.

So with that, let’s review mainstream expectations for 2026, and detail the “low probability, high impact risks,” that could derail the complacent expectations of investors.

US Economic Growth: Resilience or Fragile Expansion?

Mainstream Expectation: Most economists expect the US economy to grow above trend in 2026. Goldman Sachs forecasts U.S. GDP expanding about 2.6% year‑over‑year in 2026 compared to consensus estimates of roughly 2.0%. Their team sees above‑consensus growth and a strong rebound from 2025.

Other analysts and institutions, including PwC and RSM US, forecast similar growth in the 2.1% – 2.5% range, driven by consumer spending, corporate investment, and broader economic resilience.

Risk to That View: Growth forecasts assume stability in consumer demand, labor markets, and capital spending. But several risks could undermine this:

  • Labor market fragility: Employment growth has slowed sharply in late 2025, and with a declining working‑age population due to lower immigration, net job creation may stay weak. Early data shows average monthly employment growth collapsing to levels historically consistent with labor market stress.

  • Tariff and trade uncertainty: The recent threat of higher tariffs on Europe, and continued trade tensions that emerged in 2025, introduce volatility in production and pricing in supply chains. Increased tariffs across major trading partners historically correlate with lower output.

  • Global headwinds: The World Bank warns that while global growth remains resilient, fading dynamism and policy uncertainty could reduce demand for U.S. exports.

Our view is that the most critical risk on 2026 is further weakness in the labor market or trade disruptions worsen which could cause growth to fall short of expectations.

Inflation and Monetary Policy: Tame or Sticky?

Mainstream Expectation: Consensus forecasts generally expect inflation to moderate through 2026, with core measures heading toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Goldman Sachs projects core inflation close to 2.1% by the end of 2026.

Some money managers expect the Fed to cut rates one or two times in 2026, assuming inflation continues its downward trend and consumer spending remains resilient.

Risk to That View: Given that inflation is a function of economic supply and demand, a “run it hot economy” could keep inflation “sticky” or slightly higher.

  • Sticky core inflation: Some forecasts warn that core inflation may stay above target due to tariff pass‑through, wage pressures, or service inflation. Vanguard’s model suggests core inflation could remain above 2.5% if tariffs and labor tightness persist.

  • Monetary policy divergence: J.P. Morgan’s economist predicts the Fed may actually hold rates steady or even raise them in 2027, due to sticky inflation and labor market strength despite market expectations for cuts.

  • Fed independence risks: Intensified concerns over central bank autonomy could cause further disruptions and uncertainty over future monetary policy direction.

If inflation proves more persistent than expected or if policy credibility erodes, interest rates may stay elevated weighing on valuations and economic activity.

AI and Corporate Investment: Growth Catalyst or Market Excess?

Mainstream Expectation: Most forecasts see continued strong investment in artificial intelligence and related infrastructure as a driver of both corporate capex and productivity. Most analysts highlight AI’s role in lifting corporate spending and supporting economic expansion.

U.S. corporate bond issuance is also projected to surge, much of it to fund AI data centers, advanced computing infrastructure, and next‑generation platforms.

Risk to That View: The growth from AI investment is uneven and concentrated:

  • Concentration of benefits: A relatively small group of mega‑cap firms capture most of the AI investment gains, which can create sector concentration risk in markets and overstate the breadth of economic benefit.

  • Corporate debt buildup: Higher bond issuance tied to capex, especially for large tech projects, increases leverage risk, especially if growth slows or credit markets retrench.

  • Market pricing risk: A strong investment narrative can inflate asset prices beyond fundamentals, meaning corrections may be abrupt if earnings disappoint.

AI spending is real, but it is not a universal engine for all sectors. Most critically, the overreliance on it for aggregate growth forecasts underestimates broader economic weak spots.

Consumer Spending: Supported or Overstated?

Mainstream Expectation: Analysts expect consumer resilience to remain a backbone of 2026 growth. Strong household balance sheets, robust savings for certain income groups, and wage gains support consumption forecasts. These assumptions pervade GDP models showing above‑trend expansion.

Risk to That View: Consumer dynamics can shift suddenly:

  • Wealth inequality in consumption: Wealth effects are most pronounced among higher‑income households. Median consumers without significant asset holdings may reduce spending if jobs or real income weaken.
  • Debt and credit stress: Higher interest rates increase borrowing costs for households which could depress discretionary spending.

Consumer spending may remain resilient on average, but broad‑based weakness could emerge quietly before appearing in headline data.

The Dollar and Foreign Exchange: Weakening or Volatile?

Mainstream Expectation: Many strategists anticipate a modest depreciation of the U.S. dollar in 2026. As such, a weaker dollar would boosts export competitiveness and corporate earnings abroad.

Risk to That View: Currency markets are driven by relative risk and capital flows, not just growth differentials:

  • Growth risk: Stronger economic growth will attract foreign inflows into dollar-denominated assets for higher yields and relative safety.

  • Safe‑haven demand: In times of geopolitical tension or financial stress, the dollar strengthens due to its liquidity and safety. Such would potentially hurt U.S. export competitiveness.

A dollar that strengthens through risk aversion or economic growth would undercut the export growth assumptions embedded in current forecasts.

Tax Policy and Fiscal Stimulus: The Reflation Narrative

Mainstream Expectation: New tax measures, including expanded investment credits and incentives, are expected to boost consumer incomes and corporate spending in 2026. Forecasts incorporate these fiscal tailwinds into growth and profitability models.

Risk to That View: Tax benefits often provide short‑lived effects:

  • Timing and bias: Households may smooth additional tax savings into future consumption rather than immediately spend them. Corporations might repatriate savings or use them for share repurchases rather than investing.

  • Dependence Risk: The outlook for increased capex, spending, and earnings are all dependent on economic growth strengthening into 2026. However, as discussed, there are many risks to that view.

Tax incentives are supportive, but they should be viewed as marginal boosts rather than transformational drivers of long‑term growth.

Portfolio Tactics for Investors in 2026

The purpose of this article is not to suggests that Wall Street analysts, and market participants, are wrong. The purpose is to suggest there are risks to investor portfolios when “everyone is bullish on everything all at once.”

Therefore, given the range of possible outcomes, investors should employ adaptive, risk‑aware strategies. Rather than assuming a base‑case forecast will materialize, use portfolio tactics to help navigate uncertainty:

  • Diversification Beyond Tech and Growth: Hold a mix of sectors including value, energy, and financials to reduce concentration risk. Consider allocations to fixed income to offset volatility risks.

  • Inflation and Rate Risk Hedging: Maintain allocations to short‑duration bonds to reduce sensitivity to potential rate volatility.

  • Dollar and Currency Exposure Management: Hedge currency risk for international holdings. A stronger dollar could undermine international growth outlooks.

  • Energy and Commodity Positions: Commodities are subject to economic growth. If growth slows, commodities become a higher risk asset.

  • Quality and Balance Sheet Strength: Tilt toward companies with strong balance sheets and stable free cash flow to weather cyclical shocks. Favor dividends and cash returns in uncertain environments.

  • Liquidity Reserves: Maintain higher levels of cash or cash equivalents to capitalize on market dislocations. Liquid reserves provide flexibility should growth disappoint.

  • Tactical Hedging Strategies: Use options or inverse instruments selectively to protect portfolios against sharp downturns. Volatility may rise unpredictably; structured hedges can provide protection without full market timing.

  • Monitoring Macro Signals Actively: Track inflation metrics, labor market data, and Fed communications closely. Be ready to adjust strategies in response to shifts in inflation, policy, or geopolitical developments.

The mainstream outlook for 2026 is cautiously optimistic, grounded in forecasts of steady growth, stable inflation, and continued technology‑led investment. Those expectations are reasonable as base cases. However, investors should not mistake forecasts for outcomes. Each major economic assumption carries material risks. Persistent inflation, monetary policy uncertainty, geopolitical shocks, and uneven growth dynamics could all lead to outcomes well outside consensus expectations.

Prudent investors will build portfolios that protect capital first, anticipate volatility, and adapt rapidly to changing economic realities. The probability distribution of 2026 outcomes is wide, and mistakes can be costly when “all the experts agree.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 17:30

Palmer Luckey One-Shots Jason Calacanis Over Epstein Ties

Palmer Luckey One-Shots Jason Calacanis Over Epstein Ties

The beef between Anduril founder Palmer Luckey and Silicon Valley angel investor Jason Calacanis goes back nearly a decade - when Calacanis joined a media circus slamming Luckey for a $10,000 donation to a pro-Trump group in 2016. The donation sparked widespread backlash among Silicon Valley's liberal elite, and resulted in calls to boycott Luckey's Oculus VR (which he founded and sold to Facebook in 2014 for $2 billion), along with his eventual ouster from Facebook.

Image: Peter H. Diamandis

In 2022, Luckey confronted Calacanis - co-host of the 'All-In' podcast, at the VC's own event over what he characterized as "NPC thinking" (non-playable characters, aka idiots who follow their party's 'current thing').

Last year, Luckey said, "Jason just lies to his followers whenever he feels embarrassed, always blocking replies from anyone who doesn't give him money. For example, accusing my cofounder of photoshopping his fat mug - in reality, it is a screenshot from his CNBC interview!"

In August, 2022, two months after Luckey smoked him at the All-In event, Jason attempted to mend fences after Anduril started landing government contracts, writing "I'm grateful we have Palmer making our weapons now - we need hard-core dudes like him to keep the CCP in check" followed by flexing arm + in love emojis.

Luckey told him to "Go fuck yourself and all the other clout-chasing leeches and liars who pretend sucking my dick post-Ukraine absolves treating me like shit for years."

h/t C2

Indeud... 

Epstein and Calacanis

While Calacanis was busy taking potshots at Luckey for supporting Trump, it turns out he had a longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein - having first met in the 1990s while trying to fundraise for a dot-com magazine, Silicon Alley Reporter. The two met at Epstein's New York townhouse for a discussion allegedly lasting around 30 minutes according to Calacanis. 

Epstein offered some advice; 'think bigger.' 

"He gave me some advice at his townhouse once when I was raising money for the magazine," Calacanis told fa-mag. "He thought I should think bigger." 

Following Epstein's July 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges, Calacanis reiterated that his contact was confined to the 1990s fundraising meeting, and denied ever flying on Epstein's plane, visiting pedo island (Little St. James), or attending parties. 

Calacanis notably appears in Epstein's 'black book' - despite insisting the two had limited contact.

Hey Pal...

Turns out, not quite... A Friday release of 3 million Epstein files reveals that Calacanis introduced Epstein to early Bitcoin developers Gavin Andresen (a key contributor to Bitcoin's core software) and Amir Taaki (an open-source advocate involved in Bitcoin and related projects) in 2011.

Via DOJ

In his initial email to Epstein, Calacanis addresses Epstein casually, writing "hey pal," and mentions he's "running out to a kids birthday party," but will "dig up their info" on Andresen and Taaki, who he describes as "crazy open source folks" who are "motivated by the same things as wikileaks."

Calacanis offers to facilitate connections, noting he had recently featured them on his podcast or show.

The exchange continues, with Epstein eventually emailing Andresen directly.

"Calacanis offers to facilitate connections, noting he had recently featured them on his podcast or show."

Luckey Lays it Out

Palmer took to X following the email release to call out Calacanis over the revelations. 

Man starts VR company, donates to Trump: "Total moron, no moral compass!"

Man rapes children: "hey pal!"

See below;

And of course...

And that....'s the rest of the story. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 16:55

Iranians Seal Windows & Store Food, Water As They Prepare For Attack

Iranians Seal Windows & Store Food, Water As They Prepare For Attack

Via Middle East Eye

As night fell on Friday, a tense sense of dread settled over Iranians at home and abroad, with rumors of an imminent US military strike took hold across Iran.

"I kept waiting for it to hit. I couldn't sleep until morning. I was waking up and straining to hear any sound of explosions. Let's see what happens tonight," Milad*, a 43-year-old engineer living in the capital Tehran, said about that night. Shohreh, a 68-year-old woman, goes to a park near her home in east Tehran every morning for group exercise. When she returned home on the morning of 31 January, she said, "Today, all my friends were saying that it would hit tonight."

Shohreh, who opposes a foreign attack on Iran, said people seemed to be losing their minds. "They think that if the US strikes, everything will be fine," she said. "Because of the killings committed by the Islamic Republic, people are becoming desperate. They no longer know what is in their interest and what is against them."

Iranians wait for minibuses after arriving at the Razi-Kapikoy border crossing in north-eastern Turkey on January 31, 2026 (AFP)

For the past week, as Washington has once again beaten the drum of war against Iran, the prospect of conflict has become a real and present fear for Iranians. The movement of a large US military fleet to the Middle East has not only triggered a new multibillion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia and Israel; for Iranians, it has brought confusion, psychological pressure, and fear of a disastrous future.

Iranians are still in shock following the establishment's bloody crackdown on protests that erupted on December 28 in Tehran's bazaar over the economic crisis and quickly spread to cities across the country.

According to government sources, 3,117 people, mostly security forces, were killed in the crackdown. However, human rights groups outside Iran believe the number is much higher, with some putting it at more than 6,500 people, the majority of them civilians. No international fact-finding mission has yet been established to verify the figures.

'Seal the windows'

Arzoo, a 32-year-old government employee opposed to the establishment, described a quiet anxiety among people. Many avoid talking about the deadliest aspects of war, which are all too familiar after last summer's brutal war with Israel, and try to stay calm. But everyone is waiting for the first explosion.

"My neighbour across the street, in the building where I live, has sealed his windows," Arzoo told Middle East Eye. "He said, 'Seal the windows. When they bomb, there will be no difference between the regime and the opposition.'"

Beneath the fragile calm that Iranian society clings to, perhaps as a way to manage its own mental strain, lurks a persistent question: what to do when war begins? Social media, which became accessible again after a three-week internet blackout during the crackdown on protests, is now filled with advice on how to survive missile attacks and bombs.

The list of precautions is long: stock enough food and water for 10 days; keep a first-aid kit within reach; place identification and essential documents in a bag for quick evacuation; keep emergency exits clear; move to open spaces at the sound of an explosion; lie on the ground next to a wall. Dozens of similar tips circulate on Persian-language platforms.

The sources of much of this advice are unclear. It is also unknown whether the same bots active during the June Israeli-US strikes – promoting Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed Shah – are behind it. Whoever is behind these posts has an evident impact.

Arzoo said she has seen the messages and has stored "10 bottles of drinking water and a few cans of food at home, just in case".

Amin, a 75-year-old retiree with kidney disease, said he bought a three-month supply of medication last week and is keeping it at home. "Some of this advice may be media manipulation," he said, "but I bought my essentials anyway, out of caution. No one knows what will happen tomorrow."

Amin, who lived through the eight-year Iran-Iraq war and last year's 12-day war, said he is deeply saddened to see his country on the brink of another war.

A leftist activist who has opposed the theocratic rulers since the 1979 revolution, he said: "This regime executed my closest comrades after the revolution and is now killing our children. I have no sympathy for it. But I also hate war. War will destroy everything left for us."

These fears and preparations are not limited to those inside Iran. They are shared by the Iranian diaspora, estimated at around four million people. Many fear another nationwide internet blackout, like those during the 12-day war and last month's crackdown, that would disconnect them from their loved ones. They also fear for the lives of their families.

Fatemeh, who lives in Finland with her husband and son, worries about her elderly parents in Tehran. During the war with Israel, her parents could not leave the city because they had no access to transportation. 

"I asked my parents to leave Tehran before a new war started," Fatemeh said. "They answered they wouldn't go anywhere. They said they had nowhere to go, which is true. That's why I asked a close friend to visit them and buy basic supplies and medicines during these days."

'A fool like Donald Trump'

Across Iran, cities remain calm, at least for now. There are no long lines at gas stations. Shops are open. People are going to work as usual. Early in the morning, schoolchildren wait outside their homes for the school bus.

Still, the sense of alarm is widespread. Soroush, a 27-year-old student, moved with his family to a city in northern Iran during the war to escape Israeli missiles. He said while the panic of that period is no longer visible, the fear of another war runs through everyday conversations.

"The vibe is not like the collective panic of the 12-day war," he said. "It feels like people are mentally prepared. Before the Israeli attack, we had no idea what war would look like. Now we have an image in front of us. We know what we will face."

Soroush feels that the lives of Iranians have turned into a game for the country's leaders and for Western powers. He points to the betting website Polymarket, where many have bet thousands of dollars on a US strike on the night of 31 January. 

"Our lives and our deaths have become entertainment," he said. "A game for others."

Saba, 41, spoke of her fear for the future of her eight-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son. She also described her frustration with the government's repression, the self-interest of opposition figures abroad, and the US warmongering.

"What a miserable people we are," she said. "Our rulers massacre people in the streets. Reza Pahlavi has become the face of our opposition abroad. And our enemy is a fool like Donald Trump."

*Names have been changed for security reasons.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 16:20

Latest Epstein Release Catches Goldman's Top Lawyer In Massive Lie

Latest Epstein Release Catches Goldman's Top Lawyer In Massive Lie

Earlier this month the Wall Street Journal reported that there was an internal debate at Goldman Sachs over whether to get rid of General Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler over her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. 

Kathryn Ruemmler, Jeffrey Epstein

Ruemmler, a former White House attorney for Obama, told Goldman execs when they hired her in April 2020 that the relationship was purely professional - yet it would later become public that she not only met with Epstein dozens of times and exchanged friendly emails for years, she was listed as an executor of Epstein's will as recently as Jan. 18, 2019 - which had been removed before he died in prison on Aug. 10 of that year.

She also denied having ever helped Epstein with PR, telling the outlet "I did not advocate on his behalf to any third party—not to a court, not to the press, not to the government."

Turns out that was a total lie. 

On Friday, the DOJ released over 3 million pages of Epstein documents, including one in which Ruemmler was helping draft statements to help Epstein counter claims that he got a "sweetheart deal" when he was allowed to plead guilty to minor charges in a 2007-2008 sex trafficking case involving dozens of underage girls. 

We also found out that their relationship was far from 'purely professional' - as the Washington Free Beacon reported Friday that Epstein showered her with luxury gifts - including a $9,400 Hermes handbag, a Hermes-branded Apple watch, and a spa treatment package at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington DC. 

The documents released Friday show otherwise. In emails ranging from 2014 to 2019, Ruemmler routinely corresponded with Epstein's associates to accept gifts or express her gratitude to Epstein. In some cases, she asked for specific items.

The priciest gift likely came in August 2016, when Epstein purchased Ruemmler a $9,400 handbag from the French luxury brand Hermes. Epstein took a particular interest in ensuring Ruemmler received the bag, directing one of his associates, Lesley Groff, to "confirm receipt with Kathy" and "follow up to make sure it happens." When Ruemmler received the bag, she wrote to Groff, "OH MY GOD!!!!! He is in so much trouble!!!! I am dying. It is so beautiful," as Groff relayed to Epstein. Used versions of the same bag—a Jypsiere 31—now sell for around $5,000.

The bag:

The emails:

 

Two years later, Epstein styled Ruemmler with the Hermes edition of the Apple Watch - which retails for $1,300. In response, she said the gift was "so sweet of Jeffrey!" 

"If truly okay with him to do the Hermes, I would love the 40 mm, stainless Hermes with bleu indigo swift leather double tour," she wrote at the time. "I'll wear that one every day, whereas the sportier ones I would likely only wear on weekends or when exercising, etc."

As for the spa treatment, Epstein booked a "full half day" at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown in August 2016 - writing to an associate "she won her case and needs some pampering," to which an associate replied "Kathy will go either today or tomorrow she says…"

The Free Beacon reports further:

Epstein appeared to provide other gifts of unknown value to Ruemmler. In December 2014, an Epstein associate emailed Ruemmler to inform her that Epstein planned to send his housekeeper to "deliver your ring to you!!" In February 2019, an Epstein associate sent a reminder email to an unidentified individual reading, "Reminder: Bottle of wine and note card to be delivered to Ruemmler today. Let me know once it has been delivered so I can tell Jeffrey."

Months after that email, Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and charged with sex trafficking minors. 

After graduaating from Georgetown University Law Center, Ruemmler served in the Obama White House from 2011-2014, after which she returned to law firm Latham and Watkins. She joined Goldman in 2020 as a partner, and became chief legal officer and general counsel in 2021 - where she also advises CEO David Solomon. 

After an April 2023 report in the Journal detailing the more extensive connections between Ruemmler and Epstein - including how the two had "met dozens of times, that Epstein had visited apartments she was considering buying and that he offered assistance with her travel planning," including a 2017 plan to take her to 'pedo island,' bankers complained to senior management - pointing out that she had a role on the firm's reputational risk committee. The bankers were essentially told to stand down. 

Will Goldman continue to stand behind their Epstein gal-pal top lawyer?

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 15:45

Seattle Mayor Directs Police To Track And Document ICE Enforcement Activities

Seattle Mayor Directs Police To Track And Document ICE Enforcement Activities

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Seattle Mayor Katie B. Wilson announced a series of steps on Jan. 30 in response to a potential surge in federal immigration enforcement, directing local police to track and document activities by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and barring agents from city property to conduct operations.

The moves made by Wilson, a democratic socialist, comes amid heightened Democratic pushback against federal immigration enforcement actions after the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Wilson’s measures include an executive order banning ICE from using city-owned properties for civil immigration actions, mandatory training for city employees on how to report and respond to enforcement activity, and quickly investing $4 million in funding for legal defense and community support for illegal immigrants.

The mayor noted that the city does not have information indicating a surge in federal immigration enforcement activity.

Wilson also encouraged the Seattle School District and the Seattle Municipal Court to prohibit ICE agents from conducting operations on their property.

The directive requires the Seattle Police Department to investigate reports of immigration enforcement, verify agents’ identities, and record activities using body cameras and in-car video. Officers must secure scenes of potential unlawful acts for evidence collection, though the city emphasized police will not participate in deportations.

The Seattle Police Officers Guild pushed back on the mayor’s measures, saying, “The concept of pitting two armed law enforcement agencies against each other is ludicrous, and will not happen.”

“I will not let [Seattle Police Officers Guild] members be used as political pawns,” Mike Solan, president of the guild, said in a statement.

The mayor’s directive also establishes the Stand Together Seattle Initiative, which encourages private property owners to post signs on their property stating ICE agents may not enter without a warrant.

Seattle is a self-proclaimed sanctuary city, meaning it limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities. A federal judge last year blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funds from such cities, including Seattle, after the administration threatened funding cuts over non-compliance.

Similar rulings have curbed attempts to end humanitarian parole for thousands of illegal immigrants. A federal judge in Boston in January blocked the Trump administration from terminating the legal status of more than 8,400 family members of U.S. citizens and green card holders.

The Trump administration has ramped up deportations, budgeting $170 billion for immigration agencies through 2029 and authorizing arrests at courthouses in cities like Seattle.

After the shooting of Pretti in Minneapolis, President Donald Trump deployed border czar Tom Homan to oversee immigration operations in the city. Homan said on Jan. 29 that the adminstration will draw down agents in the area when local authorites fulfill committments to cooperate with federal authorities.

Federal authorities, Homan, said, will focus on targeted immigration operations in the city, prioritizing criminal illegal immigrants.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not return a request for comment by publication time.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 15:10

Putin Envoy Dmitriev Back In Miami For Talks, Which Seem To Be Going Nowhere

Putin Envoy Dmitriev Back In Miami For Talks, Which Seem To Be Going Nowhere

President Putin's special envoy Kirill Dmitriev has arrived in Miami this weekend where he held another round of talks with an American delegation. The discussions started early Saturday morning, after Dmitriev confirmed his arrival, writing on social media simply, "Back in Miami".

The talks follow a round of meetings held on January 23-24 in Abu Dhabi involving the United States, Ukraine, and Russia. Media reports said those discussions produced "progress" on military-related issues, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky describing them as constructive. But were they really?

via Reuters

Apart from such expressions of limited optimism, there's been no serious advancement of peace in any tangible or measurable way, and on issues which matter as 'red lines' to either side.

For example, territorial concessions are still a sticking point for Moscow, but Ukraine and its Western backers have not budged their position on this.

Axios has meanwhile reported that the trilateral talks in the United Arab Emirates are expected to continue on Sunday, adding that meetings in Abu Dhabi also included a bilateral Ukraine-Russia format conducted without US participation.

The fact that the warring sides actually have representatives sitting across the table from one another can itself be seen as progress in some sense.

Meanwhile, according to some recent analysis in The Washington Post which furthers the theme that Trump has actually seeking to wash his hands of the Ukraine conflict and its mediation:

President Donald Trump “sometimes talks as if he agrees with Vladimir Putin that Russian victory in this bloodbath [in Ukraine] is inevitable,” according to David Ignatius’s column in The Washington Post. However, Ignatius’ conversations in Kyiv with Ukraine’s senior officials convinced him that “this bleak picture is misleading.”

“Ukraine will soon deploy a new generation of domestically produced air-defense interceptors, powered by artificial intelligence, that could allow the country to fight on indefinitely,” Ignatius writes. “Putin doesn’t want to make concessions because he still thinks he can win. But Ukraine’s new network of AI-driven air defenses will make that less likely. If Ukraine can protect the civilians on Kyiv’s frozen streets—and reassure them that they won’t face another winter in the deep freeze, even if the war continues—perhaps Putin will reconsider his bet,” according to Ignatius.

And so the grinding war of attrition looks to endure for the time being, and by close of 2026 we could still be seeing the exact same headlines, and empty statements of 'progress' at the negotiating table.

One question which remains is whether Zelensky will still be in power by next year. Trump has put pressure for Kiev to hold elections, but in the last couple weeks seems to have backed off keeping up the public pressure.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 14:35

Bitcoin Crashes To Nov 2024 Lows Amid $1.5 Billion In Levered Liquidations

Bitcoin Crashes To Nov 2024 Lows Amid $1.5 Billion In Levered Liquidations

In an otherwise quiet session - as one would expect for a Saturday, certainly the algos would - starting early this morning there has been concerted pressure to sell into the bitcoin spot price following yesterday's Warsh-inspired rout which repriced bitcoin from 88K to 84K, pressure which grew into a liquidation firehose just after 9am ET and especially at noon, when we saw massive algo-driven volumes hitting the bid.

The selling has pushed Bitcoin as low as $74,000 (it was almost at $100K last week), and is at the lowest price since Trump became president (the April 2025 liberation day low of $74k was just taken out).

The selloff has liquidated over $110 billion from the crypto market’s total value in the past 24 hours. 

While algos were the initial spark that prompted the selling, the target - as usual - were heavily levered longs: in the past 4 hours more than $1.5 billion in levered positions, mostly longs, were liquidated according to CoinGlass. For reference, on October 10, aka "Black Friday", about $19 billion in crypto leverage was liquidated.

The liquidations have been spread between both bitcoin and ether...

... with bitcoin fast approaching the most oversold on record.

Which doesn't mean that it can't be even more oversold: after all, the market is now convinced that Kevin Warsh will hike rates as soon as he can, which is why we warned that appointing Warsh would collapse Trump's crypto empire on very short notice.

That's precisely what is happening right now. 

The latest crash in a long series, adds to weeks of disappointment for Bitcoin, which has failed to respond to a series of market developments that previously would have supported the asset. The dollar weakened for much of January, but the move did little to lift sentiment in crypto markets; if anything bitcoin slumped alongside the dollar. Likewise, Bitcoin offered no meaningful response during gold’s rally to record highs, nor has it attracted inflows in the wake of gold and silver’s sharp reversal on Friday. 

Most notably, after tracking global liquidity injections by central banks for much of the past two years, bitcoin has become the only assets the drops the most liquidity central banks inject.

The big question now is that bitcoin briefly fell as low as $75K (and will likely revisit), what happens to Strategy's massive stash of 712.6 bitcoins which was acquired at an average price of $76,037: will Michael Saylor be forced to start selling?

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 14:03

Federal Judge Refuses To Block Trump's ICE Surge In Minnesota

Federal Judge Refuses To Block Trump's ICE Surge In Minnesota

Authored by Jacob Burg and Troy Mayers via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Jan. 31 denied Minnesota’s emergency request to block the Trump administration’s deployment of thousands of federal agents to the Twin Cities in a large-scale immigration enforcement operation.

In her ruling Saturday morning, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez wrote that the “Court must view Plaintiffs’ claims through the lens of the specific legal framework they invoke, and, having done so, finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden... the motion is denied.”

She heard arguments from both the Department of Justice and attorneys representing Minnesota and its Twin Cities earlier this week, appearing somewhat skeptical of the district court’s authority over the separation of powers arguments the plaintiffs were advancing.

However, Menendez also probed the Justice Department’s intentions with Operation Metro Surge, the federal government’s deployment of more than 4,000 federal agents to Minnesota’s Twin Cities, and whether the Trump administration violated the 10th Amendment’s “anti-commandeering doctrine.”

That aspect of the 10th Amendment blocks the federal government from forcing state legislatures to pass laws or requiring state officials to administer a federal regulatory program.

Plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration’s actions amounted to a violation of Minnesota’s state sovereignty.

Minneapolis city attorney Brian Carter suggested that a letter Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, was meant to coerce the state into ending its so-called “sanctuary” policies at the threat of continued deployment of federal agents.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to apply the 10th Amendment to block the Trump administration from “coercing the state into legislating” or using state resources to enact a “federal regulatory scheme,” Carter said.

In her letter, Bondi said Minnesota has “refused to enforce the law” and demanded that Walz “restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota,” share state data on Medicaid and food stamps programs, repeal state sanctuary policies, and hand over state voter rolls to the Justice Department.

The Justice Department said in court that the state laws in question, which the Trump administration argues shield illegal immigrants from detention and deportation, violate federal law.

Department of Justice attorney Brantley Mayers argued that if a state made drug trafficking legal, against the federal government’s drug statutes, it wouldn’t amount to a 10th Amendment violation if the “federal government responded by increasing the amount of boots on the ground.”

However, Menendez pressed the Justice Department on Bondi’s letter and asked how it’s not indicative of a “quid pro quo” agreement that would directly violate the 10th Amendment’s “anti-commandeering doctrine.”

The judge said that throughout the 10th Amendment cases discussed between plaintiffs and defendants, there’s “no question” that they amount to situations where the federal government tells a state it must do something specific to receive a grant or funding. She said in the current situation, the executive action may be “in the street” rather than on paper, but that doesn’t “put it beyond the reach of consideration.”

“Let’s imagine that Attorney General Bondi said, ‘We are here until you change your policies.’ Wouldn’t that violate the anti-commandeering principle?” Menendez asked.

Mayers said “not necessarily,” arguing that the “vacuum of federal law enforcement” from Minnesota’s policies has led to the “need for federal law enforcement” and suggested that does not create an “anti-commandeering problem from the outset” when the Trump administration announced the deployment.

Plaintiffs said a temporary restraining order blocking the president’s Operation Metro Surge was necessary to calm tensions in the streets between residents and federal agents, which reached an inflection point on Jan. 24 after a Border Patrol officer fatally shot a protester just weeks after a driver was shot and killed. Federal authorities have said the officers acted in self-defense.

“I think that this weekend demonstrated, in a terrifying way, that the current situation is absolutely untenable,” Minneapolis city attorney Sara Lathrop said.

“We do not deny that these are serious questions. These are difficult questions, but the relief that we need needs to be now in order to take down the temperature and allow those important questions to be answered.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 14:00

The US Economy In A Nutshell: A Few Winners, Everyone Else Loses Ground

The US Economy In A Nutshell: A Few Winners, Everyone Else Loses Ground

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Maybe this arrangement isn't as stable and sustainable as the winners imagine.

Here's the US economy in a nutshell: corporate/state concentrations of financial, market and political power are the winners, and everyone outside these fortresses is losing ground. The Wall Street Journal is generally viewed as pro-business, and so it's particularly striking when the WSJ published this:

The Economic Divide Between Big and Small Companies Is Growing: Economic fortunes of low- and high-income Americans are diverging--same pattern happening with companies. (WSJ.com)

--The growing divide between the fortunes of small and large businesses mirrors the divide that has emerged over the past year between low-income Americans and their high-income counterparts.

--Large, publicly traded companies in the S&P 500 saw net income increase by 12.9% in the third quarter, contrasting with faltering small-business profits.

--Small businesses are facing economic headwinds, including high inflation and cautious consumers, leading to job cuts; 120,000 jobs were shed in November.

In other words, the small circle of winners and the larger circle of those losing ground describes both households and enterprises: small businesses--lacking the concentrated financial / political power to exercise monopoly-cartel control of their market and protect their fiefdom by buying political influence--are in steep decline--and this is in "good times," i.e. the economy is expanding, not contracting in a recession.

As in the household sector, the winners are doing splendidly while everyone else loses ground. The media--controlled by the winners, of course--tout the winners as if they're the norm rather than the outliers in a winner take most economy.

The quasi-monopolies and cartels of Corporate America reign supreme: trillion-dollar valuations, soaring profits, unmatched political and market control. Small business, whose interests are diffuse and widely distributed, are reduced to tax donkeys struggling to pay soaring rent, wages, utilities and overhead costs without the market muscle of monopolies / cartels to force consumers to pay higher prices for degraded goods and services.

The top 10% of households are also doing extremely well, accounting for fully half of all consumer spending as their earnings, passive investment income and assets all bubble higher.

A few of these top earning households are blue-collar households with workers earning top pay due to scarcity of their skillsets, but most are working in the state / corporate sectors with the power to pay high wages and benefits regardless of what's happening to the bottom 90%.

While large corporations are adding employees, small businesses are shedding employees to survive.

Wage growth mirrors this asymmetric distribution: the post-pandemic stimulus trillions that boosted the mid and lower income workforce has reversed while wages for the top tier are rising.

The point here is that entities with financial, market and political power don't need a thriving bottom 90% to increase their dominance. They have no real need to care what's happening to the bottom 90%, as they can extract higher taxes, rents, subscriptions and prices while degrading the goods and services they provide because an economy dominated by monopolies and cartels is a TINA Economy: there is no alternative, as the world outside the monopolies and cartels is a barren landscape stripped of the functionality required to participate in the economy.

We're constantly assured an economy where the gains follow an extraordinarily asymmetric power-law distribution is a wondrous engine of sustainable growth that benefits everyone, but the facts don't support this fairy-tale PR promoted by the winners to placate those losing ground.

Maybe this arrangement isn't as stable and sustainable as the winners imagine.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free) Check out my updated Books and Films. Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free
 

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 12:50

Activist Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Trump EO On Verifying Citizenship To Vote

Activist Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Trump EO On Verifying Citizenship To Vote

A federal judge on Friday blocked key provisions of President Trump's executive order that requires proof of US citizenship for voter registration. 

Signed on March 25, Executive Order 14248 directs the Election Assistance Commission to require in its national mail voter registration form that voters provide documentary proof of US citizenship, such as a passport. The order also directs federal officials to take measures to prevent illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from voting in federal elections. 

The commission, established by Congress in 2002, helps local officials administer elections. 

On Friday, 82-year-old US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton) - who was previously presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - ruled that provisions requiring citizenship verification "are inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers and cannot lawfully be implemented."

Kollar-Kotelly said that the US Constitution "does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures," insisting that the framers gave power over election rules "to the parts of our government that they believed would be most responsive to the will of the people: first to the States, and then, in some instances, to Congress."

"They assigned no role at all to the President," she added. 

She also struck down part of the executive order directing heads of various federal agencies to "assess citizenship" before giving the federal form to "enrollees of public assistance programs," adding that the National Voter Registration Act requires agencies to give said form to those receiving their services. 

The preliminary ruling applies to three separate lawsuits brought by plaintiffs; League of United Latin American Citizens, League of Women Voters Education Fund, and the Democratic Party.

About That Judge... Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Judge Kollar-Kotelly is an unabashed left-wing, pro-surveillance state, anti 2A activist. Her father worked in US foreign assistance programs in Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela in the 1950s. In 2004, she issued a FISA court order allowing the NSA to continue spying on domestic metadata. In 2009 she issued a ruling blocking visitors to national parks from carrying concealed weapons, and in 2016 she denied a preliminary injunction against Washington DC's ban on concealed carry permits. In 2017, she blocked the enforcement of Trump's ban on transgenders in the military.

In 2024, Kollar-Kotelly sentenced a woman to 57 months in prison and three years of supervised released under the FACE Act for blocking access to an abortion clinic, and sentenced another woman (Paula Harlow) to two years in federal prison and 36 months of supervised release for the same thing. She also found a J6 protester, Dominic Box, guilty on six charges. Box was pardoned by Trump before he could be sentenced. 

Kollar-Kotelly notably criticized Trump over blanket pardons for those involved in the January 6th incident. 

More recently, she issued an order blocking the IRS from sharing taxpayer information with ICE.

Tyler Durden Sat, 01/31/2026 - 12:15

Pages