Trump Kicking BRICS Out Of The Americas

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the U.S. dollar has dominated global finance as the chief reserve currency. It’s used in international trade, sovereign lending, and central bank reserves.

This dominance allows the United States to borrow cheaply and wield great financial leverage globally.

Recent actions by the Trump administration, sometimes labeled a neo-Monroe Doctrine for its assertive posture toward perceived rivals, can be understood through the lens of preserving dollar supremacy against challenges from rising powers like China and Russia.

The Rise of De-dollarization

Though the dollar remains dominant, its grip has been weakening over decades. According to IMF and central bank data, the dollar’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves has fallen from over 70 percent in 2000 to under 60 percent in recent years; this reflects broader moves by countries to diversify away from U.S. currency dependence. At the same time, China’s share has increased substantially.

Meanwhile, states are increasingly engaging in de-dollarization, which means reducing the use of the dollar in international trade and reserves. This trend is driven in part by a desire to decrease exposure to U.S. monetary policy and sanctions, including increased tariffs and unilateral economic measures against trading partners and adversaries.

BRICS: Geopolitics, Gold, and a Potential Currency Challenge

The group of emerging economies known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has been the focal point of rivalry to dollar hegemony. At various summits, the idea of a BRICS currency or common alternative currency, which have included the notion of backing it with gold as a means of anchoring value and appealing to nations wary of fiat currencies that, by definition, have no gold backing their value, but rather, convention, oil trade flows, and the global economic and military dominance of the United States.

While Kremlin officials have denied any imminent creation of a unified currency to dethrone the dollar, proposals for trade in non-dollar currencies and discussion of alternative settlement systems persist. The historical context of the gold standard and its connection to confidence in currencies is a big part of these discussions.

Trump’s Neo-Monroe Doctrine: Tariffs as Dollar Defense

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has made defense of the dollar a central part his foreign-economic policy. He has threatened 100 percent tariffs on BRICS nations or any country that backs a currency to replace the dollar in international trade. Clearly, the administration views dollar dominance as non-negotiable.

By linking trade access to acceptance of the dollar’s role, the administration is attempting to reinforce global reliance on U.S. currency for trade settlement and reserves. This strategy also links his broader tariffs and industrial policy agendas to maintaining dollar dominance in the world.

Dollar Supremacy, Oil, and US Strategic Power

The dollar’s special status has been reinforced historically by its role in oil markets known as the so-called petrodollar system. Because oil has been priced and traded primarily in dollars, global demand for U.S. currency has been supported by energy trade flows. The Trump administration’s recent strategic moves in oil-rich regions such as Venezuela have been interpreted by some analysts as efforts to bolster the petrodollar system and keep key energy resources within dollar-centric markets.

This makes sense from a currency preservation perspective. Although the United States has become a major producer and exporter of oil in its own right, efforts to maintain dollar pricing in energy markets remain crucial to preserving demand for the currency.

Trade, Savings, Innovation, and the Dollar’s Role

The dollar’s dominance provides huge benefits for the world as well as the United States. It reduces transaction costs for U.S. exporters and importers and reinforces the U.S. role in global value chains, but it also simplifies trade invoicing and settlement between other nations with less stable currencies. Its status as the primary reserve currency also underpins the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets, enabling inexpensive borrowing that fuels investment in technology and innovation. The dollar in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds has also been a safe haven for long term investing and savings for much of the world.

Dollar dominance also helps with American leadership in AI, computing, and finance, since dollar-denominated trade and financial infrastructure allow those to scale globally. A shift away from the dollar could fragment global capital flows and weaken the financing mechanisms that have historically supported U.S. technological leadership.

Military Power and Financial Leverage

Finally, the dollar’s status facilitates U.S. military power by making it easier to finance defense spending and sustain global force projection. If the dollar’s dominance erodes, financing a global military footprint becomes more expensive and complex, diminishing America’s strategic reach, to say the least. Analysts argue that preserving the dollar is therefore as much a defense priority as a financial one.

Without it, competing nations or groups of nations would rush in to fill the vacuum, leading to global instability.

Dollar and US Supremacy at Core of Neo-Monroe Doctrine

Viewed in this light, what some describe as Trump’s neo-Monroe Doctrine reflects not merely an ideological reassertion of hemispheric influence, but a strategic effort to defend U.S. dollar supremacy. With BRICS nations exploring alternatives, including proposals for a gold-linked settlement unit, and de-dollarization pressures growing, Washington faces mounting economic and geopolitical challenges. These factors help explain the administration’s aggressive stance on tariffs, trade, and strategic energy markets.

The survival of dollar dominance is not just about finance; it’s about maintaining a structural position that enables U.S. influence in global affairs—trade, sanctions, capital markets, and defense alike. As long as potential alternatives loom, U.S. policy will likely continue to frame the dollar as not just an economic asset, but a linchpin of national security and global leadership.

That is why the Venezuela operation is fundamentally about preserving a financial architecture that underpins U.S. economic and military power.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 23:50

PJM Trims Near-Term Load Forecast On Stricter Data Center Vetting, Economic Outlook

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

The PJM Interconnection scaled back its load growth forecast through 2032 compared to last year’s estimates, but the largest U.S. grid operator expects electric demand to surge past those expectations through the next decade, according to an annual report released Wednesday. PJM expects its summer peak load will grow by 3.6% a year to about 222 GW by 2036, up from its previous 3.1% forecast. The increase totals about 65.7 GW over the next 10 years.

In a change that affects PJM’s upcoming capacity auction, the grid cut its peak demand forecast for the summer of 2028 by 4.4 GW, or 2.6%. It also lowered its forecast for the summer of 2027 by about 4 GW, reducing a reserve margin shortfall for that capacity year to about 2.6 GW.

PJM’s reduced near-term load forecast was driven by updates to electric vehicle and economic forecasts and stricter vetting of planned data centers and large loads, according to the grid operator. 

Those changes reduced PJM’s peak load forecast for this summer by 0.7% from large loads, 0.5% from economic activity and 0.1% from EVs compared to the last long-term load forecast report, PJM said in a press release.

PJM uses its annual load forecast for transmission planning and to help determine how much capacity it should buy in its capacity auctions. PJM’s next base capacity auction, for the 2028/29 delivery year, is set to start June 30.

PJM’s downward revisions to its load forecast don’t indicate weakening demand for electricity, according to Jefferies equity analysts.

“We read the load revisions as reflective of pushouts/delays, NOT weakness in demand,” they said in a note Wednesday. “While we expect a 3-4 GW improvement in shortfall for [the] next two auctions, [the] market will still fall short — an accelerated backstop procurement is the way to go.”

Even if PJM secures an additional 10 GW in a procurement process, capacity prices will “comfortably clear” at the maximum price of about $530/MW-day in PJM’s next two capacity auctions, the analysts said.

Compared to last year’s forecast, PJM increased its 2031 summer peak load forecast for the Dayton Power and Light zone by 27%, or 1 GW, the Commonwealth Edison zone by 16.5%, or 3.7 GW, and the PECO Energy zone by 5.1%, or 0.5 GW.

In the same year, it cut its forecast for the American Electric Power zone by 10.4%, or 3.7 GW, the American Transmission Systems Inc. zone by 8.1%, or 1.2 GW, and the Pennsylvania Electric zone by 6.1%, or 0.2 GW.

The PJM zones with the strongest 10-year average annual summer peak growth forecasts are: PPL Electric at 6.4% (up from 5.9% last year); Dominion at 5.4% (down from 6.3%); AEP at 5.3% (down from 5.5%); DPL at 5.2% (up from 1.2%); and ComEd at 3.9% (up from 1.6%), according to PJM’s report.

After PJM stakeholders failed to agree last year on reforming the grid operator’s processes for adding large loads to its system, PJM’s board is expected to “outline its determination of a path forward on the [Critical Issue Fast Path] issues in the next few weeks,” PJM said in the news release.

Reforms may include changes to PJM’s process for considering large load forecasts.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 23:24

Freschia Gonzales of Pensions and Benefits Monitor reports CPP ‘enhancement’ leaves workers paying more for less: 

Ottawa’s latest Canada Pension Plan hike will raise contributions for an $85,000 earner by nearly 80 percent over eight years, even as active management by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board trails its own benchmarks. 

According to Matthew Lau in the Financial Post, someone earning $85,000 will face combined worker and employer CPP contributions of $9,292.90 in 2026, once the newer “CPP2” layer that began in 2024 is fully in place.  

Lau calculates that as an annual CPP tax increase of 4.9 percent, more than double the current 2.2 percent inflation rate, and a cumulative increase of 79.1 percent in nominal terms over eight years, or about 42.1 percent after inflation. 

Lau writes that Ottawa brands this as “the CPP enhancement,” and notes that in 2017 the federal government justified the changes by saying they would help Canadians “meaningfully reduce the risk of not saving enough for retirement.”  

He argues, however, that higher CPP taxes today do not mean workers are directly saving more for their own retirements.  

Instead, current contributions fund benefits for today’s retirees, with the expectation that the next generation of workers will fund future benefits alongside investment returns from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. 

On investment performance, Lau points to the CPPIB’s shift from passive to active management in 2006. As per his article, expenses “exploded” and head count rose from 150 to more than 2,100.  

Citing the CPPIB’s Annual Report 2025, he notes that “over the past five years, the Fund earned a net return of 9.0 percent, compared to the Benchmark Portfolios return of 9.7 percent.”  

Over the full period since active management began, he writes that “the Fund generated an annualized value added of negative 0.2 percent,” which he describes as a “sizable erosion of Canadians’ retirement savings” when compounded over 19 years. 

In the Financial Post, Lau also links some underperformance to what he characterizes as political decision-making.  

He notes that in early 2022, the CPPIB “committed to transitioning its operations and investments to net-zero emissions by 2050,” and that it has “since abandoned that commitment.” 

On the policy rationale, Lau frames the CPP’s premise as the idea that some Canadians would not save enough for retirement on their own, so government should compel everyone to contribute to a public pension fund to reduce under-saving.  

To challenge that logic, he uses an analogy: because some Canadians are overweight, the federal government could impose a “CEE (Canada Exercise Equipment) payroll tax” to send exercise equipment to every household to deal with “under-exercising.”  

He asks why, if the state can dictate a minimum level of retirement saving, it should not also decide how much people spend on “groceries, shelter, electronics, transportation, travel and so on.” 

According to Lau, higher mandatory CPP contributions reduce workers’ ability to save elsewhere.  

He argues that higher taxes and smaller paycheques leave less money for TFSAs, RRSPs and other investments, so a higher CPP tax “may not actually increase overall retirement savings.” 

To support this point, Lau cites the Fraser Institute’s 2016 publication “Five Myths Behind the Push to Expand the Canada Pension Plan.”  

He writes that Fraser Institute economists concluded that “any increase in the CPP will be offset by lower savings in private accounts,” based on a study of CPP tax hikes between 1996 and 2004.  

He lists four other “myths” from the same report: that Canadians do not save enough for retirement on their own; that the CPP is a low-cost pension plan; that it produces excellent returns for workers; and that its expansion would help financially vulnerable seniors. 

Lau also emphasizes design and flexibility. He notes that those saving privately can draw down assets for a down payment on a house, but cannot access CPP contributions.  

He raises the case of someone with a terminal illness who is not expected to live to retirement age and questions whether it is sensible for government to force such a person to save for retirement “especially through the CPP.”  

In that scenario, private savings can pass to family members; CPP contributions, he argues, do not provide the same benefit. 

Lau concludes that “the CPP hurts workers” because individuals, not the federal government, have the best information and incentives to manage their finances.  

In his words, “personal finance is, after all, just that: personal finance. It is not, and should not be, government finance.”  

Let's read Matthew Lau's article published in the Financial Post where he advocates to shut down the tax-financed Canada Pension Plan:

In 2026, for the eighth year in a row, Ottawa is whacking workers with a Canada Pension Plan tax hike. For someone earning $85,000, the combined worker and employer CPP tax in 2026 is $9,292.90, including the government’s new “CPP2,” which was imposed beginning in 2024. That’s an annual tax increase of 4.9 per cent, more than double the current inflation rate of 2.2 per cent. At $85,000 annual earnings, the cumulative tax hike over eight years is 79.1 per cent in nominal terms, or about 42.1 per cent after accounting for inflation.

The government calls its tax hike “the CPP enhancement” and back in 2017 justified it by saying it helps Canadians “meaningfully reduce the risk of not saving enough for retirement.” But by paying a higher CPP tax, workers today are not actually saving more for their retirements. They are paying for benefits to retirees today, with the expectation that when they retire they will receive benefits funded by CPP taxes on the next generation of workers, plus any investment returns from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB).

But even if workers were able to directly fund their retirements through CPP taxes, it would still be a bad, wasteful government program. The CPP’s premise is that some Canadians would not save enough for retirement on their own, so everyone should be forced to pay into a pension fund to reduce these people’s under-saving. By the same logic, since some Canadians are overweight, the federal government should impose a CEE (Canada Exercise Equipment) payroll tax to fund shipments of exercise equipment to everyone’s house to mitigate the problem of under-exercising.

For that matter, if the government needs to force everyone to save a certain amount for retirement each year, why not also have it decide how much everyone should spend on groceries, shelter, electronics, transportation, travel and so on?

Higher taxes and smaller paycheques mean workers have less money to contribute to TFSAs, RRSPs and other investments, so a higher CPP tax may not actually increase overall retirement savings. In a 2016 publication “Five Myths Behind the Push to Expand the Canada Pension Plan,” Fraser Institute economists argued that “any increase in the CPP will be offset by lower savings in private accounts,” which was the conclusion of an earlier study on CPP tax hikes between 1996 and 2004. The other four CPP myths? That Canadians do not save enough for retirement on their own; that the CPP is a low-cost pension plan; that it produces excellent returns for workers; and that its expansion would help financially vulnerable seniors.

In recent years, these arguments against expanding the CPP have only gotten stronger. Since switching from passive management (i.e., tracking broad market indices) to active management in 2006, the CPPIB’s expenses have exploded and its employee head count has increased from 150 to more than 2,100. Canadians forced to pay into the CPP have not benefitted from this increased cost. “Over the past five years,” according to the CPPIB’s Annual Report 2025, “the Fund earned a net return of 9.0 per cent, compared to the Benchmark Portfolios return of 9.7 per cent.” So with the CPP, Canadians have paid more to get less.

Measuring the performance of the CPP since the inception of active management by comparing its return to the benchmark portfolios, “the Fund generated an annualized value added of negative 0.2 per cent.” Compounded over 19 years, that is a sizable erosion of Canadians’ retirement savings. Some of this underperformance might well be attributed to playing politics with Canadians’ savings: in early 2022, the CPPIB committed to transitioning its operations and investments to net-zero emissions by 2050. Thankfully, it has since abandoned that commitment.

In addition to its financial underperformance, the CPP gives Canadians less flexibility and less choice than private options. If someone wants to buy a house, they can draw down their private savings to make a down payment, but they cannot withdraw from what they have paid into the CPP. Or suppose someone has a terminal illness and is not expected to live to retirement age. Is it sensible for the government to force this person to save for their retirement — especially through the CPP? Upon their death, their private savings can be passed down to their family. Not so the money they were forced to pay into the CPP.

The CPP hurts workers because individuals themselves, not the federal government, have the best information and incentives to manage their finances. Personal finance is, after all, just that: personal finance. It is not, and should not be, government finance.

Wow, lots of misinformation here, almost all of it is pure rubbish.

I've seen these articles over the years and they're typically hit jobs that pander to Canada's large banks, mutual funds and insurance companies which detest the CPP and CPP enhancement.

Why? Well, as the author states it in his article, more CPP contributions (not taxes!) means less money to spend on RRSPs, TFSAs and taking out bigger mortgages to buy a big house which Canadians can't afford but banks love as they make a killing off them.

Also less money for mutual funds and wealth management outfits which is an important and growing source of revenues for big banks.

Right-wing research centres like the Fraser Institute pander to Canada's financial services industry so I take everything they publish with a shaker of salt.

And to be clear, I'm right of centre in my politics and economic views but I can't stand reading right-wing and left-wing nonsense, it irritates me.

This article is complete nonsense which not surprisingly the Financial Post published without any editorial scrutiny. 

Let's start off with why enhanced CPP was introduced in the first place and why it's critically important for future generations.  

A year ago, Canada Life published an excellent comment on enhanced CPP which you can read here. 

Please note this part:

Why is the CPP enhancement necessary?

There are many reasons why the CPP enhancement is necessary:

• To reduce the number of families at risk that haven’t saved enough for retirement.
• The effect of inflation and the cost of living on retirement income.
• Younger workers are facing challenges which make saving for retirement more difficult.
• Pensions have changed to defined contribution plans from defined benefit plans.

How the CPP enhancement works

Until 2019, the CPP replaced 25% of your average work earnings. The federal government determined this average based on yearly annual pensionable earnings (YMPE) from employment or self-employment up to the maximum earnings limit in each year.

The enhancement means the CPP will begin to grow to replace 33.33% of the average work earnings you receive after 2019. The maximum limit of earnings protected by the CPP will also increase by 14% between 2024 and 2025.

The CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement pension by more than 50% if you make enhanced contributions for 40 years. 

So, CPP enhancement will not impact retirees or Canadians close to retirement, it will mostly impact those entering the workforce this year.

Importantly, the main reason why CPP enhancement was introduced was because policymakers recognized that more needed to be done to bolster the Canadian retirement system. 

Too many Canadians are retiring with too little savings, have no defined-benefit plan and then become reliant on programs like Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement to retire on and that's simply not enough and these programs are pay-as-you-go and place fiscal pressure on the federal government as more Canadians retire with little to no savings.

The other problem? The housing market has become the de facto national retirement policy for many Canadians betting housing prices can only go up and their houses will sustain them into their old age through CHIP reverse mortgage programs and others similar to it.

But housing prices don't always go up and this isn't a sound retirement strategy, it lacks diversification.

Then there are RRSPs and TFSAs which are mostly used by high income earners as most Canadians can't afford to put the maximum allowable amounts every year and even those who do, the onus falls on them to make wise investments for their future.

Having a professionally managed national pension fund with experts who invest across public and private markets globally isn't cheap, you need to pay these people, but it offers all Canadians the opportunity to pool their contributions and in return, get a safe, secure, inflation adjusted benefit for life when they retire.

Keep in mind, most Canadians working in the private sector have no access to a gold-plated defined-benefit plan, their CPP benefit is the closest thing they have to that and this is why policymakers decided to enhance the CPP. 

And as more Canadians retire in dignity and security, they spend more in retirement, and that's good for the economy and governments that collect sales taxes. It's good for the Canadian economy.

All this is totally lost on Matthew Lau, he thinks the answer is to allow Canadians to keep their money to spend it on what they want, to invest more on RRSPs and TFSAs even though this is a miserable failure and will not make a dent in their retirement.

Let's be crystal clear, TFSAs, RRSPs are good for savings but they do not match what CPP Investments does with CPP contributions and do not offer the same guaranteed inflation-adjusted income for life as CPP benefits.

Again, you have a national pension fund which is highly diversified investing and co-investing with the best public and private equity managers all over the world, including hedge funds, and we take all this for granted but it's a national treasure, other countries would kill to have such a professionally managed nation pension fund with world-class governance.

What about Lau's claims that the CPP Fund has underpeformed its benchmark over the last 5 years and since introducing active management back in 2006? That may be true but the benchmark they had originally was impossible to beat because it was 85% MSCI World Index/ 15%  Canadian Government Bonds.

I personally always hated that benchmark and thought it was terrible because it's easy to beat in down years but hard to beat in roaring bull markets like the one we are in now.

It also distracts from the fact the CPP Fund has more than enough assets to meet future liabilities over the next 75 years according o the Chief Actuary of Canada and that's what ultimately counts the most.

CPP Investments' CEO John Graham is a huge believer in diversification and truly believes the Fund's diversified approach across public and private markets is the right one over the long run and he's absolutely right.

There will always be critics who claim passive indexing is the way to go but they don't get it, public markets are too volatile, contribution rates need to be stable and the right approach over the long run which also includes bear markets is a more diversified approach, that's the responsible thing to do.

And again, pension funds are not there to beat the S&P 500 year in, year out, they are there to make sure they have more than enough assets to cover long-dated liabilities.

What else? Lau writes this:

Or suppose someone has a terminal illness and is not expected to live to retirement age. Is it sensible for the government to force this person to save for their retirement — especially through the CPP? Upon their death, their private savings can be passed down to their family. Not so the money they were forced to pay into the CPP. 

I admit the CPP isn't perfect and needs more flexibility but he also fails to understand CPP's death benefit and survivor's pension. 

Most Canadians don't have a clue about these programs and I blame the federal government for not doing a better job explaining them to them not just through websites but YouTube tutorials etc. 

Anyways, take everything Matthew Lau writes against CPP enhancement with a shaker, not a pinch of salt, he a hack and I would ignore him and the Fraser Institute (all hacks for Canada's powerful financial services industry). 

Below, are you confused about the recent Canada Pension Plan (CPP) enhancements? In this episode of the Steadyhand Coffee Break Series, David Toyne interviews Jason Yee, an advice-only financial planner, to break down the changes and their impact on your retirement planning. Learn about the recent enhancements to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and how they impact your retirement, who benefits most, and what it means for employees, self-employed individuals, and employers.

Also Owen Winkelmolen, certified financial planner, discusses the benefits of CPP2 (enhance CPP), explains CPP, OAS, GIS and provides an excellent breakeven CPP analysis. 

Lastly, what happens to CPP when you die? Watch this excellent video clip to understand the death benefit, the child's benefit and the survivor's pension.

Muslim Nations Scramble To Acquire Pakistan's JF-17 Fighter Jet

Via The Cradle

Several Muslim-majority states are in talks with Pakistan to acquire the JF-17 fighter jet, co-produced with China, as they scramble to upgrade their air forces amid shifting regional security dynamics.

According to multiple reports from Reuters, Pakistan is in talks or has reached preliminary arrangements with Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh over fighter jets, drones, and related defense systems, with negotiations at varying stages.

via Reuters

Retired Pakistan Air Force air marshal Aamir Masood told Reuters that a preliminary $4 billion agreement had been reached with the Libyan National Army for an unspecified number of JF-17s and other trainer aircraft produced by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.

Masood also said a separate $1.5 billion package was “effectively” finalized with Sudan’s government for light-attack aircraft, surveillance systems, suicide drones, and “possibly” JF-17s, claiming it could give Khartoum an edge over the UAE-backed Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

He added that Islamabad is discussing a $4 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. In September, the two nations signed a mutual defense pact “soon after Israeli warplanes bombed Hamas negotiators in Qatar.” 

Pakistan has also floated an “arms-for-debt” component of around $2 billion, Masood said, while warning signs of regional rivalries loom over Sudan, where backers diverge.

During a flash war with India last year, Islamabad showcased the battlefield performance of Chinese-made aircraft.

The battle involved more than 100 fighter jets, with Pakistan claiming it shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French-made Rafales. At the same time, US officials later confirmed that at least two Indian jets were lost, before a US-brokered ceasefire took hold.

The battle was described by analyst Pepe Escobar as "the largest and most high-tech air battle of the young 21st century," arguing that the clash produced no real winners and ultimately served the interests of outside powers rather than either side.

Islamabad’s defence diplomacy is driving new interest in the JF-17 fighter jet following Pakistan-India clashes.

So what is the JF-17 Thunder, what can it do, and why are so many countries showing interest? https://t.co/3XTrlJgtZX pic.twitter.com/SUMPxR8KrJ

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 10, 2026

According to an earlier report by Reuters, two Pakistani sources said “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in talks to convert about $2 billion of Saudi loans into a JF-17 fighter jet deal,” and one added, “The jets were the primary option among others under discussion.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 20:55

"It Has Cast A Shadow Over The Permian": Drilling Slows In Texas As Venezuelan Oil Policy Raises Concerns

Efforts by the Trump administration to push more Venezuelan oil onto the global market, with the goal of lowering prices, are creating concern in West Texas, where producers say cheaper oil threatens drilling, jobs and local business activity, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

Oil prices have fallen since last spring, recently dipping below $60 a barrel — a level at which many operators can keep pumping but often avoid starting new wells. President Trump believes exerting greater control over Venezuela’s oil industry could drive prices down to $50 a barrel, The Wall Street Journal has reported. At the same time, tariffs have raised costs for materials such as chemicals and steel tubing, according to Midland oil executives.

In the Permian Basin, the heart of U.S. fracking, drilling activity has slowed. “We’re definitely not drilling right now,” said Taylor Sell, chief executive of Element Petroleum.

The number of active rigs in the region is down 14% over the past year, according to Enverus. Companies have delayed new wells, cut staff and reduced worker hours. Kyle Patterson, engineering manager at Buckeye, said the company laid off about 10% of its workforce. “You can’t just sit around and wait for the market to come back,” he said.

The Journal writes that local industry leaders worry that prolonged low prices will increase U.S. dependence on imports. “It has really cast a shadow over the Permian,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.

Some producers say they oppose relying on Venezuelan oil. “We are on a gold mine; we can produce enough oil to supply ourselves,” said Bubba Dobson, a Midland-based business representative who has seen his pay decline as drilling demand weakens.

The slowdown is affecting the wider economy. Hotel occupancy in the region fell 5.6% between November 2024 and November 2025, according to CoStar. As drilling activity declines, spending at local businesses has softened.

Veteran producer Paul Kenworthy said low prices have forced him to pause some projects, adding, “This is a boom-and-bust business.”

While some residents support the administration’s broader policies, frustration is growing among business owners. “We thought he was going to help the economy here in West Texas,” said restaurant co-owner Nemecio Torres, whose revenue dropped about 30% last year.

Others say the downturn may deepen. “It’ll be a year until we really start feeling the pain,” said Pat Dennis, who sells oilfield tools.

In Odessa, where oil paychecks once dominated local commerce, store manager Ruby Ramirez said business has slowed sharply. “It’s an oil-field town,” she said. “The oil field’s not the oil field anymore.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 20:30

Waste Of The Day: California County May Have Made Illegal Gifts

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: A Dec. 18 report from the California State Auditor claims that Mendocino County is “vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse” after spending thousands of dollars on steakhouse dinners, unapproved donations and more.

The annual dinners are a trademark of local District Attorney C. David Eyster, who earned $211,484 from taxpayers in 2024, according to Open the Books’ payroll records.

Key facts: Law enforcement agencies can earn revenue by seizing property from convicted criminals, such as stolen cash or cars used to transport illegal drugs. California law requires local governments to use 15% of this asset forfeiture money to combat drug abuse and gang activity, but there are few restrictions on the other 85%.

Mendocino County held $1.5 million in asset forfeiture funding as of June 2025, but the funds have been used for several purchases that state auditors “believe” to be illegal gifts in violation of the California Constitution.

In February 2025, the District Attorney’s office spent $3,600 on an “End of the Year Debriefing and Training” at a steakhouse, where dinner was served to employees and their spouses. 

The office told auditors that spouses were invited to “foster a more inclusive and positive work environment.” The office also claimed that County CEO Darcie Antle approved the expense, but auditors found no evidence that was the case.

The District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office also used asset forfeiture funds to donate nearly $23,000 to 11 private groups “with little oversight or accountability,” the audit claimed. There were no requirements that the donations be used to benefit taxpayers.

One of the donations — $560 to the 11-99 Foundation, which supports the families of California highway patrol workers — was the exact amount needed to pay for dinner for eight people at the nonprofit’s annual fundraiser. The audit “could not determine” whether county employees actually attended the dinner. But if they did receive food in exchange for a donation of public funds, legal concerns would likely be raised.

Two donations of $5,000 each went to St. Mary of the Angels Catholic School. Religious schools are banned from receiving direct subsidies under both the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, according to the audit.

State auditors reviewed a sample of 30 other payments Mendocino County made since 2020 — using tax revenue, not asset forfeiture — and found issues with 13 of them. These included missing signatures to approve $500 worth of seat cushions, missing receipts for $370 in travel costs, and a lack of written justification for buying a 75-inch television for $1,099.

Mendocino County has increased its spending by 30% over the last five years, according to the audit. Its tax revenue has remained “relatively unchanged,” leading to budget deficits for the last three years.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Summary: When a local government has an unbalanced budget three years in a row, lavish dinners for employees’ spouses should be the first expense to go.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 19:15

US Eyes Private Security Contractors To Protect Oil Assets In Venezuela

A top White House priority for Venezuela in the aftermath of Nicolás Maduro is restarting and ramping up the country's oil production. But that's a tall order given many years of decaying and neglected infrastructure. Despite that Maduro's VP, now acting President Delcy Rodriguez, is currently running the country, there are still fears there could be a power vacuum if hostile forces challenge Caracas.

There's not just the question of a political challenge, or even military insurgency which could further destabilize the country, but the role of the cartels. All of this political and security uncertainty surrounds the question of rebooting the ailing oil industry - which though sitting atop the world's biggest proven oil reserves, has a derelict and largely defunct infrastructure for getting it out of the ground and refining.

Major oil companies are now being courted by the administration, which must convince them they can operate in enough safety to be successful, not just for the coming months, but for years down the line. 

President Trump, however, is reportedly wary of placing American boots on the ground for what will be seen at home as another indefinite foreign occupation.

CNN reports Thursday that one administration plan being mulled right now is tapping military contractors, or mercenaries, to protect Venezuela's oil industry as American companies move in.

"Discussions about how to secure those assets remain in the early stages, sources said. Still, multiple private security companies are already jockeying to get involved in the US presence in Venezuela, according to a person familiar with the matter," the report describes. "Interest is high given the potential payday; during the Iraq War, the US spent some $138 billion on private security, logistics and reconstruction contractors."

CNN continues, "Last week, the Department of Defense put out a Request for Information to contractors about their ability to support possible US military operations in Venezuela, the person said." And already, "Contractors are also in touch with the State Department’s overseas building operations office to cite interest in providing security if and when the US embassy in Venezuela re-opens."

One military firm founder highlighted that going private is another aspect of "investment" in conquering and subjugating a foreign country Venezuela's energy industry "coming back" to the American people:

“Foreign investment comes back, and when it does, it brings a bunch of Navy SEAL dudes and Green Beret dudes and ninjas to keep them alive and safe,” Stern said. “It’ll look a lot like that in Venezuela.”

Turning to private contractors is certain to invite scrutiny. Over the past two decades, the US has relied heavily at times on private contractors, especially during the height of the Iraq War. But they were marred in controversy, from killing Iraqi civilians to allegations of war profiteering

Indeed, it's never a good look when Washington's talk of "liberating" a people from a "tyrant" quickly results in trigger-happy foreign mercenaries rolling into your local neighborhood barking orders backed by endless firepower - all for a cool hundreds of dollars per hour.

US oil companies are up against significant risk, with few "guarantees" given the billions what will need to be invested...

Reality check Venezuelan oil: Geologists who have worked the area know that most of the 300 billion barrels of oil “reserves” touted for Venezuela are in the Faja - the Orinoco tar belt - where heavy, high sulfur crude has an API of 8.5 (if you are lucky). This heavy and extra… pic.twitter.com/dnx2ZFpVLA

— Jack Prandelli (@jackprandelli) January 11, 2026

But at the very least, US oil majors which get deeper in extracting Venezuela's oil will be hiring their own security, at least on some level. Whether the Trump administration gets directly involved in writing major contracts for mercenary firms remains to be seen. Usually Erik Prince is circling the Pentagon right about now.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:50

Devon-Coterra Tie-Up Would Create A New Permian Heavyweight

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com,

Coterra Energy is kicking the tires on what would be one of the biggest U.S. shale mergers in years, holding talks about a possible combination with Devon Energy, according to people familiar with the matter. Nothing is signed, nothing is guaranteed, but the market liked the idea enough to send shares of Coterra Energy sharply higher on the day.

The deal would be a classic all-stock shale mashup: two midsize operators with large footprints in the Permian Basin trying to bulk up as oil prices sit stubbornly around $60 a barrel.

Coterra carries a market value of roughly $20 billion, while Devon is closer to $24 billion.  

A tie-up of this size would put it firmly into megadeal territory by shale standards.

This is a Permian land grab, plain and simple.

Putting neighboring Delaware Basin acreage under one roof makes drilling cheaper and operations cleaner.

The timing matters.

After a quiet year for dealmaking, consolidation is starting to reappear as bigger players move past recent acquisitions and smaller independents look for ways to keep up.

A Devon-Coterra tie-up would immediately put the combined company among the Permian’s top-tier producers.

Devon has also been dealing with softer crude prices and the lingering question of how much Venezuelan oil might eventually re-enter the market. That kind of uncertainty rewards operators that are efficient, conservative with capital, and financially flexible. In that environment, scale matters.

For now, talks are ongoing and could still fall apart.

But even floating the idea sends a clear message: in a choppier oil market, size, simplicity, and execution are back in fashion.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:25

Lindsey Graham Drowns Sorrows After Trump Refrained From Iran Attack On 'No Guarantees'

NeoCon Senator Lindsey Graham wants to "go bigger" on Iran and is so disappointed that President Trump hasn't bombed it yet that he appears barely able to speak, with the color draining from his face.

Journalist Ryan Grim comments on the below video clip of Graham responding to the lack of action by the US, "His life force is being drained in front of us by the lack of bombing." When this armchair general is deeply disappointed and shattered by American non-action abroad, it without doubt means something good for America. 

If you want to know what I think about recent developments in Iran, watch this clip: pic.twitter.com/T9lwN8RwEE

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 15, 2026

Dear Lindsey, the adults in the room took over, now go cry outside...

The Wall Street Journal reports that "President Trump was advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to make the government fall and could spark a wider conflict, U.S. officials said, and for now will monitor how Tehran handles protesters before deciding on the scope of a potential attack."

By that moment of the briefing, Iran's streets had already gone largely silent, with Iranian security services firmly in control, and Tehran leadership vowing not to hold any executions. In short the demonstrations, riots, and crackdown had ceased.

Continues the WSJ, "The U.S. would need more military firepower in the Middle East both to launch a large-scale strike, protect American forces in the region and allies like Israel should Iran retaliate, the advisers told Trump, the officials said."

Still, it seems the world was very close to the US launching yet another war more "precision strikes" against a nation we are not actually at war with (still a possibility though!). Per the WSJ:

Trump, without making a final decision on which action he would take, asked for military assets to be in place should he order a big attack, the officials said.

“The president and his team have communicated to the Iranian regime that if the killing continues, there will be grave consequences,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. “Only President Trump knows what he’s going to do and a very, very small team of advisors are read into his thinking,” Leavitt said.

But again, Lindsey's pain is America's gain.

Getty Images

Here he is Thursday talking to reporters (in the above clip): "Should it be bigger or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger. Time will tell." He then asserted that "the regime’s days are numbered."

When in doubt... sanction higher, the D.C. blob mantra says...

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sanctions on five Iranian officials it accused of being behind the crackdown on protests and said it was tracking Iranian leaders' funds being wired to international banks, as President Donald Trump keeps the pressure on Tehran.

The U.S. Treasury Department in a statement said it imposed sanctions on the Secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security as well as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and law enforcement forces commanders, accusing them of being architects of the crackdown.

What might happen in the next major Iranian protest go-around? The Islamic Republic's severe economic woes, and with yet more US sanctions being unleashed on Tehran, won't be getting better anytime soon.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:00

Chaos Is The Strategy, And Too Many Are Helping It Succeed

Authored by Armstrong Williams via The Epoch Times,

Let’s dispense with the convenient fiction: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not the primary threat to our communities. The real danger lies in the growing normalization of disorder, intimidation and lawlessness—often wrapped in the language of “justice” but driven by something far less noble.

What we are witnessing is not spontaneous civic unrest. It is a sustained strategy of division, enabled by progressive activism untethered from accountability and amplified by legacy and social media ecosystems that reward outrage over truth.

This is not how a nation is conquered by force. This is how it is hollowed out from within.

Over the past several years, protests have increasingly crossed the line from expression to coercion—blocking streets, vandalizing property, intimidating citizens, and provoking confrontations with law enforcement. Too often, progressive leaders and activists refuse to draw a firm line between protest and chaos. Silence becomes endorsement. Justification becomes fuel. The result is a culture where disruption is valorized, and restraint is treated as complicity.

When rare and tragic mistakes occur in law enforcement, they are not treated as moments for sober examination or reform. They are instantly weaponized. Context is stripped away. Facts are subordinated to narrative. Grief is transformed into political leverage. The objective is not justice but rather ignition sparking unrest, delegitimizing institutions, and exhausting public trust.

Here is an inconvenient truth: It remains exceedingly rare for law enforcement officers to fire their weapons in the line of duty. The overwhelming majority—well over 90 percent—never discharge a firearm at all. Most encounters are resolved through deescalation, judgment, and professionalism under immense pressure. That reality rarely survives the media cycle.

Legacy media outlets, once entrusted with informing the public, too often act as accelerants rather than moderators. Complex incidents are flattened into morality plays. Headlines are written to inflame rather than inform. Progressive narratives are echoed uncritically, while inconvenient facts are buried below the fold or ignored entirely. The result is a distorted public understanding that erodes confidence in law enforcement and emboldens those who seek confrontation.

Social media makes it worse. Algorithms do not reward nuance; they reward rage. Viral clips divorced from context travel faster than corrections ever could. Activists understand this and exploit it, baiting confrontations designed to produce images that inflame rather than illuminate. The platforms profit. The country pays the price.

We saw this pattern clearly on Ivy League campuses, where protests metastasized into intimidation and disorder. Administrators hesitated. Media outlets romanticized the unrest. Progressive leaders excused it. Only after chaos became undeniable did order return—at significant cost to institutional credibility. The lesson should have been obvious. Instead, it was ignored.

Today, those same forces have seized on immigration enforcement as their next flashpoint. The deployment of ICE agents under President Donald Trump has become a new rallying cry—not because it represents an unprecedented threat but because it offers another opportunity to provoke confrontation and amplify grievance. This is not about policy disagreement. It is about power: who controls the narrative, who dictates the terms of public debate, and who benefits when enforcement collapses under pressure.

That said, responsibility does not rest on one side alone.

Trump, for all his emphasis on law and order, bears a duty to temper his rhetoric. Words matter, especially from the highest office in the land. Enforcement must be firm, but it must also be wise. Precision, not provocation, strengthens institutions. A tone that encourages restraint, judgment, and professionalism does more to uphold the rule of law than bombast ever could.

Likewise, law enforcement leadership must continue emphasizing deescalation as the standard, not the exception. Officers already do this every day, often without recognition. In those vanishingly rare moments when lethal force is used, the expectation must be clarity, accountability, and transparency—not political scapegoating or reflexive condemnation.

The progressive movement, however, must confront its own complicity.

A philosophy that treats enforcement itself as oppression, that excuses disorder as activism, and that relies on media distortion to advance its aims is not reformist—it is corrosive. A society cannot function when laws are optional, authority is demonized, and chaos is reframed as conscience.

History is unforgiving to nations that mistake outrage for virtue and division for progress. Democracies do not collapse because laws are enforced. They collapse when enforcement is delegitimized, institutions are undermined, and truth becomes subordinate to narrative.

If we are serious about justice, reform, and social cohesion, then restraint must apply to everyone—activists, media, political leaders, and law enforcement alike. Anything less is not resistance. It is surrender to chaos.

And chaos, once normalized, never confines itself to the causes that first unleashed it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 17:40

MrBeast Broke? Billionaire YouTuber Claims He Has "Negative Money" As Tom Lee Invests $200M

The allure of becoming a YouTube superstar often conjures images of endless wealth and effortless luxury. Yet for Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, the reality is more nuanced - and far less liquid.

In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donaldson addressed the frequent media portrayal of him as a billionaire, clarifying the distinction between headline-grabbing net worth and actual cash on hand.

“It’s funny talking about my personal finances because no one ever believes anything I say, because they’re like, ‘You’re a billionaire,’” Donaldson said. “I’m like, that’s net worth.”

“I actually … I have negative money right now. I’m borrowing money. That’s how little money I have," he continued. "Technically, everyone watching this video has more money than me in their bank account if you subtract the equity value of my company, which doesn’t buy me McDonald’s in the morning, or whatever.”

Last June, Donaldson revealed he had asked his mother for financial help to cover costs related to his upcoming wedding to Thea Booysen, then 28. The couple has described plans for an intimate ceremony, far removed from the extravagance one might associate with a global media figure.

Forbes pegged his annual earnings at $85 million as of June 2025, while Fortune reported in September 2025 that his holding company, Beast Industries—which he owns a little more than half of—carried a $5 billion valuation. The conglomerate encompasses his YouTube operations, the Feastables chocolate brand, Lunchly snacks, and other ventures, with Donaldson’s personal net worth frequently cited around $2.6 billion on paper, according to the New York Post.

Yet Donaldson’s ventures have not been without its headaches.

The most prominent example is his virtual restaurant brand, MrBeast Burger, launched in 2020 through a partnership with Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC). The ghost-kitchen concept initially exploded, expanding to thousands of locations and generating substantial revenue via delivery apps. The momentum stalled amid persistent customer complaints about quality. Reviewers often described the burgers as "disgusting," "inedible," undercooked, or arriving in subpar condition, the Daily Mail reported.

In 2023, Donaldson sued VDC, seeking to end the partnership and alleging breach of contract, inadequate quality control, unpaid royalties, and irreparable harm from the inferior product - despite periods when the brand reportedly pulled in over $100 million. VDC countersued for up to $100 million, accusing Donaldson of breaching obligations, publicly disparaging the brand (including now-deleted social-media posts calling it a "bad deal"), and interfering with operations. Both parties claimed the other prioritized scale or personal interests over quality and mutual fairness. The legal dispute remains unresolved.

Tom Lee Is All In

Donaldson's cash crunch comes amid news that Donaldson's Beast Industries is about to receive a $200 million investment from Tom Lee's Bitmine Immersion Technologies, the world's leading ETH treasury company. Lee's investment will back a media property which boasts over 450 million subscribers and attracts over 5 billion monthly views. The deal closes on or around Jan. 19, CNBC reports. 

"It’s our view that ethereum, which is a smart contract platform, is the future of finance, where digitalization of not only dollars but stocks and equities [are] going to take place," Lee told "Squawk Box" Thursday. "Over time, that really blurs what is a service versus what’s digital money, and that’s where a collaboration and investment into Beast Industries makes sense."

TOM LEE + MR. BEAST

- Bitmine is investing $200M into Beast Industries
- Ethereum is the core platform
- Focus on digital items and financial services
- Targeting Gen Z and Gen Alpha at massive scale pic.twitter.com/xvpVkEWdE6

— Tom Lee Tracker (Not actually Tom) (@TomLeeTracker) January 15, 2026

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 17:20

"The Left Is Coming For Us"; Larry Klayman Warns "It's Going To Get More And More Violent"

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Renowned Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch USA, has long predicted (along with other top intel experts) increasing violence from the Left in a Marxist style Bolshevik Revolution.  

As money is cut off by the Trump Administration and legal pressure mounts for prosecuting Democrats for everything from fraud to sedition, you can expect the Left to dramatically increase the violence to try to destabilize America. Klayman explains, “Here’s what’s going to happen..."

"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem has a death warrant on her.  They are chanting ‘kill Kristi Noem.’  

It’s going to get more and more violent.  The more they are checked legally, the more set back on their heels legally, the more violent they become, that is why the American people need to arm up.  They need to be prepared. 

Don’t use weapons offensively, but defensively. 

The Left is coming for us. . .. It’s going to get extremely violent.  That is their intention. 

That is their desire, and that is what’s going to happen.”

What got the Left to increase the violence?  Klayman says, “I believe the trigger was Venezuela a week or so ago..."

"  We knew that was going to have a ripple effect, and it means business.  The President has cut off money, not just to Cuba, Iran and China with regard to oil revenues, but it shows his strength of resolve, and they frankly freak out over that. 

Then there are the ICE activities in Minnesota, which is one of the most corrupt and left-leaning states in this country. 

The Left is panicking, and they were always going to go to violence.  That is their modus operandi. 

That is the Bolshevik way of doing things.  That’s Karl Marx, and the way the Soviet Union was brought down by the communists. 

These people are communists.  They are Islamists.  There are good Muslims, but these are not those. 

 They are united in the form of Ilhan Omar, Tim Walz and that crazy mayor Jacob Frey.  They are using Minnesota as ground zero to do this.”

Other big legal news is a grand jury empaneled in Florida, which is going to look into partisan investigations on President Trump, including an FBI raid of his home at Mar-a-Lago in 2022. Klayman says:

“We do have a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, which is the same district where I practice, and it is also the same district where Judge Aileen Cannon is.  She is probably the one who empaneled this grand jury. 

She found President Trump did not commit any violations with regard to the documents found at Mar-a-Lago.  There is a reason why it was filed in Fort Pierce.”

Klayman says some Republicans in Congress are not totally committed to stopping the fraud and crime of the Left.  Klayman points out:

“Congresswoman Nancy Mace went to the oversight committee and asked for a subpoena to be issued for Ilhan Omar with regard to marrying her brother, with regard to tax fraud and all kinds of illegal acts.  

Congressmen James Comer and Jim Jordan denied the request of Mace.  That is unbelievable!”

There is much more in the 42-minute interview.

FreedomWatchUSA.org needs your financial support. To make a tax-deductible donation, click here:

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with renowned lawyer and government corruption fighter Larry Klayman, founder of FreedomWatchUSA.org for 1.13.25.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 16:20

DNC Launches Massive Voter Registration Effort Ahead Of Midterms After GOP Makes Gains

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Jan. 13 announced a new voter registration initiative it said will be its largest financial investment in registration, launching first in Arizona and Nevada as Democrats look ahead to the 2026 midterm elections.

A voter casts her ballot on Election Day, in Canton, N.C., on Nov. 5, 2024. George Walker IV/AP Photo

The program, called “When We Count,” is built around a paid, part-time youth fellowship and a series of national voter registration pushes.

The DNC said it will train hundreds of young supporters to register tens of thousands of new voters, with early work focused on what it called priority congressional districts in the two states. The committee described the effort as a seven-figure investment but did not specify the exact amount in its announcement.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin framed the launch as an early move to shape the midterm landscape and expand the party’s organizing pipeline.

“The midterms are here, and at the DNC, we refuse to let anybody else dictate this election season—we’re setting the tone,” Martin said.

He said young people have told him they want to be involved and want leaders “who actually show up for them when it counts.”

The DNC is pitching the initiative as both an electoral program and an organizing training effort. In its announcement, the committee said it is making voter registration a top nationwide priority this cycle and argued that “partisan efforts are essential to reversing recent registration trends, winning in upcoming cycles, and training the next generation of Democratic organizers.”

Martin’s statement also cast the initiative as a response to Republican success in the field of voter registration.

“Our answer is simple: We’re going to register voters, train organizers, empower young people, and make sure they have the tools to shape their future.”

Party officials on a press call Tuesday also referenced their growing gap in partisan voter registration nationally, noting states like Florida, which had about 1 million more registered Republicans than Democrats in 2024, and Pennsylvania, where Democrats’ registration advantage has shrunk from about 1.2 million in 2008 to fewer than 200,000.

The DNC said the new program is “specifically targeting non-college youth,” calling that population “historically overlooked by traditional voter registration efforts.” The committee said it found that nearly 60 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds are not enrolled in college and said the new focus is meant to register young supporters “where they live and work.”

The committee also tied the decision to start in Arizona and Nevada to both competitiveness and demographics. It said the program will begin in battleground congressional districts in the two states, saying that closing registration gaps there “could determine control of the House in 2026.”

The DNC pointed to “fast-growing populations of Latino, Black, and [Asian American and Pacific Islander] voters” in Arizona and Nevada and described that as an opportunity to engage voters the party said it “lost ground with in 2024.”

The DNC said the fellowship will be the core of its 2026 strategy. Under the plan, fellows will receive weekly training and support from the DNC’s national organizing program and will be tasked with registering Democrats in targeted House districts. The first cohorts are expected to begin in spring 2026 in Arizona and Nevada. The committee said it plans to train more than 100 fellows across the two states to register tens of thousands of new voters.

The party also said it will run four national voter registration weeks of action in 2026—across the spring, summer, and fall—leading up to the midterms. Those pushes are expected to involve fellows, state parties, coordinated campaigns, student Democratic groups, and volunteers. The DNC said it will provide toolkits, training, merchandise, and surrogates, and plans to promote friendly competitions between states.

The committee described the Arizona and Nevada rollout as a starting point it hopes to expand. It said the initial work will lay a foundation to scale the effort and register hundreds of thousands of voters nationally “in 2026 and beyond.”

In late September 2025, Martin announced the national party was shifting more resources into year-round organizing and partisan voter registration while increasing monthly support for every state party.

In a Sept. 30, 2025, recorded conversation with former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, Martin said the party had launched a partisan registration drive in which Democrats had stepped back from direct voter registration for roughly two decades after the 2002 McCain–Feingold campaign finance law.

That law meant national parties could no longer use unlimited donations to pay for voter registration or other party-building, according to Cornell law. Parties could still run registration drives, but they had to pay with money raised under the normal per-donor limits and publicly report the spending.

Martin and Harrison said limits on how national parties can fund party-building work pushed more registration activity to nonpartisan nonprofits that can register voters but cannot promote a party or candidate. Martin said the DNC has since developed a strategy that allows party staff and volunteers to register voters while also talking about Democratic candidates—a strategy it is now putting to use with this week’s announcement.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 15:40

Five Bitcoin Narratives Analysts Are Watching Beyond Price

Authored by Bradley Peak via CoinTelegraph.com,

Key takeaways

• ETF flows reveal real institutional demand beyond short-term price moves.

• Bitcoin treasury stocks can turn BTC exposure into an equity risk shaped by index rules.

• Low fees are reviving questions about how Bitcoin may pay for its long-term security.

• Scaling now means choosing between Lightning, L2 designs and protocol upgrades.

Everyone’s watching Bitcoin’s price, but in 2026, it’s often not the most informative signal.

That’s why it helps to understand what analysts look at when the chart isn’t explaining why the market is moving or where it may move next.

The focus shifts to factors that can quietly reshape Bitcoin’s demand, liquidity and long-term narrative: Who’s buying through exchange-traded funds (ETFs), how “Bitcoin treasury” stocks are treated by indexes, whether miners are earning enough to secure the network, what scaling actually looks like today and how regulation is shaping mainstream access.

Here are five Bitcoin narratives worth watching beyond price in 2026.

1. Reading institutional demand through ETFs

ETF flows may be one of the clearest institutional signals of demand because they reflect real allocation decisions by wealth platforms, registered investment advisors (RIAs) and discretionary desks, not just leverage bouncing around on crypto exchanges.

This idea comes straight from mainstream market reporting and flow data. Reuters framed Bitcoin’s mid-2025 breakout as being “fuelled by strong flows into Bitcoin ETFs” and said the rally looked “more stable and lasting” than earlier, speculation-heavy runs.

Reuters also quoted Aether Holdings’ Nicolas Lin on why this matters for the longer term: “It’s the start of crypto becoming a permanent fixture in diversified portfolios.”

The flip side is also worth noting. Bloomberg highlighted how quickly sentiment can turn when the ETF pipeline reverses, with investors “yanking nearly $1 billion” in a single session, one of the largest daily outflows on record for the group.

2. BTC as equity products

A growing group of public companies is effectively saying this: Instead of buying Bitcoin directly, buy our stock, and we will hold the BTC on the balance sheet for you.

Naturally, Strategy has been the poster child since 2020. The 2026 narrative, however, is that these types of products are moving into the crosshairs of index providers.

Reuters describes these “digital asset treasury companies” (DATCOs) as companies that “began holding crypto tokens such as Bitcoin and ether as their main treasury assets,” giving investors “a proxy for direct exposure.” The problem is straightforward: If a company is mostly a pile of BTC in a corporate shell, is it an operating business or something closer to an investment vehicle?

That question became a real market risk in early January 2026, when MSCI backed off a plan that could have pushed some of these firms out of major indexes. MSCI said investors were concerned that some DATCOs “share characteristics with investment funds” and that separating true operating companies from “companies that hold non-operating assets… rather than for investment purposes requires further research.”

Barron’s noted that JPMorgan estimated potential selling pressure could have reached about $2.8 billion if MSCI had gone ahead and more if other index providers followed.

Reuters quoted Clear Street’s Owen Lau, who called MSCI’s delay the removal of a “material near-term technical risk” for these stocks that act as “proxies for Bitcoin/crypto exposure.”

Mike O’Rourke of JonesTrading was blunter. Exclusion may simply be “postponed until later in the year.”

If ETF flows are the clean spot-demand story, treasury stocks are the messier cousin. They can amplify Bitcoin through equity mechanics, index rules and balance-sheet optics, even when the BTC chart looks boring.

3. The security budget question is back

After the 2024 halving, it has become more apparent that Bitcoin’s long-term security story is increasingly linked to transaction fees.

Galaxy put it plainly, “Bitcoin fee pressure has collapsed.” It estimated that “as of August 2025, ~15% of daily blocks are ‘free blocks,’” with the mempool often being empty.

That’s great for users who want cheap transfers. For cryptocurrency miners, it reopens the big question: What pays for security as the subsidy keeps shrinking?

CoinShares made the same point from the mining side, saying transaction fees “have fallen to historic lows,” sitting at “less than 1% of total block rewards” during parts of 2025.

By early January 2026, JPMorgan-linked reporting flagged real stress. Monthly average hashrate fell 3% in December, while “daily block reward revenue” dropped 7% month-on-month and 32% year-on-year, reaching “the lowest on record.”

VanEck also described “a tough structural squeeze” for miners as subsidy cuts collide with rising competition.

With this in mind, analysts are increasingly watching the fee share of miner revenue, hash price and profitability, and whether onchain demand can return without relying on a hype cycle to push fees higher.

4. Lightning, Bitcoin L2s and upgrade politics

Analysts are now watching the full stack when it comes to scaling.

First, Lightning Network remains a primary payments-focused layer, and capacity is rising again. In mid-December 2025, Lightning capacity was reported at a new high of 5,637 BTC. More important than the headline number is who is adding liquidity. Amboss framed it this way: “It’s not just one company … it’s across the board.”

Second, the “Bitcoin L2 / BTCFi” push is receiving institutional research attention. Galaxy counts Bitcoin L2 projects rising “over sevenfold from 10 to 75” since 2021 and argues that meaningful BTC liquidity could move into layer-2 (L2) environments over time. It estimates that “over $47bn of BTC could be bridged into Bitcoin L2s by 2030.” Whether that happens remains the central debate.

Third, Bitcoin’s upgrade debate is back on the table as L2 builders push for better base-layer primitives. OP_CAT “was disabled in 2010” and is now “frequently proposed… using a soft fork.”

Galaxy’s view is that proposals such as OP_CAT and OP_CTV matter because they could support features like “trustless bridges” and “improvements to the Lightning Network.” Ecosystem commentary is now putting timelines on these ideas. Hiro says there is “a good chance” of a covenant-related soft fork “as early as 2026.”

In short, analysts are watching three things: Lightning capacity and liquidity trends, whether Bitcoin L2s attract real BTC rather than incentive-driven capital and whether the soft-fork conversation turns into an actual activation plan.

5. Regulation is deciding who gets access

In 2026, regulation will increasingly shape who gets access to Bitcoin, through which products and on what terms.

In the US, a change in tone is visible at the top. A federal executive order states, “It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.”

It also says that government BTC in that reserve “shall not be sold.” This language frames Bitcoin as a strategic asset in policy terms.

Stablecoin rules are also key because they shape the infrastructure around crypto markets.

A legal breakdown of the GENIUS Act calls it “the first major crypto legislation” in the United States and noted that it creates licensing requirements for payment stablecoin issuers.

Meanwhile, large asset managers are already warning about second-order effects. Amundi’s chief investment officer said mass stablecoin uptake could turn them into “quasi-banks” and “potentially destabilise the global payment system.”

In the EU, Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) acts as a portcullis. Regulators said, “Only firms authorised … are allowed to provide crypto-asset services in the EU,” with a transition window in some countries running until July 1, 2026.

When it comes to regulation, it is important to watch authorization lists and deadlines in the EU, enforcement posture and whether “strategic reserve” language turns into durable policy in the US.

Where to look when the chart goes quiet

Bitcoin in 2026 appears less driven by hype cycles alone. Instead, attention is shifting to a few pipes and pressure points:

• ETF flows show who is allocating and how sticky that demand might be.

• Treasury-heavy public companies reveal how Bitcoin exposure is being repackaged for equity markets and how index rules can suddenly matter as much as onchain data.

• The security budget debate reminds us that network health depends on incentives.

• Scaling discussions have moved from abstract arguments to concrete trade-offs between Lightning, L2 designs and protocol upgrades.

• Regulation now determines which doors are open and which stay shut for mainstream capital.

None of these forces moves in a straight line, and none shows up cleanly on a price chart. Taken together, they explain why Bitcoin can look quiet on the surface while something important is changing underneath. For analysts, that is where the data increasingly lives.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 15:00

Presentation by Eric Labs, an analyst in CBO's National Security Division, at the 38th National Symposium of the Surface Navy Association.

$500 Billion... US-Taiwan Agree Huge Chip Trade Deal

Confirming what we previewed on Tuesday, the US and Taiwan agreed to a long-sought trade agreement that would lower tariffs on goods from the self-governed island to 15% and see Taiwanese semiconductor companies increase financing for American operations by $500 billion.

While the details are a little murky, duties on Taiwanese shipments would fall from the previous 20% rate - putting them on par with Japan and South Korea, which reached their own agreements last year.

And, as Bloomberg reports, Taiwan’s technology industry would also commit to making at least $250 billion in direct investments to expand advanced semiconductor, energy and artificial intelligence operations in the US.

In addition, Taiwan agreed to provide an additional $250 billion in credit guarantees for further investment in the American semiconductor supply chain.

A White House statement outlining the deal did not specifically mention Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, but the arrangement has clear implications for the company, which is the world’s top producer of AI chips.

Bloomberg reported earlier this week that the accord would call for TSMC to build at least four more chip manufacturing plants in Arizona, adding to the six factories and two advanced packaging facilities it has already promised to open there.

The agreement was announced shortly after a delegation of top Taiwanese officials visited Washington to finalize the deal with President Trump’s representatives.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te had indicated he supported Trump’s goal of reindustrializing the US but said American land, electricity and workforce policy reforms were needed so projects could move ahead.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 14:20

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on December 2, 2025

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on December 3, 2025

"What Will They Do?! Nuke the US?": Russia Mocks Emasculated Europe As Trump Eyes Greenland

Russian officials have been quick to seize on President Trump's renewed efforts in seeking a way ahead to take control of Greenland, accusing the West of "militarizing" the Arctic while also mocking Europe's ability to defend the strategically important, mineral-rich island.

Trump had on Wednesday even suggested the large island is "vital" to his proposed Golden Dome air and missile defense system. The same day, European countries made clear they would bolster their forces on the territory which is a possession of Denmark. 

France, Sweden, Germany and Norway have confirmed they would deploy military personnel to Greenland, as Copenhagen tries to convince the White House to join a permanent NATO mission on the island as an alternative to taking it over.

Germany's Defense Ministry has agreed that a European NATO mission is needed to bolster security "in light of Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic."

This has angered Moscow, which expressed "serious concern" and charged the West with "militarizing" Greenland, and that Europe is ready to seize the moment "solely to advance an anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda."

"NATO has embarked on a course of accelerated militarization of the Arctic, increasing its military presence there under the fabricated pretext of a growing threat from Moscow and Beijing," the Russian embassy in Belgium said late Wednesday.

*  *  * Seen the new store design?

It added that European officials were already discussing plans to encircle the island and deploy a large-scale collective landing force, accusing them of invoking "mythical threats that they themselves have created." Meanwhile, 'big talk' from Von der Leyen...

VON DER LEYEN: GREENLAND CAN COUNT ON EU

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has further made clear the Kremlin believes the Arctic should remain "a region of peace, dialogue and equal cooperation."

It's interesting that Kremlin officials are focusing their harsh rhetoric and condemnations on Europe and not the Trump White House, and the reasons are clear. Moscow is trying to improve its bilateral relations with Washington, and to have Trump's ear related to the Ukraine war and crisis.

The Gallic cock has crowed that, if the sovereignty of Denmark is affected, the consequences would be unprecedented. Ooh, what they will do?! Kidnap POTUS? Nuke the US? Course not. They’ll just shit their pants and give up Greenland. And that’d would be a great European precedent

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) January 14, 2026

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova further mocked the Europeans by saying "Let them look at what they said about Crimea... It would be very useful for them to fire themselves up over Greenland."

"Why not focus all efforts on Greenland now?" she said. And then she invoked the Iran crisis: "Don’t you think the situation in Iran has become a ‘convenient excuse’ for EU officials to divert public attention from the fact that an island is being taken away from them - without a referendum?"

Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev took the jokes further, writing on social media "According to unverified information, a sudden referendum may take place" - and followed by saying Greenland, with a population of about 55,000, could become Russia’s "90th federal subject."

The foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland nervously lit up a cigarette after the meeting with Vance and Rubio.

Earlier, they planned to convince the US to abandon its claims to Greenland.

They failed. pic.twitter.com/L1TOBDr1bj

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) January 15, 2026

He then mocked Europe's total inability to defend the island, asking: "What [will they] do?! ... Nuke the U.S.?"

"They’ll just shit their pants and give up Greenland. And that would be a great European precedent," he wrote on X on Wednesday.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 11:25

CBO reports annually on programs whose authorizations of appropriations have already expired or will expire. This data file covers legislation enacted through September 30, 2025. A full report will be issued later this year.