Cold, Green Europe: What Happens When Ideology Trumps Physics

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via RealClearMarkets.com,

Europe stands as the self-proclaimed cathedral of the “green” transition.

Bureaucrats in Brussels and politicians in Berlin have spent decades lecturing the world on the moral necessity to abandon hydrocarbons.

They have constructed a narrative of the European Union as a shining city powered by the breeze and sun, modeling a net-zero utopia. 

Yet, when the first real chill of winter settled over the continent this fall, that facade collapsed under the weight of physical reality.

Europe depends on fossil fuels for approximately 70% of its total energy consumption. This figure has remained stubbornly consistent over the years despite billions of euros spent on solar and wind infrastructure. The much-celebrated growth in those technologies masks a fundamental truth about energy systems that European policymakers refuse to acknowledge in public: Electricity accounts for only a fraction of total energy demand. 

Transportation, heating, industrial processes and manufacturing continue to run overwhelmingly on oil, natural gas and coal. Highlighting additions in renewable power generation while ignoring the broader energy picture is like taking pride in a new front door while the rest of the house is in shambles

In late November, the fragility of a weather-dependent energy system went on display as temperatures dropped and the demand for space heating surged. This is a predictable feature of life in the Northern Hemisphere, yet European energy policy seems perpetually surprised by it.

Right when families needed heat the most, the wind refused to blow. This is the "Dunkelflaute" – the dark doldrums – about which engineers have warned for years. Wind generation plummeted by 20%. 

Operators of the power grid, needing a backup source to avoid blackouts, turned not to batteries, which remain woefully inadequate for the job. Instead, they harnessed a workhorse of today’s energy systems: natural gas. Gas-fired generation surged by more than 40% to fill the void left by stalled wind turbines.

In the Netherlands, heating-degree days – a measure of demand for warmth – were 35% above the five-year average. Data from mid-November paints a damning picture of the failure of so-called renewables. Between November 14 - 21, as the first cold spell gripped the region, European gas demand skyrocketed by 45%. 

In absolute terms, daily gas demand leaped by 0.6 billion cubic meters per day. This was not a gradual uptick. It was the panic-induced spike of a 75% increase in residential and commercial heating needs.

Gas storage sites were the unsung heroes of this drama, meeting approximately 90% of the jump in daily demand during a critical week. Withdrawals from storage facilities surged by nearly 450%.

The magnitude of this intervention by natural gas is difficult to overstate. To put the 0.6 billion cubic meters of gas into perspective, consider that the energy equivalent of that amount of gas is the daily output of 220 nuclear power plants – a number nearly five times the size of France’s entire nuclear fleet.

Imagine the catastrophe if Europe had achieved its net-zero goals and eliminated its gas infrastructure. There is no battery system on Earth, existing or planned, that could deploy the equivalent of 220 nuclear reactors.

Despite this frantic consumption of gas, prices have remained relatively stable. This was not due to European foresight. It was due to the "peace dividend" of potentially resolving the Ukraine conflict and, more importantly, a flood of liquefied natural gas from the United States.

Herein lies the supreme irony of the story: An anti-fossil fuel, anti-drilling European Union is keeping its population alive only because of a pro-fossil fuel, pro-human administration across the Atlantic.

The United States, by encouraging hydrocarbon production, has created the surplus that now warms European homes.

Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of daily life, especially in advanced societies, which cannot run on the wishful thinking of wind and sun worshipers. The stability of European society today rests on the shoulders of American drillers of gas wells.

The European Union serves as a warning of what happens when ideology trumps physics. Climate mandates cannot make the wind blow. The "green" emperor has no clothes, and, baby, it’s cold outside.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 03:30

What The Scopes Trial Was Really About

Authored by J Scott Turner via RealClearScience,

This is the centennial year for the Scopes “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, 1925’s “trial of the century”. In the dock was John Scopes, a substitute high school teacher who was accused of violating the state’s recently passed Butler Act, which prohibited any state school from teaching any theory of the origin of man that contradicted the account in Genesis. Scopes’ conviction was later overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality.  

By any objective measure, the Scopes trial should arouse no greater attention in 2025 than Dayton’s 1925 Strawberry Festival. It set no legal precedent, led to no repeal of the Butler Act, and everyone involved just got on with their lives. Yet here we are, still talking about it a hundred years later, in commemorative conferences, in high profile commentaries, on podcasts, and even a documentary (full disclosure, produced by me).  

Interest in the Scopes trial has been kept alive by a prevailing narrative that has built up over the last century: of two titans of 1920s America, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, squaring off in an epic courtroom confrontation of science versus religion, evolution versus creation, academic freedom versus state control of education.  

We have known for some time that little of this narrative is true. The Scopes trial was a put-up job, instigated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Dayton town luminaries who wanted to bring commerce and publicity to their small town and its sluggish economy. The “epic confrontation” was more performative than substantive, with drama provided by the defense’s claim that evolutionism and Darwinism were crystalline scientific truths, and that any contrary claims, particularly when the doubts were religiously-motivated, posed a threat to civilization itself. Ever since 1925, scientists generally have bought into the Scopes defense’s narrative. But just how strong was their case?  

The Scopes defense team brought in a group of scientific expert witnesses to inform the Court how misguided the Butler Act was. The judge, John Raulston, allowed one of the experts, Maynard Metcalf of Johns Hopkins, to testify, but with the jury absent. Based on Metcalf’s testimony, Raulston barred the defense from calling any of the other expert witnesses, and struck Metcalf’s testimony from the trial transcript. Even so, Raulston invited the experts to submit written statements for the trial record, essentially amicus curiae briefs. Their statements give us a window into the strength of the defense’s case.  

To put the matter politely, the experts were underwhelming. Metcalf’s testimony was supercilious and condescending, resting on the presumption that something had to be true because he, an expert, said it. The others’ statements were vague and tended to wander off-topic. Two of the experts trotted out the dubious Piltdown Man fossil as proof of the “missing link” between apes and humans. At best, this was evidence of expert laziness and wishful thinking. Since its “discovery” in 1912, doubts had swirled about the Piltdown fossils’ authenticity, later definitively revealed by Charles Oakley and Joseph Weiner as a hoax and an “evolutionary absurdity.”  

Aside from those faux pas, the experts fell into a logical error: an insistent conflation of evolutionism – the proposition that life on Earth has a history – with Darwinism, a proposed mechanism for evolution. In the Scopes trial record, the two terms are used interchangeably, one the synonym of the other, when they are in fact quite distinct things.  

Since the mid-nineteenth century, evolutionism has rested on a solid scientific foundation, both for life in general, and for human origins in particular. We know it is scientific because scientific knowledge is by its nature tentative and provisional, which the science of human origins exemplifies. In 1925, the science of human origins painted a different sketch of human origins than the one we presently paint, but then as now, the sketch is informed by the ongoing dialogue with nature that defines science. Our picture of human origins will continue to adjust as more evidence emerges. 

In 1925, in contrast, Darwinism was at its lowest scientific ebb since its inception in 1859. This period is known broadly as the eclipse of Darwinism. Darwinism’s most serious challenge came from Thomas Hunt Morgan’s mutationist theory for evolution, which he claimed invalidated Darwinian natural selection or at least relegated it to a minor role. While Darwinism’s bacon would eventually be pulled out of the fire by Ronald Fisher’s “genetical theory of natural selection”, that was still five years into the future. How, then, did the scientifically weak Darwinian idea come to be synonymously bound to the more scientifically robust evolutionism, both at the Scopes trial, and in the minds of the public?  

Beginning in the late 19th century, Darwinism became transformed into an ideology – “popular Darwinism” – that could be enlisted as support for a wide range of political and social causes. Some of these were flatly contradictory to one another. “Social Darwinism”, for example, has been a justification both for generous social welfare programs, and for abolishing them entirely. Generally, popular Darwinism has served as a proxy for progressive ideology, like Wilson’s “living constitution.”  

The nebulousness of popular Darwinism puts William Jennings Bryan and the anti-evolution movements in the 1920s South in a different light. Bryan’s principal complaint about popular Darwinism was its fundamental emptiness: that if Darwinism could mean anything at all, it also could mean nothing at all, making it a nihilistic ideology that would bear bitter fruit wherever it took root. The social and economic upheavals in the decade following the Great War seemed to provide ample evidence for Bryan’s argument, which resonated strongly in the largely agrarian and tradition-minded South. It was not ignorance and religious bigotry that was at work here. To the contrary, people of the South were paying close attention to events, and were not liking what they saw.  

Bryan’s critique of Darwinism was the seed crystal that precipitated these anxieties into political action, among them the passage of the Butler Act. John Butler was a communicant of the fundamentalist Primitive Baptist Church, but his eponymous Act drew support from across a broad spectrum of Tennessee society, both secular and religious. So strong was that support that Tennessee’s progressive Democrat governor, Austin Peay, felt compelled to sign it into law.  

What was at stake in the Scopes trial was not a conflict of science versus religion, or evolution versus creation. Rather, it was a political tussle over a different question entirely, namely, who gets to decide how parents educate their children? In passing the Butler Act, the people of Tennessee arrogated that decision to themselves. For their temerity, the ACLU decided it had to parachute into Dayton to take the decision back. To the extent that the high-minded rhetoric of the Scopes defense played a role, it was a political agenda masquerading as science.  

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/17/2025 - 23:00

What GAO Found The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, contains a provision, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c), making it unlawful for someone, while acting in their capacity as a federal law enforcement officer, to knowingly engage in a sexual act with an individual who is under arrest, under supervision, in detention, or in federal custody. According to a 2022 Department of Justice (DOJ) report, consent is not a defense to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c) and therefore federal law enforcement officers are automatically liable if they engage in the prohibited conduct. Generally, DOJ's Civil Rights Division and the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices throughout the country prosecute sexual offenses committed by federal law enforcement officers. According to DOJ data, there were no cases filed and no violations (criminal convictions) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c) in fiscal year 2025. Similarly, as GAO reported in its prior two reports on this topic, there were also no cases filed and no violations in fiscal year 2023 and 2024. As GAO noted in its prior reports, there are several factors that could explain why there have been no cases filed and no violations as of September 30, 2025. First, according to the 2022 DOJ report noted above, federal law enforcement officers committing criminal sexual acts against individuals under arrest, under supervision, in detention, or in federal custody may be prosecuted under other criminal statutes. Prosecutors must assess whether certain statutes apply to a case, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant case law in their jurisdiction. Second, individuals cannot be charged for prohibited conduct that occurred prior to the provision's effective date of October 1, 2022, and it can take several years from the time of an alleged incident to the filing of a criminal case to a disposition of the criminal case. Finally, according to an official from DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women, many victims do not report sexual abuse immediately due to a variety of factors, including fear of retaliation. The official also noted that there is a high rate of underreporting of sex offenses in general, particularly when it involves victims in custody or detention, where victims are reluctant to report "the police to the police." Why GAO Did This Study The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, includes a provision for GAO to report on violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c) committed between October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023, and then to report annually thereafter. GAO issued two reports addressing this topic, the first covering fiscal year 2023 in October 2023, and the second covering fiscal year 2024 in October 2024. This report provides information on the number of cases filed by DOJ and the number of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c) during fiscal year 2025. To address this objective, GAO requested and received data from DOJ on charges and convictions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2243(c), and interviewed officials from EOUSA. GAO also interviewed DOJ officials to understand how they report cases filed and violations in their data system and assessed the reliability of that data. For more information, contact Gretta Goodwin at goodwing@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) System consists of 11 federally chartered FHLBanks that support liquidity by making loans to member financial institutions (including banks) in the U.S. As of June 2025, 93 percent of banks (approximately 4,100) were members of an FHLBank, allowing them to obtain liquidity via secured loans. GAO’s analysis found that the FHLBanks generally serve as a reliable and consistent source of funding for banks of all sizes throughout the financial cycle. They can also play a key role in the health of small banks (those with $10 billion or less in assets). This has been the case despite concerns raised in some academic and other literature that FHLBank lending could exacerbate periods of financial stress—for example, by masking problems at troubled member banks or increasing resolution costs when a member bank fails. Banks’ FHLBank borrowing trends. From 2015 through June 2025, most U.S. banks were FHLBank members and obtained secured loans at least once. Banks’ total outstanding borrowing (as of quarter-end) ranged from $189 billion to $804 billion during this period. Although most active FHLBank members maintained relatively consistent FHLBank borrowing, a small number of large banks (with more than $10 billion in assets) drove substantial increases in aggregate borrowing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the March 2023 liquidity crisis. For example, large banks were responsible for 97 percent of the increased borrowing in the first quarter of 2023. However, median FHLBank borrowing as a share of median total assets generally stayed within a consistent range from 2015 through June 2025, including for large banks. This suggests that their overall reliance on FHLBank loans during stress periods was largely unchanged. Total Outstanding Federal Home Loan Bank Borrowing, Jan. 2015–June 2025 Outcomes associated with FHLBank borrowing. GAO’s econometric models, which controlled for bank health, macroeconomic factors, and economic cycles, found that higher FHLBank borrowing by a bank was generally associated with positive outcomes for the bank. From 2015 through 2024, higher FHLBank borrowing was associated with (1) increases in real estate lending and (2) lower likelihood of being flagged as a problem bank or of failing or closing voluntarily. These results were largely driven by small banks, which make up 97 percent of banks in GAO’s analysis. Policymaker considerations for potential changes to FHLBank lending. GAO reviewed suggestions for reform from academic, industry, and government sources, such as involving federal banking regulators in lending decisions and changing how FHLBank loans are priced. In discussion groups, interviews, and written comments, stakeholders noted that while these changes could help address certain concerns, each carried potential unintended consequences for markets, member banks (especially smaller ones), and consumers. GAO found that in some cases, the suggested changes would duplicate existing authorities or practices. The FHLBanks, Federal Housing Finance Agency (which oversees FHLBanks), and the federal banking regulators have mechanisms to communicate during periods of financial stress. The bank failures and related liquidity stress of March 2023 highlighted challenges to timely coordination between the FHLBanks and the Federal Reserve Banks. Since then, they have taken steps to improve their coordination. These include conducting joint tabletop exercises and ongoing discussions to help shared members reallocate collateral during emergencies. In January 2025, the FHLBank System and the Federal Reserve System also established a joint working group to improve routine interoperability between the two systems. These efforts are ongoing and, in some cases, are in early stages, with expected completion in late 2025 or 2026. Continued commitment to these coordination efforts will be important to ensure readiness for future financial stress, when member banks may need to reallocate collateral to access additional liquidity. Why GAO Did This Study The FHLBank System supports liquidity by making billions of dollars in loans to member banks. Federal banking regulators oversee individual banks’ safety and soundness and promote financial stability. The 12 district Federal Reserve Banks also lend to banks and may act as a lender of last resort. Substantial FHLBank lending to three large banks that failed in 2023 renewed questions about FHLBanks’ lending role and communication with banking regulators and Federal Reserve Banks during times of stress. GAO was asked to review the role of FHLBanks during financial crises. This report examines (1) banks’ FHLBank borrowing trends from 2015 through June 2025; (2) associations between FHLBank borrowing and outcomes; (3) policy considerations for potential changes to FHLBank lending; and (4) communication among FHLBanks and relevant federal agencies during periods of financial stress. GAO reviewed literature from 2007 through mid-2024; analyzed bank financial reports, FHLBank membership data, and economic indicators; and examined documentation from the FHLBanks, banking regulators, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. GAO also held seven discussion groups with a total of 30 academics, researchers, and industry group representatives (selected for their relevant knowledge and diverse views) and interviewed representatives of FHLBanks, federal regulators, and a nongeneralizable sample of 10 member banks (selected to reflect varying asset sizes) that borrowed from FHLBanks during recent periods of financial stress. For more information, contact Jill Naamane at naamanej@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have funded and implemented projects to combat forced labor and sex trafficking, including some projects in countries affected by armed conflict. From fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2024, State and USAID obligated about $437 million for anti-trafficking projects. This included funding for projects in conflict-affected countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, and Ethiopia. However, a January 2025 executive order paused U.S. foreign development assistance. In April 2025, State began a reorganization, and in July 2025, the Secretary of State announced that USAID had ceased providing foreign assistance. As a result, during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2025, State had no new obligations and de-obligated $1.4 million and USAID obligated $1 million and de-obligated about $1.1 million from anti-trafficking projects. As of September 2025, some of State’s anti-trafficking programming remained. Agency officials said that, going forward, State planned to focus on producing its required annual Trafficking in Persons Report—a report describing the anti-trafficking efforts of the United States and foreign governments. Officials from agencies and implementing partner organizations identified challenges affecting anti-trafficking project implementation in conflict-affected countries. They also identified opportunties to strengthen project implementation in any future efforts. Stakeholders Identified Challenges and Opportunities to Strengthen Implementation of Anti-Trafficking Projects in Conflict-Affected Countries Challenges to Implementation Opportunities to Strengthen Implementation · Prioritization of humanitarian aid over anti-trafficking efforts · Increased vulnerabilities to trafficking in conflict-affected countries · Changing trafficking patterns in conflict-affected countries · Impaired prevention and awareness among vulnerable populations · Interrupted access to conduct protection activities · Limited program management flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances in conflict · Difficulties in coordinating and partnering with local and international stakeholders · Limited local partner capacity to conduct anti-trafficking efforts · Corruption and evidence requirements for prosecuting trafficking cases · Continue U.S. policy emphasis on anti-trafficking efforts · Build local partner capacity through training, technology, and best practices · Allow implementing partners greater flexibility to adapt when conflict interrupts planned anti-trafficking activities · Facilitate coordination among international and local anti-trafficking partners · Provide additional funding for anti-trafficking programming Source: GAO analysis of discussion group responses. | GAO-26-107406 Note: We held eight discussion groups with a total of 47 stakeholders from December 2024 to March 2025. Stakeholders included U.S. agency officials managing anti-trafficking projects and representatives of organizations implementing projects in Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, and Ethiopia. Why GAO Did This Study Human trafficking is a global threat that armed conflict exacerbates. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted widespread concern about trafficking in Ukraine and other conflict-affected countries. This report is one of several engagements GAO initiated in response to a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. This report describes State and USAID funding for anti-trafficking projects globally and in four conflict-affected countries—Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, and Ethiopia. Among other objectives, this report also describes challenges and opportunities to strengthen implementation of anti-trafficking projects in conflict-affected countries. GAO analyzed agency documentation and funding data and interviewed and analyzed discussion responses from 47 agency officials and representatives from implementing partner organizations from eight discussion groups held from December 2024 to March 2025. For more information, contact Chelsa Kenney at kenneyc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found According to key metrics, air service at airports of all sizes dropped sharply in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While larger airports have rebounded to some extent, the recovery has lagged for smaller airports, including nonhub airports (i.e., airports that have less than 0.05 percent of annual U.S. commercial enplanements but have more than 10,000 annual enplanements). For example, the average number of daily departures per route for nonhub airports was 19 percent lower in 2024 than in 2018. Average Daily Departures per Route for Nonhub Airports Before (2018), During (2020), and After (2024) the COVID-19 Pandemic (Calendar Years) Note: Nonhub airports have less than 0.05 percent of annual U.S. commercial enplanements but have more than 10,000 annual enplanements. The Department of Transportation (DOT) administers two federal programs that support air service to small communities. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program provides subsidies to airlines serving eligible communities to help support air service. The Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) provides grants to eligible communities not receiving EAS-subsidized service that can be used to jumpstart new air service. However, GAO found the demand for SCASDP grants has continued to exceed the support SCASDP offers. GAO also previously reported that SCASDP grants did not fully fund the revenue guarantees that reduce airlines’ financial risk to initiate new air service. Further, while SCASDP grants provide funding for revenue guarantees for up to 3 years, airport representatives and other stakeholders GAO interviewed identified ongoing funding as needed for maintaining service. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 gave DOT some additional flexibilities to amend existing grants to small communities if circumstances change, and to consider grant applications for the same project from the community in a shorter time frame. Certain nonhub airports that do not receive subsidized air service through EAS (non-EAS nonhub airports) have faced challenges securing and maintaining air service. For example, some of these airports reported an increased need to pay airlines for service, as airlines have shifted to using larger planes and scaled back service to some smaller communities to reduce their operating costs. Representatives of selected non-EAS nonhub airports told GAO they have leveraged various sources of funding to provide airlines revenue guarantees to help secure new air service. However, representatives of several selected airports stressed the difficulty of providing ongoing funding to maintain air service, particularly once any funding from SCASDP has been exhausted. Why GAO Did This Study Access to air service provides a vital connection to the national transportation system and can be an important driver of economic growth. However, smaller communities have experienced declining scheduled passenger air service for several decades. The smaller airports impacted by air service declines include certain nonhub airports that have not regained pre-pandemic service levels. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision in statute for GAO to study challenges that certain nonhub airports face. This report describes (1) changes in key metrics for air service at nonhub airports from 2018 through 2024; (2) the extent to which SCASDP can help non-EAS nonhub airports secure and maintain air service; and (3) challenges selected non-EAS nonhub airports have identified, and how these airports have addressed the challenges. GAO analyzed flight data reported to DOT for key metrics, including average daily departures per route, from calendar year 2018 through calendar year 2024. GAO interviewed DOT officials and reviewed relevant statutes and grant documentation, including grant applications and awards for SCASDP from fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2023 (the most recent award cycle). Finally, GAO selected seven non-EAS nonhub airports based on factors such as changes in air service. GAO interviewed representatives of these airports about challenges they have faced and their efforts to address those challenges, and GAO conducted site visits to four of the airports. GAO also interviewed state aviation officials in four states where selected airports are located as well as aviation stakeholders. For more information, contact Derrick Collins at CollinsD@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Navy has suffered significant losses from 13 fires on ships undergoing maintenance since 2008. The Navy investigated these fires, including one on board the USS Bonhomme Richard in 2020. Based on actions taken since that fire, the Navy has improved fire safety and culture in the Navy and among contractors—contributing to no major fires since 2020. However, staffing shortages threaten progress and oversight. GAO found that key organizations responsible for fire safety oversight have personnel shortages. Such shortages limit the Navy’s oversight of fire safety standards and add a burden for sailors who are balancing other duties. Image of the July 2020 Major Fire Aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard Further, the Navy did not fully assess challenges with contractor oversight. In reviewing the Navy’s key oversight tools, GAO found that these tools do not effectively address contractor compliance with fire safety standards during ship maintenance periods: Corrective Action Requests. The Navy uses these requests to bring contractors into compliance with contract requirements. But this process does not incorporate monetary penalties to address persistent issues. As a result, the Navy issued many requests related to fire safety, including a severe warning prior to the USS Bonhomme Richard fire, but fire safety issues continued. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans. These plans are a tool through which the Navy assesses monetary penalties. The Navy’s guidance and its quality assurance surveillance plans for the six ships GAO reviewed did not assess penalties for noncompliance with contractual safety standards. Progress Payment Retention Rates. The Navy generally pays contractors as maintenance work is completed, retaining some payment until the work is done. The Navy’s continued use of a reduced retention rate implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic reduces the effectiveness of this tool. Liability. The Navy has not adjusted its limitation on ship repair contractor liability for major losses since 2003. Inflation and the increased complexity and cost of ship maintenance mean that the limit is proportionally less than when established, placing increase financial risk on the government in the event of a loss, such as a major fire. Why GAO Did This Study Fire is a significant risk for Navy ships undergoing maintenance. A 2020 fire found to be caused by arson on board the USS Bonhomme Richard resulted in the ship’s decommissioning, decades earlier than planned. This report assesses (1) the extent to which Navy actions taken following the USS Bonhomme Richard fire addressed contractor compliance with fire safety standards, and (2) the Navy’s use of various contracting tools for ensuring contractor accountability and compliance with fire safety standards. GAO reviewed Navy actions based on lessons learned from the USS Bonhomme Richard fire. GAO also selected six nonnuclear surface ships undergoing major repair by four different contractors at four domestic maintenance centers, and analyzed Navy documentation of contractor compliance with fire safety standards. Additionally, GAO visited three regional maintenance centers and toured five ships.

What GAO Found Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers help ensure the safety of U.S. air travel. However, lapses in appropriations in the 2010s, and the COVID-19 pandemic, resulted in reduced controller hiring and increased attrition. In response, FAA has increased hiring every year since 2021. Nevertheless, at the end of fiscal year 2025, FAA employed 13,164 controllers, about 6 percent fewer than in 2015. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, total flights using the air traffic control system increased by about 10 percent to 30.8 million. FAA uses a standardized process to hire controllers that begins with evaluating applicants’ performance on an aptitude test or their prior experience as an air traffic controller. Applicants must also meet medical and security standards and succeed at multiple types of training. However, FAA’s processes for hiring and training controllers result in substantial attrition (see fig.). This occurs due to a limited portion of the population having the required aptitude, and the length and complexity of the processes—which can take 2-6 years. Specifically, the medical clearance process can take some applicants 2 years to complete. In response to these challenges, FAA has taken steps to accelerate the process, including adding resources to the medical clearance process and streamlining application review. Attrition Across the FAA’s Processes for Hiring Air Traffic Controllers Without Prior Experience, Fiscal Years 2017-2022 GAO also found that FAA does not consistently assess its processes to recruit, hire, and train air traffic controllers. Specifically, FAA does not have performance goals for these processes and their resulting impact. Such goals help ensure accountability for achieving specific and measurable results. GAO also found that while FAA is taking steps to improve its collection of data on recruiting, hiring, and training, it does not consistently use these data to assess the results of its efforts and inform decision-making. Doing so could help FAA understand the performance of its processes, make the changes that would have the greatest effect on controller staffing, and keep otherwise qualified applicants on the track to becoming certified controllers. Why GAO Did This Study FAA, within the Department of Transportation, manages over 80,000 flights daily. FAA air traffic controllers perform this essential job that requires highly specialized skills and training. Over the last 10 years, FAA has faced staffing shortages at critical facilities. GAO was asked to review FAA’s processes for hiring air traffic controllers. This report (1) describes the size and composition of the air traffic control workforce and changes since fiscal year 2015; (2) describes the processes FAA uses to recruit, hire, and train new controllers; (3) examines the steps FAA has taken to address challenges associated with recruiting, hiring, and training controllers; and (4) evaluates how FAA has assessed its efforts to hire air traffic controllers. To address these objectives, GAO used FAA data to develop a dataset covering individuals from application through certification and used the data to analyze attrition in the controller hiring process. GAO also reviewed FAA documentation; visited the FAA training academy in Oklahoma City and air traffic control facilities near Chicago; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.; interviewed FAA officials and aviation industry stakeholders; and compared FAA’s efforts to assess its hiring processes with leading practices for evidence-based decision-making.

What GAO Found The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) plays a critical role in the nation's communications and commerce. Federal law requires USPS to "provide adequate and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees" and to "serve as nearly as practicable the entire population of the United States." USPS has long been expected to fulfill those requirements while being financially self-sufficient by covering its expenses with revenue from the sale of its products and services. However, USPS's financial viability has been on GAO's High Risk List since 2009 due to its poor financial condition, which has been driven in part by declining mail volumes and rising costs. USPS has lost money every fiscal year since 2007. Its net losses have totaled approximately $118 billion from fiscal years 2007 through 2025. Its productivity also has declined—a trend that has contributed to its cost pressures. USPS has been able to continue operating by increasing its debt and unfunded liabilities. At the end of fiscal year 2024, USPS's unfunded liabilities and debt totaled 206 percent of its annual revenue, compared with 82 percent in fiscal year 2007. USPS's key costs are related to employee compensation and benefits, which represented about 76 percent of USPS's total operating expenses in fiscal year 2024. In March 2021, USPS introduced Delivering for America, a 10-year strategic plan intended to modernize its network and products to bring about financial sustainability. The strategic plan includes significant changes to many aspects of USPS operations, including its processing, transportation, and delivery networks. USPS has implemented a range of cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing measures as part of Delivering for America, but additional strategies are constrained by statutory, regulatory, contractual, and political issues. While some key stakeholders have expressed support for Delivering for America's goals and strategies, some have expressed concerns that USPS's implementation of the plan (1) has not achieved projected cost savings and (2) has lowered service performance in some areas. Additionally, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 (PSRA) was signed into law on April 6, 2022. PSRA is the first major legislative change to USPS since Congress passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act (PAEA) in 2006. PSRA provisions had immediate and long-term effects on USPS's finances and operations, such as repealing the requirement for USPS to prefund retiree health benefits and codifying 6-day-a-week mail delivery. Nevertheless, USPS's business model will remain unsustainable without Congress making difficult, fundamental policy decisions. Why GAO Did This Study This primer updates GAO's 2021 Primer on Postal Issues (GAO-21-479SP). Since GAO issued the original primer, USPS began implementing its 10-year strategic plan, Delivering for America, and Congress passed the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022. In addition, USPS released an updated plan in 2024, which summarized progress made over the preceding 3 years and the evolution of its major strategies. This primer will help readers familiarize themselves with key issues confronting USPS by providing straightforward answers to common questions. It also identifies topics for Congress to consider when determining the future of USPS. For readers interested in a more detailed discussion, a list of related GAO products is included at the end of each section.

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.