Tag: finance

Currently France and Britain are in talks to potentially extend their nuclear arsenals to protect Europe as a defense ‘umbrella’ – at a moment some officials have questioned the United States commitment to leading NATO.

Politico wrote in the aftermath of the Munich Security Conference, “Multiple European countries are publicly backing talks on a homegrown nuclear deterrent to complement American atomic weapons following an erosion of trust in a Donald Trump-led US.”

Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin has issued the Kremlin’s reaction to these latest developments, asserting that the British ‘nuclear umbrella’ will fail to provide extra security to other NATO members.

The diplomat’s words were captured in an interview with Russian newspaper Izvestia on Tuesday. Kelin described that it is “obvious that the British ‘nuclear umbrella’ will not be able to provide any additional material security guarantees” to Europe.

Moscow meanwhile continues to closely monitor the moves by “states pursuing an overtly anti-Russian policy” – he emphasized.

“The possibility of the expansion of nuclear safeguards will be taken into account in our military planning as well as in further discussions of the strategic stability issues,” the ambassador added.

Kelin then took a swipe at Britain’s hawkish stance in the context of the Ukraine war: “The strengthening of such potential apparently instills in London an illusory hope of leadership in ensuring European security,” he said.

Moscow’s growing concerns over British policy is in part related to plans to purchase a dozen F-35 fighter jets from the US, capable of carrying missiles tipped with nuclear warheads.

Additionally, when the tiny but outspoken Baltic states – directly on Russia’s doorstep – try to tout NATO ‘nuclear deterrent’ talking points, it seems natural that Moscow would be extremely concerned: 

Estonia isn’t ruling out joining early-stage talks on a common nuclear deterrent in Europe, Deputy Defense Minister Tuuli Duneton said in an interview. “We are always open to discuss” with partners, she said, while emphasizing the U.S. was still “committed to providing nuclear deterrence for allied nations.”

Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Siliņa echoed that. “Nuclear deterrence can give us new opportunities. Why not?” she said, while cautioning that any steps would have to be in compliance with “our international commitments.”

NATO top leadership has still signaled no change in direction on the conventional US nuclear umbrella, however.

The United States nuclear umbrella, which has protected allies and cut down on the spread of nuclear weapons, is the “ultimate guarantor of freedom” in Europe, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte says.

“The ultimate guarantor is the nuclear umbrella from the United States,” Rutte… pic.twitter.com/8GCU5oc4O6

— PBS News (@NewsHour) February 17, 2026

In the backdrop is the fact that that the landmark New START nuclear treaty between Washington and Moscow has ceased to exist as of this month. Russia is offering that it won’t expand its arsenal so long as the US does the same. But this is still dangerous, uncharted territory.

Via The Libertarian Institute 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio voiced strong support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Orbán is seeking a fifth term as leader in the April election.

“I’m going to be very blunt with you. The prime minister and the President have a very, very close personal relationship and working relationship,” Rubio said in a press conference with Orbán on Monday.

“I think it has been incredibly beneficial to the relationship between our two countries, and it’s important to understand how important the relations between leaders are to the relations between countries.” He continued, “President Trump is deeply committed to your success.”

While Orbán has a strong relationship with President Donald Trump, he has been a roadblock to European leaders’ efforts to increase Western support for Ukraine. Hungary has used its position in NATO and the EU to slow or limit aid to Ukraine and the economic war against Russia.

Some EU members were attempting to use frozen Russian assets as collateral for a massive loan to Ukraine. Orbán was key to preventing the EU from moving forward with the loan.

Budapest has repeatedly expressed displeasure with Kiev over Ukraine’s disabling of the Russian pipeline that carries oil to Hungary. Hungary is now requesting that Croatia allow Russian oil transit to bypass Ukraine.

President Donald Trump has been willing to use his leverage to influence elections around the globe. In Argentina, he conditions a $20 billion assistance package on President Javier Milei’s party winning elections. The President has also voiced strong support or opposition to candidates in Honduras and Iraq.

Rubio told Orbán that Hungary could receive similar support as Argentina.

2019: Senator Rubio and others expressed concerns about Hungary’s “democratic erosion” and urged the Trump administration to address issues like the rule of law, media freedom, and corruption during meeting with Orbán.

2026: Secretary Rubio endorsed Orbán. pic.twitter.com/hQ4Ta69TY9

— Benjamin Alvarez (@BenjAlvarez1) February 16, 2026

“If you have financial struggles, if you face things that are impediments to growth, if you face things that threaten the stability of your country, I know that President Trump would be very interested because of your relationship with him and because of the importance of this country to us,” the Secretary of State said.

In early 2023, as scrutiny mounted around India’s Adani Group, two close associates of the Adani family acknowledged to their bankers that they controlled billions of dollars in the conglomerate’s shares through hedge funds.

The admission — found in records reviewed by OCCRP, who called them “secret investments” in a new investigative piece— came soon after Hindenburg Research accused the group of inflating its stock through “brazen” manipulation that included promoters and insiders holding more of the float than was publicly disclosed. 

The allegations sparked international attention, amplified by the company’s perceived ties to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Although Adani shares initially fell, they later rebounded. The group dismissed the claims as an “attack on India,” and India’s market regulator, SEBI, eventually cleared the company on two specific issues, while other investigative strands have not been publicly detailed.

The investors, Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli of the UAE and Taiwan’s Chang Chung-Ling, had long-standing business links to the Adani family. Previously reported holdings in the hundreds of millions now appear far larger: internal documents from Swiss bank REYL Intesa Sanpaolo show that as recently as 2023, the two held roughly $3 billion in Adani-related investments through Dubai-based accounts. In written statements to their bank, they said their positions stemmed from personal and professional trust in the family and denied Hindenburg’s allegations.

Both men have surfaced in past Indian investigations into alleged Adani misconduct — cases that were ultimately dropped. A 2007 diamond-trading probe and a 2014 over-invoicing inquiry connected them to companies tied to Vinod Adani, the chairman’s brother. Vinod was at the heart of many Hindenburg allegations, with the firm questioning his management of overseas shell companies and alleging financial improprieties relating to potential manipulation of Adani shares.

Hindenburg also identified Chang as linked to a disclosed “related party.” Earlier reporting cited evidence that their trades were coordinated with Adani-linked entities.

OCCRP writes that Swiss prosecutors are now examining Chang on suspicion he acted as a “front man” to help insiders exceed ownership limits. More than $310 million has been frozen, though no charges have been filed. Authorities confirmed an ongoing investigation into money laundering and document forgery. The Adani Group denies any role.

Abroad, U.S. prosecutors in 2024 charged founder Gautam Adani and his nephew in a bribery case the company calls “baseless,” alongside a related SEC civil action. In India, however, consequences have been limited. The Supreme Court declined to order a separate probe, noting SEBI’s progress on “twenty-two out of twenty-four” inquiries and saying its work “inspires confidence.” In 2025, SEBI ruled certain allegations “not established,” though other matters reportedly remain pending.

Bank records show Ahli held about $2 billion and Chang about $1 billion through British Virgin Islands companies, largely invested in hedge funds likely focused on Adani stocks. After meeting bank officials in February 2023, they confirmed ownership of the accounts, rejected wrongdoing, and said they would diversify “in the short term.” The bank tightened oversight of their transactions.

In an August 2024 ruling, Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court upheld the freeze on Chang’s funds, stating investigators must be allowed time to proceed and observing that the appellant had not provided documentation sufficient “to dispel the doubts legitimately raised.”

Ahli and Chang declined to comment. The bank cited legal restrictions on disclosure.

Meanwhile, days ago, it was announced that the reporter on the byline to this new story had been sentenced to a year for “defamning” Adani Group on X:

On February 10, a magistrate court in the western state of Gujarat convicted Nair and sentenced him to jail and a fine of 5,000 rupees (US$55) for his posts between October 2020 and July 2021 on the X platform and articles on the Australian nonprofit Adani Watch investigative site, according to a copy of the judgment, reviewed by CPJ.

Nair frequently uses social media to comment on the Adani Group, owned by billionaire Gautam Adani. The conglomerate has come under sustained scrutiny over allegations of financial irregularities, which it has denied.

Nair’s posts cited or linked to reports by established publications, including The Times of India and Bloomberg, sometimes accompanied by commentary questioning Indian government policies and the Adani Group’s environmental compliance and alleged monopolistic practices.

The case against Nair was initiated by Adani Enterprises Limited, the group’s flagship firm.

On February 10, the court concluded that the journalist’s comments and publications were defamatory and made with knowledge of their likely impact on the company’s reputation.

Via Remix News,

Due to years of uncontrolled mass migration, many Europeans are asking what concrete options there are to reverse course, with many feeling that the situation is hopeless and cannot be significantly reversed.

However, a new report titled “Taking Back Control from Brussels: The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies” – produced by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Hungary’s Migration Research Institute, and Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute – provides comprehensive solutions to the crisis.

The paper’s core thesis offers bold and practical solutions today, noting that the power still rests with member states.

The authors write: “European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties.”

The report outlines how asylum policy has “completely collapsed” in the EU and reached a point of “total failure.” The authors contend that the current system lacks democratic legitimacy and has turned the Schengen area into a “sieve” that facilitates illegal migration and prevents effective border protection. Given the recent legalization actions of the far-left Spanish government, aimed at regularizing approximately 500,000 migrants who can then move freely across Europe, the paper’s proposals may be more relevant than ever.

The paper calls for a fundamental “paradigm shift” to restore migration sovereignty to individual nation-states, asserting that renationalization is a necessity for Europe to regain control over its borders and territory.

The following 18 proposals from the second part of the paper outline a roadmap for this renationalization. The paper itself provides far more details about each proposal and is recommended reading for any European party looking for a blueprint to regain control of immigration.

I. Opt-out and Derogations to Legal Frameworks

Grant Member States an Opt-in/Opt-out

Allow all Member States to request an individual opt-in or opt-out from the common EU migration and asylum policy, similar to the existing status of Denmark and Ireland.

Insert a “Notwithstanding Clause”

Amend the treaty to allow national parliaments to temporarily suspend EU migration rules when public order, security, or pressing national interests are at stake.

Unilaterally Disapply problematic EU Acquis

If treaty reforms are blocked, Member States should unilaterally stop applying the most problematic elements of the existing EU migration legal framework.

Withdraw from or Suspend the ECHR

Consider partial or total withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights or temporarily suspending its application to regain border control flexibility.

Derogate from the 1967 Protocol to the Geneva Convention

Denounce this protocol to restore national flexibility and move away from “untouchable dogmas” regarding universal asylum obligations.

II. A New Migration and Asylum Paradigm

Restore National Competence for Readmission Agreements

Return the power to negotiate and conclude readmission agreements with third countries to individual Member States, as the centralized EU model has failed.

Condition EU Funding on Third-Country Cooperation

Legally mandate that EU funding to third countries be strictly conditional on their effective cooperation in migration, particularly regarding returns and readmissions.

Restore National Competence Over Returns

Grant Member States full control over the detention and expulsion of illegal migrants without interference from the EU or the European Court of Justice.

Outsource Asylum Processing to Safe Third Countries

Enable Member States to establish mechanisms to outsource the processing of asylum requests to safe third countries outside the EU territory.

Amend the Schengen Borders Code

Revise the code to eliminate legal ambiguities that currently hinder border guards and lead to “abusive” claims of refoulement.

Limit Free Movement to European Citizens

Restrict the right of free movement within the Schengen area strictly to EU citizens to prevent illegal secondary movements.

Prohibit Asylum Applications After Illegal Entry

Enact rules that bar individuals from lodging asylum claims if they have entered the Union territory illegally.

Radically Amend the Search and Rescue (SAR) Framework

Change SAR rules to ensure the duty to rescue does not equate to a right of entry and prohibit any collusion with smugglers.

Abolish EU Competence on Family Reunification and Integration

Return full control over family reunification and integration policies to national governments, arguing these areas bring “no added value” at the EU level.

Earmark EU Funding for Physical Border Infrastructure

Specifically designate European funds to finance physical barriers like fences and walls at external borders.

III. Reconsidering Civil Society and Agency Roles

Reform Frontex to Help Member States

Ensure the EU border control agency Frontex serves to assist rather than control member states and remove all NGO presence from its internal structures.

Strict Transparency and Accountability for NGOs

Subject any organization receiving European funds to rigorous rules on transparency, traceability, and accountability.

Prohibit EU Funding for Pro-Migration Organizations

Ban any direct or indirect EU funding for organizations that promote or facilitate illegal migration.

“The time for decisive action is now.”

One of the core points the paper tries to outline is that “contrary to popular belief, the EU does not possess exclusive competence in this field. While the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for a common asylum policy, it does not abolish national sovereignty over border control, internal security, or the determination of who may enter and remain on national territory.”

In other words, there is an extraordinary amount that EU member states can accomplish in the area of migration policy if a determined national government is in place.

One of the authors of the report, Jerzy Kwaśniewski, an attorney and the president of the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, said:

“Europe is facing an unprecedented legal crisis that is depriving member states of their ability to protect their own borders and citizens. After years of a common EU migration and asylum policy, the system has completely collapsed. The Schengen area has turned into a sieve through which illegal migrants move freely. Return procedures for illegal migrants are largely illusory. Meanwhile, overlapping international obligations have made effective border protection almost impossible from a legal standpoint.

To make matters worse, European taxpayers are financing NGOs that directly facilitate illegal migration and obstruct effective border control. Given the total failure of the European Union’s common migration and asylum policy, further reforms within the current EU framework are no longer possible. A fundamental paradigm shift is needed — the restoration of migration sovereignty to nation-states, which alone possess the democratic legitimacy to decide who has the right to enter and reside on their territory.

He added that “the renationalization of migration policy is no longer an option; it is a necessity. The alternative is a complete loss of control over Europe’s borders and the definitive end of our ability to manage our own territory. The time for debate is over. The time for decisive action is now.”

Read more here…

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The European Union has opened an in-depth investigation into online fashion retailer Shein over the sale of illegal items and what it calls the Chinese-owned platform’s “addictive design.”

The probe, announced on Feb. 16 by the European Commission, marks the bloc’s first formal proceeding against the company under the Digital Services Act (DSA), a set of sweeping online regulations that governs nearly all corners of the digital ecosystem, from e-commerce platforms to social media networks.

Brussels said it is investigating the sale of illegal products “including child sexual abuse material,” citing in particular child-like sex dolls that were found on Shein’s marketplace. The company came under scrutiny in France in late 2025 after authorities discovered lifelike sex dolls resembling young girls on the site, along with illegal weapons. The French government moved to suspend access to Shein’s website, but a court blocked the move and instead asked Brussels to step in under the DSA.

The controversy, EU officials said, exposed broader concerns about whether Shein poses “a systemic risk for consumers across the entire European Union.” They have asked the company to provide information on how it ensures that minors are not exposed to age-inappropriate content, as well as how it prevents the circulation of illegal products on its platform.

Investigators will also look into Shein’s “addictive design,” including the use of gamified features such as points, rewards, and other incentives for frequent engagement. EU officials have said that such designs may encourage excessive use, particularly among younger users, and undermine consumer protection and users’ mental well-being.

Another focus of the inquiry will be the alleged “lack of transparency” around the algorithms Shein uses to recommend content and products to users. Under the DSA, “very large platforms,” defined as those with over 45 million users in the EU, must disclose the main parameters of their recommender systems and offer at least one easily accessible option that is not based on profiling.

A spokesperson for Shein said the company takes its “obligations under the DSA seriously” and will cooperate with investigators.

“Over the last few months, we have continued to invest significantly in measures to strengthen our compliance with the DSA. These include comprehensive systemic-risk assessments and mitigation frameworks, enhanced protections for younger users, and ongoing work to design our services in ways that promote a safe and trusted user experience,” the spokesperson said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

The investigation is the latest in a series of actions the EU has taken that affect Chinese-owned tech and e-commerce firms.

From July 1, 2026, Brussels will begin collecting a flat 3-euro (about $3.55) charge on each low-value item in small parcels worth under 150 euros (about $178) sent directly from non-EU countries to consumers in the bloc, a measure widely seen as aimed at platforms such as Shein, Temu, and AliExpress. According to official figures, about 4.6 billion such parcels entered the EU in 2024, an overwhelming 91 percent of them from China.

Temu is also under DSA investigation over alleged “addictive design” and the sale of unsafe or illegal goods. A separate probe into AliExpress, owned by China-based e-commerce giant Alibaba, produced preliminary findings that the platform is “in breach of its obligation to assess and mitigate risks related to the dissemination of illegal products under the DSA.”

More recently, on Feb. 6, the commission warned popular video-sharing platform TikTok that it must overhaul its “addictive design” to comply with the DSA. The service, whose European operations are owned by Chinese firm ByteDance, could face a fine of up to 6 percent of its global revenue if it fails to address those concerns.

“In the EU, illegal products are prohibited—whether they are on a store shelf or on an online marketplace. The Digital Services Act keeps shoppers safe, protects their well-being and empowers them with information about the algorithms they are interacting with,” Henna Virkkunen, the EU tech commissioner, said on Feb. 17.

Chinese authorities have been critical of EU efforts to tighten digital regulations. In January, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the EU of “blatant protectionism” and “political manipulation” after the bloc, citing risks of cyberattacks, recommended that all member states remove Huawei and ZTE from their telecom networks within the next three years.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) quietly launched an independent review earlier this month into its CEO, Børge Brende, over his past interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, Bloomberg reports.

Files released by the Department of Justice show Epstein and Brende had three dinners in 2018 and 2019, and exchanged various text messages. One dinner occurred in September 2018, more than a decade after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and guilty plea in Florida for procuring a child for prostitution, and another on June 13, 2019, shortly before Epstein’s final arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Like many powerful figures, Brende has claimed that he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal history at the time of their meetings, and is said to have ordered the probe into his communications with Epstein.

“I was completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities,” Brende said in a statement to Bloomberg. “Had I known about his background, I would have declined the initial invitation and any subsequent dinner invitations or other communications.”

“I recognize that I could have conducted a more thorough investigation into Epstein’s history, and I regret not doing so,” he added.

Klaus Schwab, who founded the WEF in 1971, has maintained that he is “certain” that he never met with Epstein, a press representative told Bloomberg.

Beyond Brende’s direct contacts, the released files highlight Epstein’s broader efforts to leverage the prestige of the WEF’s annual Davos meeting. Despite reportedly claiming to “hate” the Forum in private, Epstein positioned himself as a self-described “Davos concierge” to facilitate access for his associates.

For instance, in late 2009, months after his release from Florida incarceration, Epstein corresponded with Boris Nikolic, an immunologist and regular Davos attendee, offering to arrange one-on-one meetings. “I can organize a 1:1 meeting with most people there. One ‘virtual currency’ I have is access ;),” Epstein wrote while sharing a participant list, according to Bloomberg.

In 2011, Nikolic turned to Epstein for help securing time with Bill Gates, lamenting the difficulty of reaching the billionaire. Epstein suggested pitching Gates on attending a dinner, listing potential attendees, and signed off as “your truly, the davos concierge.”

UK broadcaster Channel 4 News reported that the Justice Department has so far released 3.5 million files, amounting to more than 300 GB, representing roughly only 2 percent of the total data volume that investigators referenced as recently as last year. Internal emails indicating that federal investigators expected to handle between 20 and 40 terabytes of data seized from Epstein’s properties, the report said.

Earlier estimates from 2020 put the total volume of files at up to 50 terabytes. More recently, in 2025, officials referred to approximately 14.6 terabytes of archived data under review.

The release of additional Epstein-related documents by the Department of Justice continues to draw attention to a range of high-profile individuals from business and politics, whose names appear in the files.

Thomas J. Pritzker, the longtime executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation, announced his immediate retirement on Monday and confirmed he will not seek re-election to the company’s board.

In a statement to the board and released publicly, Pritzker expressed regret over his past association with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Pritzker described maintaining contact as “terrible judgment” and acknowledged there was no excuse for not distancing himself sooner.

“I condemn the actions and the harm caused by Epstein and Maxwell, and I feel deep sorrow for the pain they inflicted on their victims,” he added.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

An analysis released by Google this month showed that the U.S. defense industrial base—a network of public and private entities used to develop or maintain military weapons systems—has sustained cyberattacks from groups and criminal organizations from China, Russia, and North Korea in recent months.

The report, released on Feb. 10 by Google Threat Intelligence, found that the Chinese regime and associated groups continue “to represent by volume the most active threat to entities in the defense industrial base,” which it said can pose “significant risk to the defense and aerospace sector.”

Google’s report added that it “has observed more China-nexus cyber espionage missions directly targeting defense and aerospace industry than from any other state-sponsored actors over the last two years,” as such groups have “used a broad range of tactics in operations.”

“But the hallmark of many operations has been their exploitation of edge devices to gain initial access,” it said, referring to hardware components positioned at the edge of a network.

“We have also observed China-nexus threat groups leverage ORB networks for reconnaissance against defense industrial targets, which complicates detection and attribution.”

Late last year, Canadian and U.S. officials warned that Chinese state-backed hacking groups have targeted U.S. government entities and private companies, gaining long-term access to their systems.

In July 2025, Microsoft also warned it had observed two China-based hacking groups, Linen Typhoon and Violet Typhoon, using vulnerabilities in SharePoint, Microsoft’s collaboration software.

As for Russia, Google said in its report that groups associated with Moscow have focused on defense companies that support technologies used in the Russia–Ukraine war, namely companies linked to drones.

“As next-generation capabilities are being operationalized in this environment, Russia-nexus threat actors and hacktivists are seeking to compromise defense contractors alongside military assets and systems, with a focus on organizations involved with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS),” the tech giant said.

“This includes targeting defense companies directly, using themes mimicking their products and systems in intrusions against military organizations and personnel.”

State-sponsored hackers, meanwhile, have leveraged Google’s own AI tool, Gemini, during cyberattacks, it found.

One Chinese-linked organization known as “UNC2970” has frequently targeted defense companies and impersonated corporate recruiters in hacking campaigns, Google said.

They’ve used Gemini to conduct open-source intelligence to “profile high-value targets to support campaign planning and reconnaissance,” including searches for relevant information on defense and cybersecurity companies, it said.

The threat posed by North Korea has grown since 2019 as officials in the regime have attempted to pose as IT workers to apply for jobs at defense-related organizations, Google said.

Last July, the Department of Justice announced it had disrupted an operation that included searches of 29 locations in more than a dozen states suspected of being connected to laptops used, in part, to obtain remote jobs at more than 100 American companies.

In one instance, North Korea-linked actors stole sensitive data from a California defense company that was involved in AI development, according to Google.

In a separate incident, a Maryland-based individual was sentenced to 15 months in prison for facilitating a North Korean-linked scheme and coordinating with an alleged regime IT worker. The person, Minh Phuong Ngoc Vong, was hired by a Virginia-based company to perform software development for a defense contractor, it added.

A Kansas woman has been sentenced to federal prison after admitting she fabricated claims that astronaut Anne McClain accessed her bank account from orbit, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Summer Heather Worden, 51, of Sedgwick County, Kansas, pleaded guilty on November 14, 2025, to making false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements to law enforcement, according to KBTX.

Alfred H. Bennett sentenced her to three months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered her to pay $210,000 in restitution.

Worden had alleged in July 2019 that her estranged spouse guessed her password and illegally viewed her account while stationed aboard the International Space Station. Court evidence later established the accusation was unfounded. Records showed Worden opened the account in April 2018 and that both women used it until January 2019, when she changed the login information. Investigators determined she had shared access to her banking details, including credentials, as early as 2015.

KBTX writes that even after an internal review cleared McClain, Worden continued promoting the allegations in the media, hired a consultant to amplify them, and publicly disclosed her former spouse’s personal information.

“This case demonstrates the serious consequences of making false accusations to law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

The case was investigated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard D. Hanes and Brandon Fyffe prosecuted it. Worden remains free on bond and is expected to report voluntarily to a facility designated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Authored by Emily Arthun via RealClearEnergy,

When Winter Storm Fern swept across much of the United States in mid-January 2026—bringing snow, ice, and sustained sub-zero temperatures from Texas to New England—millions of Americans braced for power outages. In some areas, those fears were realized. Tennessee alone reported more than 245,000 customer outages at peak conditions. At the same time, natural gas prices spiked dramatically, exceeding $30 per MMBtu at certain constrained delivery points within the PJM Interconnection.

Yet despite the severity and duration of the storm, the national electric grid largely held. Hospitals remained open. Emergency services stayed online. Most homes stayed warm. That outcome was not accidental. It was the result of dependable, dispatchable generation—chief among it, coal.

During the coldest days of the storm, coal-fired generation across the Lower 48 surged, rising from roughly 70 gigawatt-hours per day to approximately 130. That additional generation represented a massive increase in available power at precisely the moment when electric heating demand spiked and system margins tightened. In practical terms, coal generation helped keep power flowing to tens of millions of households nationwide, sustaining heat and essential services during the most extreme conditions of Winter Storm Fern.

Coal plants responded exactly as they are designed to do: steadily, predictably, and at scale. In the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region, coal supplied as much as 40% of electricity during peak hours. In PJM, coal accounted for roughly one-quarter of total generation. These were not marginal contributions—they were foundational to grid stability.

The contrast with weather-dependent resources was unmistakable. Wind generation declined as turbines iced over or were curtailed for safety. Solar output fell sharply as panels were covered by snow and daylight hours shortened. Hydropower faced limitations from frozen waterways and constrained inflows. Each of these resources plays a role in the broader energy mix, but Winter Storm Fern underscored their limitations during prolonged, widespread cold.

Coal’s advantage in these moments is straightforward: on-site fuel. Stockpiled coal insulated power plants from supply chain disruptions at precisely the moment when other fuels faced constraints. This is not a theoretical benefit. It is a practical one that has been demonstrated repeatedly during extreme weather events.

That lesson should sound familiar. After Winter Storm Uri in 2021, coal was often blamed for grid failures. Subsequent analyses showed the most significant disruptions stemmed from widespread natural gas system freeze-offs—not coal plant performance. In the years since, coal facilities invested in winterization, fuel access, and operational readiness. During Winter Storm Fern, those preparations paid off.

Federal policymakers recognized this reality in real time. The U.S. Department of Energy issued emergency orders under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, temporarily allowing certain coal units to operate at higher output to maintain grid stability. Similar actions in 2025 prevented the premature retirement of coal plants in Colorado, Indiana, Washington, and Michigan—preserving more than 17 gigawatts of firm coal capacity that otherwise faced near-term shutdown.

These decisions were not ideological. They were driven by reliability.

Warnings from grid authorities reinforce the point. The Department of Energy and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation have both cautioned that continued coal retirements—without equivalent replacement by firm, dispatchable resources—increase the risk of outages, particularly during extreme winter conditions. At the same time, electricity demand is rising rapidly due to data centers, electrification, and industrial growth. The margin for error is shrinking.

Coal is not static. Modern coal plants operate with advanced emissions controls, improved efficiency, and increasingly sophisticated monitoring. Mining practices have evolved, and research into carbon management and advanced coal technologies continues. Coal also remains essential for steelmaking and other industrial uses, making domestic production a matter of economic and strategic importance.

Affordability matters as much as reliability. Regions that retired coal prematurely have often experienced higher electricity prices and greater exposure to fuel volatility. Coal’s stable fuel costs and on-site inventory provide a measure of price certainty that consumers increasingly lack—especially during weather emergencies, when energy costs hit household budgets the hardest.

Winter Storm Fern delivered a clear message. When the grid was under maximum stress, coal did not merely contribute—it carried a substantial share of the load. A resilient energy strategy does not eliminate reliable resources before dependable replacements are ready. It builds a diversified generation portfolio that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, and emerging technologies, each performing the role it does best.

America’s energy future depends on reliability first. During one of the harshest winter tests in recent years, coal proved once again that it remains an essential part of keeping the lights on—and the heat running.

Emily Arthun is current CEO of the American Coal Council, she brings over twenty years of experience across the coal and hard-rock mining sectors  Prior to her role at ACC, she worked with the Women’s Mining Coalition, supporting advocacy for domestic mining. Her industry experience includes Stillwater Mining Company and Cloud Peak Energy.  She serves on the Washington Coal Club and Women’s Mining Coalition boards.

Stephen Colbert threw a tantrum Monday night after CBS lawyers pulled the plug on his planned interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, citing concerns about the FCC’s equal time mandate. The late-night host, who has built his late-night career on partisan snark, was not happy about it.

Colbert told his audience that Talarico was “supposed to be here,” but CBS lawyers informed the production team “in no uncertain terms…that we could not have him on the broadcast.” The network also instructed Colbert not to mention the situation on air, an instruction he promptly ignored with theatrical defiance.

“Because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this,” Colbert announced before launching into his grievance session.

The FCC’s equal time rule requires broadcast networks to provide equal airtime to opposing political candidates. According to the Philadelphia Enquirer, the FCC hasn’t applied the rule to late-night television since 2006, when it determined that then–California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno counted as a “bona fide news interview.”

But FCC chair Brendan Carr sent a notice last month suggesting talk shows should no longer qualify for this exemption. Carr argued some programs were “motivated by partisan purposes”—a claim that seems difficult to dispute given Colbert’s nightly content.

Colbert fired back at the Trump-appointed FCC chair with predictable venom. “FCC you…because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself,” he said, before pivoting to his standard Trump material.

COLBERT on Thin-Skinned Trump’s fascist @jamestalarico ban: “Because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this… They’re trying to control what we watch, say, read — The most dangerous kind of cancel culture is the kind that comes from the top.” pic.twitter.com/R2RxNJtXO8

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) February 17, 2026

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV. He’s like a toddler with too much screen time…So it’s no surprise…that two of the people most affected by this threat are me and my friend Jimmy Kimmel,” Colbert declared.

This accusation falls apart under scrutiny. Colbert has continued to have elected Democrats and far-left celebrities on his show without issue. In fact, he had Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on The Late Show last month. During the interview, he blasted President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis as “pure evil” while calling Vice President JD Vance a “sycophant” and a “suck-up.”

Shapiro’s interview didn’t trigger equal time requirements because the equal time rule applies only to a “legally qualified candidate for any public office.”

Shapiro had announced his reelection bid in Philadelphia last month, but he wasn’t officially a candidate at the time of the appearance. He only became one when Pennsylvania’s formal filing period opened Tuesday. 

But Colbert’s tantrum also ignored an obvious solution. Colbert could have simply invited the Republican U.S. Senate candidates in Texas onto the show to comply with equal-time requirements. But that would require actually giving airtime to conservatives, something Colbert apparently finds unthinkable. Instead, he chose faux martyrdom.

Carr responded to the controversy by proposing another solution: that if Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel did not want to comply with broadcast regulations, “then they can go to a cable channel or podcast or a streaming service.” 

The suggestion seems reasonable given the proliferation of digital platforms, but Colbert treated it as an outrage.

“Great idea, man whose job is to regulate broadcast TV, suggest everyone just leave broadcast TV,” Colbert shot back.

The interview was ultimately posted to The Late Show’s YouTube page, where equal time rules do not apply. Colbert criticized CBS for what he characterized as premature compliance with an FCC notice that has not yet officially eliminated the talk show exception.

“Now, as I said, at this point, he’s [Carr] just released a letter that says he’s thinking about doing away with the exception for late night. He hasn’t done away with it yet, but my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had,” Colbert said.

When the audience booed CBS’s decision, Colbert delivered a sarcastic jab at his own employer. “I want to assure you, this decision is for purely financial reasons,” he quipped, an obvious reference to the fact that his show was cancelled because the network was losing money on the show.

The controversy reveals an awkward reality for partisan late-night hosts. Broadcast television operates under different regulatory standards than cable or streaming platforms precisely because it uses public airwaves. Equal time rules exist for a reason: to prevent networks from weaponizing access to those airwaves for political advantage.

That means Colbert’s complaint essentially amounts to a demand for special treatment so that he can promote Democratic candidates without offering Republicans the same opportunity for an interview.

CBS’s legal team appears to have calculated that preemptive compliance carries less risk than gambling on regulatory exemptions that may soon disappear. There’s no guarantee that Carr’s proposed rule change will survive legal challenges, but networks clearly view the threat as credible enough to alter programming decisions.

Colbert, an old hand at playing the victim card, couldn’t help but frame the situation as censorship and authoritarianism. Yet, the only thing that prevented the interview from getting aired was himself and his refusal to give equal time to the Republican candidates in that election.