iftttwall

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Many years ago, as a law student, I had the honor of working with the great prosecutor William J. Kunkle Jr., who put away John Wayne Gacy. I was a young intern at the litigation firm of Phelan, Pope & John and loved listening to Bill’s stories about his famous cases. I even had to take a couple of calls from Gacy from prison when Bill was out.

(I was asked to write down everything that he would say in the routine calls. On one call, Gacy told me, “Tell Bill he was wrong. I was not guilty of homicide. I was guilty of running an indoor funeral parlor without a license.”).

One story of Bill’s came to mind last night when Democrats released their latest tranche of “bombshell” photos from the Epstein files to suggest that Trump is implicated in the scandal.

Bill told me how he would stage the trial room to maximize impact on the jury.

In the Gacy trial, he was allowed to create an exhibit showing the pictures of the victims. He knew that defense counsel would not want the faces staring at the jury throughout the trial. So he made the exhibit so large that it would be difficult to move and waited for the defense to insist that the pictures themselves be removed.

When they did so, they found that each picture was attached to the board by Bill with large red tape. Throughout the trial, the jurors stared at each name with a large red X beneath it.

It was better than the pictures themselves.

Bill’s story came to mind yesterday when the Democrats released the photos from the Epstein files.

The White House accused Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of spreading a “false narrative” with photos. It is more of an effort to create “false light,” a term from tort law where true photos are presented in a misleading and harmful way.

The photos of Trump show women with their faces obscured as “possible” victims of human trafficking with underaged girls.

Even a photo with a single woman on what appears to be a plane is blacked out. There is no context offered, but the blacked-out faces suggest that these women have to be protected as possible victims.

It has the same effect as Kunkle’s Xs.

However, the real question of false light is the inclusion with the other photos selected for release.

The Democrats included pictures of sex toys, novelty condom boxes with Trump’s face (saying “I’m Huuuge”) and even Epstein in a bathtub.

The combination is meant to make the other photos seem more sinister, even though we have no information on where they were taken or who the women are in the images. Just Xs.

Trump is not alone in the framing of such photos. The release included a previously public photo of Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz simply meeting with Epstein, who is wearing a Harvard sweatshirt. There is no information on when or where it was taken. (Epstein was a major donor to Harvard, and Dershowitz was a Harvard professor as well as someone who served as counsel to Epstein).

The Democrats have long despised Dershowitz, a liberal who broke ranks with the party and represented Trump in his impeachment. Now, he is included with the photos of condoms and Epstein in a bath.

In torts, litigants can bring cases for “false light” when photos may be true images but are presented in a misleading way.

While some states have rejected false light claims in favor of using defamation actions exclusively, other states recognize both claims.

Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.

California produced an important case that is particularly illustrative in this circumstance. In Gill v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 239 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1952), the court considered a “Ladies Home Journal” article that was highly critical of couples who claimed to be cases of “love at first sight.” The article suggested that such impulses were more sexual than serious. The magazine included a photo of a couple, with the caption, “[p]ublicized as glamorous, desirable, ‘love at first sight’ is a bad risk.” The couple was unaware that the photo was used and never consented to its inclusion in the magazine. They prevailed in an action for false light given the suggestion that they were one of these sexualized, “wrong” attractions.

The standard California jury instruction asks the jury if “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether “there is clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Likewise, in Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), the court found false light in the use of an actor’s photo on the cover of Playgirl magazine. In combination with the headlines, the plaintiffs argued that the magazine created the false impression that nude photos of the actor were featured inside the magazine.

Congress is protected from such lawsuits, and even without those protections, it is unlikely that this case would be viable as a tort action. However, the underlying concept is still relevant. The Democrats were suggesting that there was a cover-up of Trump’s (and others’) involvement in these crimes. They have not produced such evidence. They can, however, release images in a way that suggests such untoward or even illegal conduct.

If Dershowitz’s picture were just re-released on its own, it would hardly be notable. However, in the company of condom boxes and bathtub shots, it can feed a news cycle of eagerly awaiting and enabling media.

In the end, the photo dump is unlikely to change any minds or move the needle in polls. Some will see a cover-up and others will see a frame-up.

The difference with the Gacy trial is that most of the jury has already left the room, leaving only the Xs behind.

Last week, readers were briefed on the emerging theme of data centers in low Earth orbit, a concept now openly discussed by Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Jeff Bezos, and Sam Altman, as energy availability and infrastructure constraints on land increasingly emerge as major bottlenecks to data center buildouts through the end of this decade and well into the 2030s.

Nvidia-backed startup Starcloud has released a white paper outlining a case for operating a constellation of artificial intelligence data centers in space as a practical solution to Earth’s looming power crunch, cooling woes, and permitting land constraints.

Terrestrial data center projects will reach capacity limits as AI workloads scale to multi-gigawatt levels, while electricity demand and grid bottlenecks worsen over the next several years. Orbital data centers aim to bypass these constraints by using near-continuous, high-intensity solar power, passive radiative cooling to deep space, and modular designs that scale quickly, launched into orbit via SpaceX rockets.

“Orbital data centers can leverage lower cooling costs using passive radiative cooling in space to directly achieve low coolant temperatures. Perhaps most importantly, they can be scaled almost indefinitely without the physical or permitting constraints faced on Earth, using modularity to deploy them rapidly,” Starcloud wrote in the report.

Starcloud continued, “With new, reusable, cost-effective heavy-lift launch vehicles set to enter service, combined with the proliferation of in-orbit networking, the timing for this opportunity is ideal.”

Already, the startup has launched its Starcloud-1 satellite carrying an Nvidia H100 GPU, the most powerful compute chip ever sent into space. Using the H100, Starcloud successfully trained NanoGPT, a lightweight language model, on the complete works of Shakespeare, making it the first AI model trained in space.

Starcloud (@Starcloud_Inc1) recently made history by launching a satellite with an NVIDIA H100 into orbit — the first time a GPU that powerful has ever operated in space. It’s the first step toward building AI data centers in orbit, powered by continuous sunlight and cooled by… pic.twitter.com/xf7C1D583N

— Y Combinator (@ycombinator) November 13, 2025

Starcloud is also running Google’s open-source LLM Gemma in orbit, representing the first time a high-powered Nvidia GPU has been used to operate a large language model in space.

One solution (before nuclear power generation gets ramped up) to keep up with the rapid advances in AI and the ever-increasing demand for power and resources to prevent bottlenecks is to shift some of these data centers to low Earth orbit. This in itself will spark a space race-themed investment theme, hence why SpaceX is planning to go public next year at a valuation of $800 billion. Starlink will likely be powering these space-based data centers.

*  *  *

Read the full report: 

For years, Democrats have wielded the tired accusation that Republicans lack a healthcare alternative to the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare. 

On Friday, House Republicans called that bluff, unveiling the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act, a legislative package aimed at dismantling the cost drivers embedded in the Affordable Care Act while expanding choice and transparency. The bill heads to the House floor next week, and predictably, Democrats are already scrambling to kill it.

“Nearly 15 years ago, the Democrats’ Unaffordable Care Act broke the American health care system. Since its inception, premium costs have skyrocketed, networks have shrunk, and the system has become bloated, inefficient, and riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse. While Democrats demand that taxpayers write bigger checks to insurance companies to hide the cost of their failed law, House Republicans are tackling the real drivers of health care costs to provide affordable care, increase access and choice, and restore integrity to our nation’s health care system for all Americans,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement. 

“Earlier this year, Democrats had a chance to help make life more affordable by supporting the Working Families Tax Cuts legislation,” Johnson continued. “Instead, they voted to raise taxes, protect waste and fraud, and continue providing free health care to illegal immigrants. Democrats’ ‘affordability’ charade has gone on long enough.”

Johnson said the new Republican proposal offers a responsible path forward on health care, cutting premium costs while expanding access to quality health care options for Americans nationwide. “The Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act will actually deliver affordable health care – and we look forward to advancing it through the House.”

A key aspect of the legislation is a push for transparency for pharmacy benefit managers. PBMs, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices and rebates, have long operated without any transparency at all at the expense of employers and patients. The proposed legislation would force PBMs to disclose detailed data on prescription drug spending, rebates, spread pricing, and formulary decisions. Employers and workers would finally see what they’re paying for – and what they’re not getting in return.

According to Johnson, the bill also appropriates funding for cost-sharing reduction payments beginning in 2027. These payments, meant to lower premiums and stabilize the individual market, would be directed toward low-income enrollees. The measure aims to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly rather than being dumped into a system that rewards insurers for inflated costs, as the current system does.

Beyond transparency, the legislation expands health coverage options for American workers through Association Health Plans. These plans allow employers, including the self-employed, to pool resources across industries to purchase high-quality, more affordable coverage. 

Republicans have long advocated for the idea that by banding together, small businesses and independent workers gain the negotiating power currently monopolized by large corporations and government-run exchanges.

The bill also clarifies that stop-loss insurance – coverage that protects employers from catastrophic claims—is not “health insurance coverage” under federal law. This distinction allows small and mid-sized businesses to tailor their employee benefits without triggering the burdensome regulations of Obamacare. 

Another provision codifies and strengthens the 2019 rules that allow employers to offer defined contributions for employees to purchase their own coverage. These arrangements, rebranded as CHOICE arrangements, let employees pay premiums on a pre-tax basis while selecting plans that fit their needs rather than accepting whatever their employer chooses. 

The concept is simple: give workers control over their healthcare dollars and let them shop for the coverage that works best for them.

Naturally, Democrats hate it.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wasted no time trashing the proposal, dismissing it as “likely to be a disaster” before he even knew what was in it. Speaking to MS NOW on Friday, Jeffries claimed the package would diminish rather than enhance American healthcare, though he offered no specifics to support his assertion. His vague prophecy of doom reflects the Democrats’ broader strategy: attack anything that threatens Obamacare’s legacy, regardless of the facts.

Jeffries suggests that a vote on the GOP health care bill + amendment vote on Fitzpatrick bill won’t be suitable for Democrats.

“Their health care package, as I understand it, is likely to be a disaster and actually not enhance the health care of the American people. It will… pic.twitter.com/Sr6JbZE9zT

— Mychael Schnell (@mychaelschnell) December 12, 2025

But that doesn’t change the fact that the Affordable Care Act has been a disaster. A recent Forbes analysis found that since it was passed in 2010, premiums have nearly tripled and deductibles have more than doubled. The cost of coverage for a family of four has surged by more than $10,000. Worse, the coverage itself has deteriorated. Americans are paying more for less, a reality that Democrats refuse to acknowledge.

The Forbes analysis also shows that Obamacare deductibles run far higher than those in employer-sponsored plans. The law was marketed to the public as a way to create affordable, accessible care. Instead, it became a case study in government overreach that enriched insurers and bureaucrats while sticking middle-class families with soaring costs. That was entirely by design.

Republicans are betting that Americans have had enough. The Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act offers a clear alternative: transparency over opacity, choice over mandates, and market competition over government control. Whether it passes remains to be seen, but the message is unmistakable. Democrats built Obamacare. Republicans are offering a way out. 
 

Via Financial Preparedness,

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” 

~ Benjamin Franklin

I think virtually everyone would agree that there are “bad guys” in this world. Of course, there are varying degrees of “bad,” but we should concern ourselves with the most dangerous—the ones who have both the desire and the ability to take one simple action that would probably end up destroying Western civilization.

Due to the unprecedented amount of fake news, gaslighting, lies, propaganda, mis- and disinformation and psychological warfare operations that are employed today, this can be quite challenging for the average person to ascertain. But due to the existential stakes involved, having this ability is crucial for survival.

Recently, Elon Musk devised a litmus test that one can use to determine who the bad guys are:

“As a general rule, you can tell which side is the good side and which side is the bad side by which side wishes to restrict freedom of speech. The side that is restricting freedom of speech . . . you know, that would have been the Hitler, Stalin, Mussolinis of the world, they had very strong censorship, very strong restrictions on speech. That’s one of the signs that they are the bad guys.”

Recently the European Commission (the elite, unelected body of the EU that actually runs it) levied a €140 million fine on X and Elon Musk personally for allegedly breaking its “laws” requiring social media transparency. As Michael Shellenberger pointed out, “the goal of the European Commission, like that of the governments of Britain, Brazil, and Australia, is to censor the American people.” As I wrote about in March, the EU is maniacally determined to wage a campaign of cultural suicide. But for them it’s not enough for just Europe to be overrun by barbarians. No, they want all of Western civilization to fall.

As an aside, Shellenberger noted that “The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty, under which the US is militarily obligated to defend Europe. The NATO Treaty requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections. France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration. And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

J.D. Vance recently said, “Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer. There are thousands upon thousands of American troops in Germany today. Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet? Of course they’re not….[the friendship between the U.S. and Europe] is based on shared values. You do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border. You don’t have shared values if you cancel elections because you don’t like the result—and that happened in Romania. You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.”

Well, the European Commission (and NATO) is about to FAFO, as they say. My German friend points out that Europe has more people than Russia (implying that Russia couldn’t conquer Europe), but as I replied, that’s not what we in the US Army called the “order of battle.” It doesn’t matter how many people you have if they don’t value liberty enough to be willing to risk their lives to defend it.

I’ll soon finish reading a great book called While Europe Slept, in which the author writes, “…Americans, for all their idiocies and vulgarities, really do believe in fighting for liberty, even the liberty of strangers in faraway places with names they can’t spell and languages they can’t speak a word of and cultures they find ridiculous. In their view, to defend other people’s freedom is to defend their own….maybe that’s what being an American does come down to—a sentimentalism, about liberty among other things, that many Western Europeans just can’t fathom….Sitting there with [his Dutch friends], I realized that they were genuinely unable to comprehend a land whose people take liberty seriously enough to die for it.”

I recently heard about how “vandals” (a euphemism for immigrants) attacked the Christmas market and living nativity scene in Erbach, Germany, beating and torturing two donkeys and defecating in the church. This was relatively mild; at least no one was injured or killed, as is often the case.

Erbach is very close to where I lived at my first duty station in the early 1990s, and I’m sure I drove through it while exploring the area. At the time, Germany was a clean, orderly and picturesque place; even the forests seemed like they were diligently maintained. Living there was a wonderful experience, and I have many good memories of it. Unfortunately—and I say this as someone who spent 3.5 of the best years of my life enduring many hardships and risking my life to defend it—Germany (along with France, the UK, Ireland, Sweden and probably most of the rest of western Europe) is finished. It’s kaput, it’s over, finito Benito, dead Fred.

Ideally, we would be able to rescue hundreds of millions of innocent Europeans from a tyrannical fate. However, given the current dire situation, I think Europe has passed the event horizon of a very dark black hole. When you have some quiet time, watch this sobering interview with a professor of military history living in the UK. He says there is no political solution to the problem, and cannot foresee an outcome that does not result in massive deaths (he estimates it will be between 23,000 and 500,000 in the UK alone). He predicts violence will begin suddenly and spread quickly to neighboring countries.

It’s now time to dispel illusions and come to grips with reality. The U.S. should cut its losses and allow most of Europe to collapse into a supernova of disarmament, severe censorship, never-ending war, mass taxpayer-funded immigration, medieval religious fanaticism, rampant crime and terrorism, cuckoldry and organized rape of underage girls on an industrial scale, humiliation and intimidation, environmental alarmism, welfare socialism, stifling bureaucracy, corruption, deindustrialization and de-agriculturalization, central bank digital currency, loss of privacy, massive government spending/deficits/debt, currency/financial/ economic/sovereign debt crises and cultural and societal extinction.

Congressman Thomas Massie just introduced a bill to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. To help soften the blow, perhaps the U.S. could offer a generous asylum policy (with no welfare benefits) for Europeans who wanted to escape this raging dumpster fire and live in a normal, civilized country, as it did with the Boer farmers in South Africa, who were being systematically slaughtered. Perhaps the number of refugees allowed each month would decline over time to help ensure that only the most ideologically compatible people were admitted instead of hordes of disillusioned Leftists who eventually realized that statism doesn’t work. This would also shore up America’s own flagging demographics, allowing it to stave off the barbarians for a while longer.

Although Trump won a decisive Electoral College victory in 2024 and Republicans control Congress (though by a thin margin), Democrats are emboldened by recent election victories, and The Great Reset is rapidly being implemented in most of the rest of the world. Few people realize that Western civilization actually hangs in the balance by the thinnest of threads, one that currently runs straight through X and Elon Musk. If the European Commission succeeds in censoring X and other American websites, Western civilization is over.

Without free speech and the right to share ideas and find out what’s really going on, it becomes impossible to stop tyranny. In modern warfare, opponents first seek to decapitate each other by eliminating the leadership (assassination in the political world) and their ability to see and communicate (censorship). Once you’ve done that, it’s much easier to disarm (gun control) and destroy (or subjugate) an enemy. The European Commission doesn’t want to restrict speech because they care about democracy or the truth, they want to censor people because they intend to enslave them.

The current battle between the European Commission and X reminds me of the Battle of Britain after the start of World War II: One small country (or website) standing alone against an onslaught by a regional empire that appeared unstoppable. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that Germany is/was one of the primary aggressors in each case.

Like the Battle of Britain, the fate of Western civilization depends on the outcome of this battle; mark my words.

During an interview with MSNOW Senior Political and National Reporter Jacob Soboroff, New York City Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani faced pointed questions about whether his rhetoric on accountability extends to federal immigration enforcement, and Mamdani suggested his police force might arrest federal officers enforcing federal immigration laws.

Soboroff didn’t dance around the issue, asking directly whether there’s a scenario where the NYPD under Mamdani’s leadership could arrest ICE agents on city streets for their treatment of illegal immigrants. 

“I’ve also heard you say that no one is above the law and anyone can be held accountable, and that goes for the president of the United States, and it also goes for ICE agents,” Soboroff began.

“I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but is there a scenario in which the NYPD, under you, could arrest ICE agents on the streets of New York for their behavior towards immigrants?”

Mamdani initially tried to avoid answering the question.

“My focus is for the NYPD to not be assisting ICE in their immigration enforcement and to actually be following the policies of sanctuary city law,” he said. 

But he didn’t stop there. 

“I do believe, however, that, for the law to have meaning, there has to be accountability for all of us,” Mamdani continued, framing the issue as one of equal justice rather than what it actually is—a direct challenge to federal authority. 

He insisted this accountability must apply “no matter who we’re referring to,” suggesting ICE agents enjoy no special status in his vision of law enforcement.

Soboroff, however, seemed to want a more concrete answer and pressed about whether ICE agents could actually be arrested by NYPD officers.

“So, in other words, there is a circumstance in which if an ICE agent violates someone’s rights here in New York City, they could be arrested by the police department?” he asked.

Mamdani did not deny it.

“I think if an ICE agent is breaking the law, then that is a law that they should be held accountable to,” he declared. 

Zohran Mamdani says he will not allow NYPD to assist ICE in NYC.

When asked about ICE entering the subways, Mamdani says it’s his job to “make sure that doesn’t take place.”

He says, “what New Yorkers need from a federal administration is the kind of partnership that will… pic.twitter.com/Ej36h2iig9

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 10, 2025

Though he didn’t explicitly say so, the implication was clear: federal immigration officers could be arrested by New York City police officers if Mamdani decides they’ve crossed whatever line he chooses to draw. Mamdani is clearly signaling that preventing the New York Police Department from assisting ICE agents isn’t enough. Mamdani is talking about active interference by using the NYPD as a barrier to block federal immigration enforcement and even arrest ICE agents carrying out lawful deportation orders. 

Mamdani’s plan puts him in direct conflict with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local laws, and immigration enforcement is clearly a federal responsibility. If the NYPD starts blocking ICE or arresting federal agents carrying out lawful deportations, it isn’t “standing up for immigrants”—it’s defying the law. Local policy can’t override federal authority, and any attempt would spark a legal battle the city would almost certainly lose. Beyond the constitutional issues, the practical consequences would be chaotic. Mamdani is essentially declaring himself the final judge of whether federal officers can operate in New York City, ignoring that ICE agents answer to Washington, not City Hall.

This is not the first time Mamdani has anointed himself the final arbiter over the law in New York City. He previously warned he intends to enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he ever sets foot in the city. He staked out that position even before taking office, and he hasn’t backed away from it.

“I’ve said time and again that I believe this is a city of international law, and being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law,” he said. “And that means upholding the warrants from the International Criminal Court, whether they’re for Benjamin Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin,” he said last month, even though he doesn’t have the legal authority to do so. 

“New York City mayor does not have the power to do that,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul admitted earlier this month.

Netanyahu has also laughed off Mamdani’s threats. Appearing via video at the New York Times DealBook, Netanyahu said that the threat wouldn’t keep him away from New York City. “Why don’t you wait and see?” he said. “Yes, I’ll come to New York.”

Mamdani’s approach is a direct challenge to the country’s constitutional order. By positioning the NYPD to block or even arrest federal agents, potentially, he risks a showdown with the federal government that the city is almost certain to lose. New Yorkers should be wary of a mayor who treats his own judgment as superior to the law, because when local officials ignore federal authority, the result is chaos, not justice.

Authored by James Hickman via Schiff Sovereign,

When Robert Oppenheimer watched the first atomic bomb detonate in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945, the blast confirmed that America had won the race to build a nuclear weapon.

The destructive power of these weapons was extraordinary; the explosion from Oppenheimer’s “Trinity” test unleashed an astonishing 83.7 Terajoules (TJ) of energy from just SIX kilograms of Plutonium-239.

By comparison, a typical power plant in 1945 would have required 9.5 MILLION kilograms of coal to produce a similar amount of energy.

This makes splitting the atom one of the most important discoveries in all of human history; the sheer volume of energy that can be released from a nuclear reaction is literally over 1 million times greater than from chemical/thermal reactions (like coal, natural gas, or TNT).

Initially this discovery was weaponized. And just three weeks after Oppenheimer’s successful test, US President Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to finally end World War II.

But many of the same scientists who built the weapon also realized that this same power could also be used to generate electricity so cheaply and abundantly that it would be practically free.

Yet in one of the most bizarre twists of fate, after literally EIGHT decades since Oppenheimer’s test, humanity has done almost nothing with this revolutionary technology.

That’s because the first institution to harness the power of nuclear energy as a fuel source (and not a weapon) was actually the United States Navy.

Admiral Hyman Rickover understood that nuclear energy could power America’s submarine fleet, giving the US Navy a major strategic advantage. With nuclear power, US subs could stay underwater and sustain themselves for longer missions and greater distances.

But that required certain critical decisions that would impact the nuclear power industry for decades.

Most importantly, in designing its nuclear submarines, the Navy had to first decide on what material to use as a coolant.

Many scientists at the time championed using molten salt for its safety and stability. But Admiral Rickover overruled them and decided to use pressurized water instead; after all, he reasoned, submarines were literally surrounded by water, so it would be the most efficient coolant.

That proved to be an incredibly fateful decision.

The civilian nuclear power industry essentially copied the Navy’s design choices— especially the decision to go with pressurized water as a coolant. And then came the accidents.

Pretty much every nuclear accident you’ve ever heard of— Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and much later Fukushima in 2011— were essentially BECAUSE of the pressurized water cooling systems.

In other words, had the commercial nuclear power industry been designed around molten salt (which has a MUCH higher boiling temperature than pressurized water), those infamous accidents would have never happened.

And yet, they did. The consequent negative media coverage and political fallout slammed the door shut on nuclear power for a generation—effectively sending a technology with staggering potential into the waste bin.

Despite all the panic, policy paralysis, and lost decades, however, nuclear is finally making a comeback. And it remains, by far, the cheapest form of electricity in existence.

And that matters. Energy is a key driver of inflation, and when energy prices rise, so does the price of nearly every good and service in the economy.

Abundant, cheap energy is one of the few forces that can reliably keep inflation in check.

Nuclear, of course, is not the only option. There’s still “conventional” sources like oil, gas, coal, etc.

Yet starting in 2021, the Biden administration went out of its way to mothball nuclear development and kneecap those other conventional industries, driving prices higher across the board.

Instead they mandated and subsidized extremely inefficient “green energy” (which is not all that green when you factor in the environmental costs of mining cobalt, lithium, etc. for battery backups).

That’s not just idiotic from an economic standpoint, it has actually caused serious harm to national security.

America’s main adversaries have spent the past decade building the largest power grid in human history— including coal, hydro, and of course, nuclear.

Between 2010 and 2024, China’s electricity production grew more than the rest of the world combined, and last year they generated more than twice as much power as the United States.

Chinese AI data centers can already purchase electricity for as little as 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, less than half what American operators pay. Plus it has another 34 nuclear reactors currently under construction which will drive the cost of electricity even lower.

Whether America’s competition with China stays economic or, in the worst case, turns into an outright war, the side paying double or triple for electricity is at a strategic disadvantage.

Any serious nation should prioritize cheap and plentiful energy to supercharges economic productivity.

Cheap energy fuels stronger growth, lowers prices, and it makes life better for everyone. What’s not to like about that?

That’s why one of the most important—and least appreciated—developments of this year in the United States is the renewed federal push for nuclear energy.

In May, the Trump administration issued four executive orders aimed squarely at jump-starting the industry: reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), speeding up licensing, and creating an expedited pathway for advanced reactors already tested by the Department of Energy (DOE) or the Pentagon.

More importantly, this year the Department of Energy selected two recipients for major SMR (Small Modular Reactors) development awards.

Unlike traditional gigawatt-scale giant reactors that can take a 10+ years and billions of dollars to build, SMRs are designed to be modular, scalable, and dramatically easier/faster to deploy.

The newly reformed NRC also, finally, signed off on one company’s SMR design— a 77-megawatt reactor that can be manufactured in a factory and shipped to a site ready to install.

This design certification is a huge leap forward; once the NRC approves a reactor blueprint, developers can use it without undergoing years of safety reviews.

This removes one of the biggest regulatory chokepoints in the entire nuclear industry and speeds along new reactor construction.

All of these moves mark the first real momentum nuclear power has seen in decades.

Between newly certified small modular reactor designs, federally backed advanced-reactor projects, and the restart of shuttered plants, there are now multiple US nuclear projects that have been approved, funded, or moving through a faster licensing track.

Nuclear is back. And this revival is one of the most encouraging developments of 2025.

Over the next decade, we could see small modular reactors move from prototypes to widespread deployment. And we’ll be able to draw a straight line from the cheap, abundant energy of the future, to the decisions that were made this year.

This is important, because America is going to need every watt.

Some of these next-generation data centers will require a Megawatt of power PER RACK. That’s essentially a dedicated nuclear reactor for a single facility.

The grid we have today can’t support the future that’s arriving. Nuclear can.

And that is especially important because these two developments—nuclear power and AI—are realistically the only way to unleash enough productivity to grow the economy out of the deficit and debt problems the government has weighed it down with.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Friday named Tim O’Malley the state’s director of program integrity, tapping the judge and former superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to root out fraud in government.

O’Malley, who also worked as an FBI agent and spearheaded reforms in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, will be involved across agencies to oversee that taxpayer funds are not misappropriated.

Walz also announced a partnership with WayPoint Inc., a Minnesota firm made up of former law enforcement and federal agents focused on forensic accounting and investigations.  They will develop a comprehensive fraud-prevention strategy for the state.

Walz said he was proud O’Malley would be working to protect Minnesota taxpayers from fraud in government programs.

“Today we are building on the work of the last several years and strengthening Minnesota’s defenses against fraud,” Walz said.

“If you commit fraud in Minnesota, you will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

As Kimberley Hayek reports for The Epoch Times, O’Malley said he has not been appointed to serve the governor or any individual or political party.

“I’m here to serve the people of Minnesota,” O’Malley said.

“No one has any tolerance for fraud. This issue must be addressed aggressively. Minnesotans must have trust in our public institutions.”

WayPoint will spearhead the creation of uniform investigative protocols, a cross-agency fraud prevention strategy, legal data-sharing mechanisms to detect multi-program abusers, and methods for auditing and probing misconduct.

“Fraud is not just a financial loss. It disrupts lives, harms families and undermines confidence in the programs Minnesotans rely on,” Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans said.

“Our Financial Crimes and Fraud Section is focused on working with local, state and federal partners on criminal investigations that hold offenders accountable and we’re working with the Office of Inspector General Coordinating Counsel to develop stronger barriers and stop fraud before it occurs.”

Shireen Gandhi, Minnesota Department of Human Services Temporary Commissioner, said the Minnesota Department of Human Services has no room for fraud.

“We are intently focused on solutions – strengthening program integrity, tightening oversight of services, and hardening our programs against attacks by criminals,” Gandhi said.

“Our job is to protect Minnesotans who need services. Their lives shouldn’t be a political football and we need to maximize every dollar that goes toward programs to help them.”

O’Malley, who is currently serving as interim chief judge at the Court of Administrative Hearings, led child protection and clergy accountability efforts in the archdiocese beginning in 2014. He will start serving in his new capacity next month.

The appointment comes amid federal scrutiny of organized welfare fraud in the state, with authorities investigating schemes involving networks from Minnesota’s Somali-American community that allegedly stole vast sums of money.

The Treasury Department is investigating allegations that stolen funds were sent to Somali terrorist groups. At the same time, the House Oversight Committee is examining whistleblower allegations of ignored fraud activity and an alleged cover-up.

Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been ramping up activities in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Twin Cities region.

Via The Cradle

US special forces raided a cargo ship travelling from China to Iran in November that was allegedly transporting “dual-use military technology,” according to a report published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Friday.

Citing unnamed US officials, the WSJ revealed that a special operations team boarded the ship several hundred miles from Sri Lanka and seized the cargo, which was described as “dual-use components that could be used either for civilian applications or to make conventional weapons.”

The ship’s name, its owner, and the flag under which it was sailing have not been disclosed. Neither Iran nor China immediately responded to the report. A spokesperson for the US Indo-Pacific Command, responsible for regional military activities, declined to comment. 

Nevertheless, an official told the WSJ that Washington seized material “potentially useful for Iran’s conventional weapons,” but highlighted that the cargo could have “both military and civilian applications.”

The WSJ reported that the high-sea raid was part of a Pentagon effort to “disrupt Iran’s clandestine military procurement” following the 12-Day War in June, during which the US and Israel teamed up to bomb Iranian nuclear sites and kill dozens of military commanders, nuclear scientists, and their families.

The reported seizure took place weeks before US troops seized a Venezuelan oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea and stole its cargo in a move Caracas condemned as “theft and piracy.” It also came as the UN reimposed an international ban on Iran’s arms trade in late September.

Overnight on Saturday, Iranian authorities reported seizing a foreign-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman and detaining its crew for allegedly smuggling six million liters of fuel. The vessel was intercepted in waters off the southern province of Hormozgan.

Mojtaba Ghahremani, the chief justice of Hormozgan province, said the seizure was part of ongoing intelligence efforts to monitor suspected fuel-smuggling activities in the Sea of Oman.

There’s a clause in the UN sanctions that returned via snapback that covers interdiction of vessels carrying weaponry or dual-use goods for Iran’s missile or nuclear programs.

If China and Iran continue this trade, more seizures are likely to follow. https://t.co/7vJRsu7W8s

— Gregory Brew (@gbrew24) December 13, 2025

On Wednesday, Iran seized an Eswatini-flagged vessel carrying 0.35 million liters of smuggled diesel. In mid-November, IRGC also seized a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker outside Iran’s waters in the Persian Gulf for carrying unauthorized cargo.