Smithfield Hit With Fine For Employing Children At Minnesota Meat Factory
Chinese-owned meat processing giant Smithfield has been fined $2 million to resolve a child labor compliance dispute with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.
Local paper Minnesota Reformer reports a Minnesota DLI investigation from 2021 and 2023 found at least 11 children between the ages of 14 and 17 worked at Smithfield’s St. James area plant.
“It is unacceptable for a company to employ minor children to perform hazardous work late at night. This illegal behavior impacts children’s health, safety and well-being and their ability to focus on their education and their future,” DLI Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach wrote in a statement, adding, “Combatting unlawful child labor in Minnesota is a priority for DLI and it will continue to devote resources to addressing and resolving these violations.”
Smithfield released a statement denying “that we knowingly hired anyone under the age of 18 to work in our St. James facility. We have not admitted liability as part of this settlement; however, in the interest of preventing the distraction of prolonged litigation, we have agreed to settle this matter.”
The meatpacker noted that it utilizes E-Verify, a Department of Homeland Security database, to determine the eligibility of workers who are US or foreign citizens.
“Each of the 11 alleged underage individuals passed the E-Verify system by using false identification. Each used a different name to obtain employment with Smithfield than the name by which DLI identified them to Smithfield,” the company said.
The Chinese-owned company noted it is opposed to child labor and has “taken proactive steps to enforce our policy prohibiting the employment of minors.”
There was no word on the citizenship status of the minors. However, we suspect some of those underage individuals were probably migrants. After all, many of the migrants – and illegal aliens – the Biden-Harris team allowed to flood the nation ended up somewhere in America’s food supply chain – this is no secret.
This brings us to an entirely different issue: the exploitation of migrant children by mega-corporations…
“This shadow work force extends across industries in every state, flouting child labor laws that have been in place for nearly a century. Twelve-year-old roofers in Florida and Tennessee. Underage slaughterhouse workers in Delaware, Mississippi and North Carolina. Children sawing planks of wood on overnight shifts in South Dakota,” a recent New York Times article stated.
Earlier this week, we informed readers that at least one non-profit was funneling migrants into mega corps.
Dear Border Czar: This Nonprofit Boasts A List Of 400 Companies That Employ Migrants https://t.co/LuwWdgOzgD
Incoming “border czar,” Tom Homan, noted earlier this week: “Where do we find most victims of sex trafficking and forced labor trafficking? At worksites.”
NEW: Trump’s ‘border czar’ Tom Homan says the administration will conduct workplace immigration raids; ‘The Biden-Harris Adm. has lost over 300,000 children’
Lining America’s food supply chain with migrants – some of which are illegal… This should be one of the biggest national security stories of the decade.
How Much Do Americans Spend On Groceries In Each State
Since August 2020, prices for “food at home” (groceries) have increased by 20% according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the steepest inflation seen since the 1970s.
On average, American households are paying about $270 per week ($1,080 a month) for groceries, according to Delish, which sourced their findings from the latest Census Bureau estimates.
But how does this change across the country? From the same source, Visuali Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao maps the weekly grocery bill for an American household by each state. Figures are rounded.
Ranked: U.S. States by Weekly Grocery Bills
Hawaii and Alaska, the two non-mainland states, have the highest grocery costs for an average American household: both topping $300 a week, or about $1,200 a month.
Shipping is the primary reason for driving up prices, and neither state produces enough food locally to offset the import costs.
Rank
State
State Code
Weekly Spend
1
Hawaii
HI
$334
2
Alaska
AK
$329
3
California
CA
$298
4
Nevada
NV
$295
5
Mississippi
MS
$291
6
Washington
WA
$288
7
Florida
FL
$287
8
New Mexico
NM
$286
9
Texas
TX
$286
10
Louisiana
LA
$283
11
Colorado
CO
$280
12
Oklahoma
OK
$279
13
Georgia
GA
$278
14
Utah
UT
$278
15
New Jersey
NJ
$275
16
Alabama
AL
$272
17
Arizona
AZ
$272
18
Massachusetts
MA
$272
19
Tennessee
TN
$270
20
Illinois
IL
$269
21
Connecticut
CT
$266
22
Maryland
MD
$266
23
New York
NY
$266
24
North Carolina
NC
$266
25
North Dakota
ND
$265
26
Arkansas
AR
$261
27
Virginia
VA
$260
28
Idaho
ID
$258
29
Rhode Island
RI
$256
30
South Dakota
SD
$256
31
Kentucky
KY
$255
32
Washington, D.C.
DC
$255
33
Ohio
OH
$254
34
South Carolina
SC
$254
35
Wyoming
WY
$254
36
Kansas
KS
$251
37
Minnesota
MN
$251
38
Maine
ME
$250
39
Oregon
OR
$249
40
Pennsylvania
PA
$249
41
Vermont
VT
$249
42
Delaware
DE
$246
43
Montana
MT
$246
44
Missouri
MO
$244
45
Indiana
IN
$239
46
New Hampshire
NH
$239
47
West Virginia
WV
$239
48
Michigan
MI
$236
49
Nebraska
NE
$235
50
Iowa
IA
$227
51
Wisconsin
WI
$221
N/A
National Average
$270
For what it’s worth, Alaskans pay very low taxes (no income, nor inheritance tax, and a very low sales tax) so the higher grocery bill may be far more affordable than other states with lower bills.
Meanwhile, the Midwest has some of the lowest grocery costs across the country. These state economies are often tied to farming and food production, helping keep grocery prices down.
There is some correlation between places (like California, Washington, and New York) with higher grocery prices, and, well, higher prices generally—where $100 doesn’t go as far as it does in the rest of the country.
However, in Mississippi, New Mexico, and Arizona—where living costs are lower—food prices remain in the top half of the ranking. This indicates a greater financial strain for food despite lower overall living expenses.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said on Monday that her city doesn’t have a law officially designating it as a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants and that this should be changed quickly before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
Trump has vowed to carry out mass deportations of illegal immigrants and said he would push Congress to adopt legislation outlawing sanctuary cities, which enact policies that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.
In a Nov. 11 interview on KNX News, a local radio station, Bass said past policies related to the status of Los Angeles as a sanctuary were never codified into law. She pledged to push for a City Council vote that would formally designate Los Angeles as a sanctuary city before the end of the year.
“I imagine that the council will be voting on sanctuary cities hopefully very, very soon,” she told the outlet. “We will stand with the immigrant community and whatever policy they put forward, we will make sure that people in Los Angeles are not hurt and families are not separated.”
The City Council approved a motion in July 2023 calling on various city departments to take steps for Los Angeles to formally become a sanctuary city, which would prohibit city cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Later, in September 2024, several City Council members introduced a motion for a new sanctuary city law to legally codify Los Angeles’ status as a sanctuary city. The law has not yet returned to the council for a vote.
In addition to advocating for the City Council to finalize and enact the law before Trump assumes office, Bass also expressed doubt that the president-elect’s pledge to deport millions of illegal immigrants could be implemented.
Trump, who won the race for the White House vowing a vast crackdown on illegal immigration, said last week that his incoming administration has “no choice” but to press ahead with the deportations, regardless of the cost.
“It’s not a question of a price tag,” Trump told NBC News on Nov. 8, adding that “really, we have no choice.”
“When people have [been] killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries,“ Trump continued. ”And now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag.”
It’s unclear how many illegal immigrants there are in the United States, with estimates ranging from around 10 million to more than 20 million and beyond. American Immigration Council, an immigrant advocacy group, recently estimated that the cost of deporting 13 million immigrants residing in the United States illegally could total $968 billion over a little more than a decade.
Trump recently tapped Tom Homan, former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to serve as the incoming administration’s border czar in charge of mass deportations. Homan said in an October interview that the scale of the deportations would depend on the available budget, detention space, and officers assigned to the project. After Trump nominated Homan to oversee border security, the former acting ICE chief said that the effort would prioritize the removal of criminals and gang members who are in the country unlawfully.
In the meantime, Homan urged other illegal immigrants to self-deport, saying it’s just a matter of time before they’re caught and removed from the country.
“Criminals and gang members get no grace period,” Homan told Fox News on Nov. 11. “While we’re out prioritizing the public safety threats and national security threats, if you want to self-deport, you should self-deport because, again, we know who you are, and we’re going to come and find you.”
Trump has also vowed to use federal power against sanctuary cities. During a campaign speech in North Carolina at the end of September, Trump said he would push Congress to pass a law banning sanctuary cities nationwide.
In 2017, Trump signed an executive order that called on federal agencies to withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. The order made federal money to state and local governments conditional upon their giving immigration officials access to their jails and advance notice when illegal immigrants were being released from custody.
Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s executive order.
In the history of the social sciences, no other field of study has attracted so great a level of hostility as the science of economics. Since the inception of the science, the onslaught against it has been on the rise, extending across individuals and groups. And the outlook for a favorable reception of the science is bleak, given that a significant number of people are incapable of following through the extended chains of reasoning required for comprehending economic arguments.
Economics takes ends and goals of action as a given and—in matters of value judgments—it assumes neutrality (i.e., non-normativity), which is characteristic of a science. However, questions of suitability of means and various policies adopted to attain chosen ends are not beyond the scope of economic analysis.
The “Dismal” Task of the Economist
The competent economist—when presented with a proposed plan of action—always asks: Is the means adopted suitable for the attainment of the end in view? He critically analyzes the means in question and declares their fitness or unfitness on the basis of logical demonstrations that are unassailable and apodictly true. This peculiar task of the economist is often misapprehended as an expression of his value judgments and an attempt to frustrate the attainment of ends chosen. Thus, the economist is often met with disapproval.
More significant in the history of the science are the several attempts to discredit the economists through a denial of economics as a universally-valid science, applicable for all peoples, times, and places. This is a pernicious attempt because the social, political, and economic consequences tend to be disastrously far-reaching. This article attempts to establish a connection between a denial of economics and the emergence of totalitarianism.
Historicism as a Precursor of Totalitarianism
Historicism was one of such concerted attempts at denying the universal validity of the body of economic theorems. The historicists advanced the view that economic theories are not valid for all peoples, places, and times; and thus, are only relevant to the specific historical conditions of their authors. The German Historical School’s rejection of the free trade theories, propounded by the classical economists, was not on grounds of inherent inadequacies in these theories—given that they never unmasked any logical errors as to the untenability of these theories—but motivated by ideological pre-possessions. Mises puts it very succinctly in Epistemological Problems of Economics:
The historian must never forget that the most momentous occurrence in the history of the last hundred years, the attack launched against the universally valid science of human action and its hitherto best developed branch, economics, was motivated from the very beginning not by scientific ideas but by political considerations.
Historicism is bound to lead to some form of logical relativism, and it is not surprising that the doctrine of racial polylogism gained a general acceptance among many Germans in the early twentieth century. In order to invalidate the relevance of a theory on grounds of historical or racial origins of the author, one has to proceed with the indefensible assumption of differences in the logical character of the human mind amongst different peoples and within the same people at different historical epochs. But in fact, there is no scientific evidence as to the existence of these differences in the logical structure of the human mind. Thus the historicists’ arguments against the universal validity of economic theory are unfounded.
The social, economic, and political significance of a denial of economics would also imply the denial of insights from economics about the preservation of society—concerted action in voluntary cooperation. Economic theory asserts that there is greater productivity to be obtained from social organization under the division of labor than would be obtained in individual self-sufficiency. The Ricardian Law of Association explains the tendency of humans to intensify cooperation given a rightly-understood interest in better satisfying wants under the social order of the division of labor. While there are many ways for people to coexist in the world, there are fewer ways for them to coexist peacefully and prosperously. This is the central lesson of classical economics about human society.
Historicism’s denial of the universal validity of these theories on non-logical grounds betrays a prejudice for policies aimed at attaining the alternative of autarkic self-sufficiency and the substitution of the social apparatus with coercion and compulsion. In fact, the Nazi totalitarian regime, whose intellectual precursor was German historicism, never relented in applying force to induce cooperation while simultaneously pursuing autarkic self-sufficiency by means of disastrous policies. Thus, German historicism, in denying the universal validity of economic theory and the general laws of human action as advanced by praxeology, played a causal role by creating a favorable intellectual climate for arbitrariness and the subsequent emergence of Nazi totalitarianism.
Marxism as Pseudo-Economics
Marxist socialism, on the other hand, denies the validity of economic theories on grounds of the “class origins” of the economists. Like historicism, it subscribes to a variant of polylogism in which it asserts the existence of a difference in the logical structure of mind for the respective social classes—even though Marx never defined what he meant by “class.” Consequently, for the Marxians, the science of economics becomes mere ideological expression of the class interest of the exploiting class—the bourgeoisie.
It is precisely the fact that Marxism rejects the essential teachings of economics in favor of utopian ideas which fail to achieve the ends sought wherever it was tried. The ultimate goals of Marxians—improvement in material and social conditions of its adherents—are no different from those of their liberal counterparts of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries who enjoyed considerable improvements in standard of living; it is in the choices of means that they differ. But it is the unsuitability of the means adopted by the Marxians that always and everywhere frustrated the attainment of ends sought by Marxism.
Furthermore, as with the capitalist system, based on private ownership of the means of production, the pure socialist commonwealth must be faced with the problem of allocation of resources in view of satisfying the most urgent wants of its citizens. And in this regard, Mises, in his irrefutable criticism of the socialist commonwealth, exposes the impossibility of socialism. He argues that, given the absence of a price structure for factors of production, the problem of impracticality of economic calculation must emerge in a socialist community. The planner, without recourse to tools of economic calculation, would be lost amid the sea of economic possibilities.
That capitalism has succeeded in improving the lives of men wherever its institutions are left unhampered is because those societies recognize the validity of economic theory about the potential benefits of the free market. They did not adopt arbitrary policies that economists declared unfit for the ends they sought to attain. Thus, the horrors brought about by the series of abortive attempts to implement the utopian ideas of socialist thinkers are the logical consequences of a denial of economics.
The Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Totalitarianism
The doctrine of interventionism wrongly conceives of a compatibility of the market and violent interventions by the state, between social cooperation and the apparatus of coercion and compulsion. It purports to be a third economic system—a compromise between capitalism and socialism. But, as the logical demonstrations of the economists show us over and over, interventionism, so-called middle-of-the-road policy, inevitably leads to socialism. Interventionism is, in fact, a denial of economics in that economics recognizes that interventions of any sort in the market tend to produce outcomes that—judged from the point of view of their initiators—are even more dissatisfactory than the previous problems that they pretend to fix.
Mises clearly remarks in his short book The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics that “the worst illusion of our age is the superstitious confidence placed in panaceas, which—as the economists have irrefutably demonstrated—are contrary to purpose.” Interventionism, carried to its logical conclusion, is bound to lead to totalitarianism, given that the more its policies fail to produce the desired outcomes, the more the statesmen who wrongly believe in the appropriateness of interventionist measures find it necessary to employ the coercive state apparatus to compensate for their failures.
Economics and the Free-Market System
The science of economics is a rational science that recognizes the primacy of the laws of human society. Economics teaches that the market is a system of logically necessary relations brought about by the actions of individuals seeking to satisfy their most urgent wants. It teaches that any instance of coercion aimed at influencing the actions of individuals is disruptive to the market process. A denial of these teachings would inevitably lead to the state of affairs in which force becomes the only means of eliciting the cooperation of individuals in society.
Trump’s Win Unlikely To Substantially Change US Stance On Ukraine: Lavrov
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has issued new comments on the incoming Trump administration at a moment his cabinet picks are being reported daily, including ‘Russia-friendly’ Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
Lavrov in the wide-ranging interview on state-owned channel Russia-1 articulated that Moscow’s view is that Washington’s stance on the Ukraine conflict is unlikely to change significantly even under the Trump administration.
He explained that the United States will essentially always seek to dominate areas which fall under NATO influence, and that Trump too is likely to do the same, despite campaign promises to rapidly achieve a peace deal ending the conflict.
Ultimately, Lavrov’s position is that it doesn’t matter who is president of the US. Below is what he said according to Russian media translation:
“I have no doubt that they will want to keep these processes under their control… Washington’s attitude towards Ukrainian affairs and European affairs will not change in principle, in the sense that Washington will always strive to keep under its watchful eyeeverything that happens in the areas near NATO and the NATO area itself.”
The top Russian diplomat was also asked about recent widespread reporting that Trump is mulling concrete plans to ‘freeze’ the conflict while pressuring Kiev to give up its aspirations to join the NATO alliance for at least 20 years.
“Some [Western politicians] have started to look more soberly at the Ukrainian situation and say, ‘what’s lost is lost, let’s somehow freeze this entire thing.’ Yet… they still suggest having a truce along the contact line for ten years. These would be the same Minsk accords in a new wrapping, or even worse,” Lavrov said. The Kremlin’s position is that Minsk was a sham, and was simply used to buy time while the West armed Ukraine.
“The Minsk accords were final. They were about a small part of Donbass, to be honest. But everything collapsed because [the Kiev regime] categorically did not want to grant this part of Donbass – which would have remained part of Ukraine – special status, primarily in the form of the right to speak their native language,” Lavrov explained further.
He additionally asserted that a key cause of the war was the “deliberate extermination of everything Russian” in Donbass, and thus Russia will insist that any deal to end the war must guarantee protections for Russian-speaking people in Ukraine.
Tulsi was 100% right and only looks better in hindsight for having the courage to say it. https://t.co/IpUSor5cg8
The Zelensky government has long waged a campaign to suppress Russian culture and language from public discourse, despite some one-third of the country using Russian as a first language. More than half the population also knows Russian, even when Ukrainian is used as their first language.
In addition, the Ukrainian government has been persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church because it maintains communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, seizing churches and monasteries in the process, and arresting bishops.
The Welsh government has been advised to create dog free spaces in outdoor public areas after an ‘anti-racist’ group asserted it is making black Africans ‘feel unsafe’.
Yes, really.
The environmental group Climate Cymru BAME has issued a report instructing the government to create “dog-free areas in local green spaces” as part of an “anti-racist” drive to make the country more “inclusive”.
The advice was reinforced by another group, the North Wales Africa Society, which complained that “one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs” during a focus group meeting.
A third group called Green Soul also warned that food growing groups are run by “majority White/British/Welsh individuals” and “older white people,” despite the fact that around 90 per cent Wales’ population is white British.
The reports are in line with a consistent narrative that the UK countryside is essentially “racist” because “ethnic minorities face “barriers” to the outdoors created by “exclusions and racism,” reports the Telegraph.
However, another focus group respondent pointed out that “the green spaces are not respected in areas where there is a bigger population of ethnic minority people.”
“Ultimately, the Welsh Government’s report, which will steer future policy, concludes that “people of ethnic minority background in Wales face barriers created by exclusions and racism,” according to the Telegraph report.
Wales’ government has vowed to ensure that racism is eliminated from “all areas of public life” by 2030.
As we previously highlighted, before this year’s UK election, police in Wales paid a home visit to a man because he displayed a Reform UK political sign on the wall.
As part of their manifesto pledge, Reform UK had promised to drastically reduce illegal immigration.
Thanks to the UK’s mass migration policy, there are now more South Asians living in the United Kingdom than there are Welsh people living in Wales.
Now we have to transform our public spaces and entire way of living because it is apparently causing offense to a small minority of foreigners.
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
President-elect Donald Trump’s second term in office will likely bring sweeping changes to the nation’s Indo–Pacific policy and ongoing strategic competition with China.
Leaders throughout Congress and the national security space are therefore preparing for an era marked by increased confrontation as the administration pushes back on the Chinese regime’s aggression in the region.
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, said he expects a second Trump administration to adopt a firm approach to foreign policy in the Indo–Pacific.
“During Trump’s first administration, peace through strength was at the forefront of American foreign policy,” Moolenaar said in a statement shared with The Epoch Times by the committee’s staff.
That strength, Moolenaar suggests, would extend to the U.S. allies throughout the Indo–Pacific, where Trump is expected to push regional partners to increase their defense spending in order to receive continued U.S. support.
“The entire free world must act with urgency to invest in its collective military power in order to deter conflict, support global prosperity, and defend our values against CCP [Chinese Communist Party] aggression,” Moolenaar said.
Those increased expectations of Washington’s allies could bring both risk and opportunities to U.S. relations in the region as the nation attempts to pressure regional partners into adopting a more forward-facing defense posture.
They will also likely bring increased volatility to the United States’ relationship with China and the CCP, including by shaping the potential for an armed conflict between the two superpowers over the future of Taiwan.
Taiwan Flashpoint
The CCP claims that Taiwan is part of its territory. Though the communist regime has never controlled the island, CCP leader Xi Jinping has made unifying Taiwan with the mainland a legacy issue of his rule and has ordered the Party’s military wing to prepare for a potential conflict by 2027.
The United States does not officially support Taiwanese independence or the forceful unification of the two territories. But, since 1979, Washington has maintained obligations to sell Taiwan the arms it needs to maintain its self-defense.
Likewise, the United States has maintained a policy of so-called strategic ambiguity since 1979, in which it will neither confirm nor deny its willingness to enter a military conflict to defend Taiwan from CCP aggression.
However, U.S. political and military leadership have signaled that they are preparing for such an eventuality. To that end, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti issued a guidance document in September ordering the Navy to prepare for war with China by 2027.
The United States is not interested in preserving Taiwan’s independence simply because of its democratic government. The island nation is responsible for manufacturing more than half of the world’s semiconductors and nearly 90 percent of the globe’s advanced semiconductors, used in electronic components for everything from laptops to pickup trucks to hypersonic missiles.
To that end, Trump’s transactional approach to international security deals has thrown Taiwan’s central role in the global economy into question.
In July, for example, Trump called for Taiwan to pay more for its defense, though the island is already one of the largest purchasers of arms from the United States.
Since 1950, Taiwan has spent more than $50 billion on U.S. weapons, making it the fourth largest purchaser of U.S. arms behind Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Trump has also suggested that military force would not be necessary to protect Taiwan from the CCP and has instead claimed that a severe enough economic threat to China would prevent an invasion of Taiwan.
Russell Hsiao, executive director of the Global Taiwan Institute think tank, told The Epoch Times that Trump’s ambiguous stance on Taiwan’s defense could invite further CCP attempts to sway American and Taiwanese decision-makers away from aggressively defending the island’s de facto independence.
“The president-elect has already indicated that he would be less clear than President Biden as to whether he thought the United States had an obligation to come to Taiwan’s defense if China decided to invade the island,” Hsiao said.
“Washington and Taipei should be prepared for Beijing to exploit this in its cognitive warfare campaigns and quickly develop their own counter-strategies.”
Hsiao noted, however, that Trump was “unencumbered by past precedents and norms,” which could help him to strengthen the bilateral relationship by overcoming the self-imposed restrictions of the past that have limited U.S. involvement with Taiwan on the international stage.
As such, he said, asking for Taiwan to accept a larger share of the financial burden for its defense could be an opportunity for Taiwanese leaders to demonstrate their resolve and, in the process, garner renewed U.S. support through access to increased arms sales.
“President-elect Trump is expected to emphasize burden-sharing in security ties with allies and partners,” Hsiao said.
“While this may be generally seen in a negative light by most allies and partners, it should be noted that this could lead to it being more forward-leaning in providing a wider variety of arms to Taiwan suited to a range of potential contingencies.”
Trump Expected to Deliver Security—at a Price
Taiwanese leadership responded by saying the island was committed to taking on more responsibility and defending itself from CCP aggression.
Taiwanese leadership may consider making a substantial arms purchase early on in the second Trump administration as a sort of down payment to demonstrate its resolve to the administration.
John Mills, former cybersecurity chief in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said that ensuring a robust defense budget would help Taiwan to make sure U.S. support did not flag and that military expenditure was “the primary metric” used by Trump to determine an ally’s willingness to defend itself.
“We have a very poor track record when we carry the burden for other countries,” Mills said.
“All that is being asked is at least 2 percent of GDP spent on defense and, in reality, 4 to 5 percent is the new 2 percent.”
At present, Taiwan spends about 2.4 percent of its GDP on defense, according to data compiled by the CIA.
Other U.S. allies in the region are more varied. South Korea spends about 2.7 percent of its GDP on defense, and the Philippines spends only about 1.5 percent. Japan is in a unique situation because it is currently spending 1.4 percent but is in the middle of a historic reform of its military policy and strategy, which will see that figure rise to at least 2 percent in the coming years.
Yet none of those numbers at their current levels are likely to please the incoming Trump administration if it is truly so set on encouraging the nation’s allies in the Indo–Pacific to take point on confronting the Chinese regime’s global expansion.
There may be some wiggle room, however, as the administration looks to use less traditional pathways to secure its international interests.
Sam Kessler, a geopolitical analyst at the North Star Support Group risk advisory company, said that a hallmark of the first Trump administration was its ability to think outside of the box, and that would likely only increase now, given Trump’s growing distance from the old guard of the Republican Party.
“The Trump administration in the first term was innovative, proactive, and resourceful in the deals and agreements they crafted, so expect something similar, as well as a little predicted unpredictability, too,” Kessler told The Epoch Times.
“This may be done in the form of trade deals, security arrangements, foreign investments, and policies that may help reduce the threat levels, too. It could be a wide range of things that could be utilized.”
On that note, Kessler suggests that Trump would revisit trade deals and strong economic measures when confronting China and might prove surprisingly willing to take a proactive stance in the bilateral relationship with China.
Such economic deals, he said, could have the secondary objective of smoothing out regional tensions and preserving allied security while holding the CCP accountable economically.
“We may end up witnessing a series of deals and agreements that may be related to multiple issues that are non-related to the original purpose of a negotiation in order to reduce tensions between multiple parties in other areas,” Kessler said.
In all, it is clear that U.S. allies in the Indo–Pacific will be expected to contribute more to the common defense in the region, and such efforts will not go unseen.
With that much in mind, Mills said that he believes the likelihood of an armed conflict would drop, as Trump’s expectations for all nations in the Indo–Pacific would be clear.
“The likelihood of conflict in the western Pacific decreases significantly under Trump,” Mills said.
“Why? Because he’s showing clarity and resolve at all times. Clarity and resolve help prevent war. Lack of clarity and resolve creates war.”
Tennessee Official Warns: Venezuelan Gangsters “Back In All Of Our Major Cities”
The American people are expressing joy about President-elect Trump’s selection of Tom Homan as the incoming “border czar” to combat Biden-Harris’ illegal alien invasion at the open southern border, which has been linked to thousands of armed Venezuela prison gang Tren de Aragua members storming communities nationwide.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David Rausch is the latest official to warn about TdA members taking over his cities. He said these illegal alien criminals have been spotted in all major cities in Tennessee.
Local media outlet WVLT News quoted Rausch, who warned that TdA members have been involved in human trafficking within the state.
“They are back in all of our major cities. They are running human trafficking operations, and that’s where they start,” said Rausch.
Rausch told Governor Bill Lee on Tuesday that the foreign prison gang was active across the state in 2023, but after a number of arrests, activity slumped. However, he said, in just the past few months, TdA activity has surged once again.
The TBI director said TdA members were also involved in organized retail theft and drug crimes within the state.
“They will not hesitate to attack their opponents in public or in broad daylight,” Rausch warned.
A recently leaked US Army North Division report showed an estimated 5,000 TdA members running amok nationwide.
These disastrous globalist policies pushed by the far-left Biden-Harris admin neglected to uphold national security for citizens while ten-plus million unvetted illegal aliens stormed the nation.
Tennessee voters shifted toward Trump in last week’s presidential election, signaling frustration with the globalist in the White House.
Months ago, Homan had a message to the illegals…
This is Tom Homan, President Trump’s Border Czar. His message to all the illegals who crossed the border will give you goosebumps, “You better start packing now… cause you’re going home.”
And to the cartels, he said, “Trump will wipe you off the face of the Earth! YOU’RE… pic.twitter.com/ygZICaVVJb
The governors of Illinois and Colorado, both Democrats, have announced the formation of a new alliance to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s policies, just weeks before he is set to assume office.
The alliance, named “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” (GSD), is being billed as a nonpartisan coalition of governors who will work together to prevent “authoritarianism” and the “undermining of democratic institutions,” including executive agencies, elections, and state courts, according to a Nov. 13 statement announcing the group.
Through the group, governors will leverage their “unique legislative, budgetary, executive, and administrative powers to deliver results for the American people,” the statement said.
The alliance will also develop “playbooks” to enable governors and their teams to “anticipate and swiftly respond to emerging threats,” according to the statement. The group did not specify what those threats were.
Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Jared Polis of Colorado launched the group and will act as co-chairs overseeing the coalition. The group will be supported by a network of senior staff designated by each governor.
Democrats currently govern 23 states while Republicans govern 27. Neither Polis nor Pritzker said how many governors have joined the coalition so far.
A spokesperson for Trump’s transition team, Karoline Leavitt, said in response to the group’s formation that the president-elect “will serve all Americans, even those who did not vote for him in the election.”
“He will unify the country through success,” Leavitt said.
The coalition says it will be supported by the Governors Action Alliance (GovAct), a nonpartisan organization that will collaborate with think tanks, legal experts, and democracy advocates to tackle the “unique challenges facing American democracy today,” according to the statement.
According to its official website, GovAct is advised by a board that includes former Republican and Democratic governors from states such as Minnesota and Massachusetts, as well as a former deputy attorney general.
Specifics regarding how exactly the alliance would function were not provided.
In a statement, Pritzker said the alliance was formed amid a “critical moment in our history … to protect the foundations of our democracy and ensure our institutions withstand threats and persevere in their mission to improve the lives of our people.”
Trump, who campaigned on proposals including deporting illegal immigrants and imposing tariffs, scored a decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in last week’s election.
The alliance was unveiled as multiple leaders from the Democratic Party vowed to uphold various policies related to access to abortion, climate, diversity programs, and LGBT issues following the former president’s election win.
On Nov. 7, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced plans to convene a special session later this year to address Trump policies, which he said threaten the state’s values.
According to a statement from Newsom’s office, the special session will respond to public statements and proposals put forward by Trump and his advisers, as well as actions taken during his previous time in office, which the statement described as “an agenda that could erode essential freedoms and individual rights, including women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights.”
The special session will begin on Dec. 2, when the Legislature convenes.
Last week, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said that his legal team had been preparing for months to respond to future Trump policies, while New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she is working with her attorney general on how to “protect New Yorkers’ fundamental freedoms.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who was Harris’s running mate in the recent presidential election, told supporters during a Nov. 8 speech in Eagan, Minnesota, that he would “stand ready to stand up and fight” if the incoming Trump administration brings a “hateful agenda” to the state.
Manhattan Apartment Rents Climb To Summer Highs As Mortgage Rates Top 7%
Prospective homebuyers in Manhattan were sidelined last month as the rate on a 30-year mortgage topped 7%. As a result, rents in the borough rose to three-month highs due to sliding housing affordability.
Bloomberg cited new data from brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate and appraiser Miller Samuel that showed the median Manhattan apartment rent climbed 2.4% from a year earlier to $4,295. This was the first annual gain since April.
In other surrounding boroughs, new leases signed in Brooklyn last month averaged around $3,600, up 3.2% from a year earlier. In northwest Queens, median rents were up nearly 5% to $3,350.
In recent weeks, the US 10-year Treasury bond yield, which lenders use as a guide to price home loans, jumped in anticipation of a Trump win. Yields soared even after the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate. This is mostly because traders forecasted elevated inflation under the Trump administration.
Jonathan Miller, president of Miller Samuel, noted that lower mortgage rates lured some renters to purchase homes before the presidential election. However, he noted that rents started to re-accelerate as soon as mortgage rates bottomed in late September and surged through October. He added that a 30-year mortgage rate over 7% has pressured rents higher.
“Rents tend to follow mortgage rates,” Miller said, adding, “The higher the mortgage rate, the higher rent.”
Miller said newly signed leases jumped 24% last month compared to one year ago. He noted that higher rates have sparked a surge in activity this fall.
“Mortgage rates still aren’t coming down,” Miller said, pointing out, “Economic policy would not seem to suggest that mortgage rates will fall significantly. If anything, rents will stay where they are, or rise, moving forward.”
