Month: January 2025

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

On Thursday, the newly-announced program lineup for CNN noticeably did not include at least one prominent figure on the network: Anchor Jim Acosta.

As Fox News reports, the 10 AM slot previously occupied by Acosta’s show is now being replaced with “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown.”

While CNN has changed its scheduling several times in the last few years, this marks the first time that Acosta’s name has not been included.

“We are in active discussions with Jim about a new time slot and will have more information to share soon,” a CNN spokesman said in a statement.

Elsewhere in the lineup, Jake Tapper has been moved to a two-hour show from 5-7 PM. The primetime lineup from 8-11 PM remains unchanged, headlined by Anderson Cooper, Kaitlan Collins, and Abby Phillip, respectively.

Last week, it was first reported that Acosta may have been moved from his one-hour weekly show to a two-hour show that airs at midnight, in a move apparently pitched by CNN CEO Mark Thompson.

“Acosta is a talented broadcaster who could handle any slot on the network,” an anonymous CNN staffer said to Fox. “The midnight thing is shocking, but it is what it is.”

Acosta gained notoriety as CNN’s White House Correspondent during the first Trump Administration. He repeatedly asked loaded, combative questions of President Trump, with tensions peaking during a briefing where Acosta got into a brief physical confrontation with a female White House intern. Acosta’s White House press credentials were briefly revoked following the incident.

The absence of Acosta from the line-up comes just days after he was pwned by Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.

“This is this is not Fox, congressman. You can’t just spin a tale and pull the wool over people’s eyes. This is CNN,” Acosta said.

“This is the news. We are asking you to come on and tell the truth.”

Burchett shot back, “And that’s why more people are watching the Cartoon Network and SpongeBob reruns right now.”

Acosta blurted out, “That’s not the case at all!” — but CNN’s post-election coverage got crushed by networks including Food Network and the Hallmark Channel, Fox News reported in December 2024.

OUCH. @TimBurchett absolutely bodies CNN’s Jim Acosta as the network losing to Spongebob reruns….

Acosta: “This is this is not Fox, congressman. You can’t just spin a tale and pull the wool over people’s eyes. This is CNN. This is the news. We are asking you to come on and… pic.twitter.com/AUfWPwPH49

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 22, 2025

CNN’s lineup change comes shortly after an announcement that the network plans to lay off at least 6% of its workforce, which will result in hundreds of jobs being slashed.

In the final data for UMich Consumer Sentiment survey, inflation expectations (both short- and long-term) surged higher in January…

Source: Bloomberg

…but it’s all Democrats who see prices up 4.2% in the next year (while Republicans expect barely any change in prices)…

Source: Bloomberg

Concerns over the future trajectory of inflation were visible throughout the interviews and were tied to beliefs about anticipated policies like tariffs.

Consumers continued to spontaneously express motives for buying-in-advance to avoid future price increases, and robust auto and retail sales data suggest that consumers are indeed acting on these views.

Overall, this led to the headline sentiment index’s first MoM decline in six months…

Source: Bloomberg

While assessments of personal finances inched up for the fifth consecutive month, all other index components pulled back. Indeed, sentiment declines were broad based and seen across incomes, wealth, and age groups.

Despite reporting stronger incomes this month, concerns about unemployment rose; about 47% of consumers expect unemployment to rise in the year ahead, the highest since the pandemic recession.

Shares of Novo Nordisk A/S surged in European trading after the Danish pharmaceutical giant announced promising early-stage trial results for its next-generation obesity treatment called “amycretin,” which demonstrated 22% weight loss. The positive data helped reverse negative sentiment surrounding Novo after disappointing trial results from another weightloss drug in December.

According to early-stage trial results published on Novo’s website, the once-weekly amycretin obesity drug, administered via injection, helped patients lose 22% of their body weight over 36 weeks. In contrast, patients who received a placebo gained about 2% over the same timeframe. 

“We are very encouraged by the subcutaneous phase 1b/2a results for amycretin in people living with overweight or obesity,” Martin Lange, executive vice president for Development at Novo, wrote in a statement. 

Lange said, “The results seen in the trial support the weight lowering potential of this novel unimolecular GLP-1 and amylin receptor agonist, amycretin, that we have previously seen with the oral formulation.”

Shares of the pharmaceutical giant jumped as much as 14% in Copenhagen, the largest intra-day gain since August 8, 2023. 

Shares have been nearly halved (-46%) since peaking around 1,000 Danish krone in June 2024. 

Novo super bull, Goldman’s James Quigley, provided more color on amycretin’s results.

He outlined how the storm clouds over Novo could soon be lifting following “disappointments around CagriSema’s” results last month:

Overall, we see the headline weight loss result as potentially best in class and although we need to see detailed data on weight loss curves, safety and tolerability, we believe further weight loss can likely be shown above 22% over a longer time period in a higher baseline BMI population assuming the Phase 3 trial does not contain similar flexible dosing protocol as in REDEFINE-1. Confirmation of a potential acceleration into phase 3 could improve sentiment for Novo and extend the obesity franchise value post sema patent expiry (2031 EU, 2032 US), following disappointments around CagriSema.

Quigley’s chart showing amycretin’s results and how it compares with competitors: 

Quigley & his team maintained a “Buy” rating on Novo with an 875 Danish krone price target over the next 12 months. 

As a result, our 12-month price target is DKK 875. Our ADR PT is set with reference to the Danish line, translated at the current FX rate, leading to an ADR PT of $124. Key risks to our view and price target include (1) clinical risks if CagriSema and/or Amycretin development was unsuccessful, (2) slower-than-expected scale up in manufacturing for Wegovy/Ozempic, slowing sales trajectory, (3) stronger-than-anticipated competitor obesity data, particularly oral small molecule GLP-1 based assets, and (4) deeper and sustained price pressure.

In a separate note, Barclays analyst Emily Field stated, “This news finally breaks the tide of negative sentiment” for Novo, adding that the data was “on par with the best” results achieved at this stage for weight loss drugs.

Unlike Novo’s CagriSema, which fell short of Novo’s analyst expectations last month …

Novo Nordisk Crashes Most On Record After CagriSema GLP-1 Results Disappoint https://t.co/vn3LGUaJ7M

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 20, 2024

… Bloomberg noted, “amycretin combines two mechanisms for weight loss in a single molecule. It mimics both GLP-1 — the ingredient that powers Ozempic and Wegovy — and another gut hormone called amylin.” 

Meanwhile, Goldman’s GLP-1 Winner Basket is underperforming its Loser Basket, reflecting the deflating obesity drug bubble. This shift comes ahead of Trump 2.0, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely to head the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Will amycretin re-excite Novo bulls? 

With expectations mixed (Services down, Manufacturing up) amid a rebound in ‘hard data’, preliminary January PMIs moved as expected but with considerably more magnitude.

• S&P Global US Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 (50.1) from 49.4 (better than the 49.8 expected).

• S&P Global US Services PMI tumbled to 52.8 from 56.8 (well below the 56.5 expected).

Source: Bloomberg

A return to growth in the manufacturing sector for the first time in six months was accompanied by sustained, but slower, service sector growth.

Firms’ expectations of output in the coming year meanwhile continued to run at a level not surpassed since May 2022, buoyed by optimism about the new government’s policies, encouraging firms to take on staff at the steepest rate for two-and-a-half years.

However, inflationary pressures intensified to a four-month high, with both input costs and selling prices rising at increased rates across both manufacturing and services.

Commenting on the flash PMI data, Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence said:

“US businesses are starting 2025 in an upbeat mood on hopes that the new administration will help drive stronger economic growth. Rising optimism is most notable in the manufacturing sector, where expectations of growth over the coming year have surged higher as factories await support from the new policies of the Trump administration, though service providers are also entering 2025 in good spirits.

“Although output growth slowed slightly in January, sustained confidence suggests that this slowdown might be short-lived. Especially encouraging is the upturn in hiring that has been fueled by the improved business outlook, with jobs being created at a rate not seen for two-and-a-half years.

“However, rising price pressures are a concern, with companies reporting supplier-driven price hikes as well as wage growth amid poor staff availability. Higher input cost and selling price inflation was broad-based across goods and services and, if sustained, could add to worries that a combination of robust economic growth, a strong job market, and higher inflation could encourage a more hawkish policy approach from the Fed.”

So overall growth down but prices up… smells like stagflation taking hold.

Central bank flows dominate markets. This may not come as a shock to many ZeroHedge readers but was refreshing to hear from two institutional heavyweights like Piper Sandler’s Michael “Kantro” Kantrowitz and Matt King (formerly Citi’s top global strategist and now runs Satori Insights), panelists at last night’s ZH Debate.

CB dominance and ever-forward-looking market participants has created a paradigm where bad news for the economy is good news for markets — because it means a sooner return of the Fed’s rescue liquidity. This was the perspective of the cautiously bullish Kantro. King, on the other hand, sees private capital flows as significant and credits them for buoying markets during the Fed’s most recent tightening cycle. Still, he does not like the direction flows are headed.

They talked Fed, Trump, tariffs, and analyzed a shit ton of charts.

Moderated by the great Ash Bennington of Real Vision, here are the key insights for those who missed it, and be sure to check out the full debate.

It’s All Money Flows: King

Citi’s King described the journey of financial analysis that ultimately led him to one answer: flows. The epiphany began for him during the Obama-Bernanke years when markets began to break.

“About 2012, all my favorite fundamental indicators — in credit, in equities, for risk assets especially — basically broke down,” King said. “Interest rates didn’t seem to have the impact that they used to on either markets or, for that matter, the economy.”

After this shift, King said that nowadays “markets seem to be driving the economy more than the conventional view of the economy driving markets.” He now follows a rather simple methodology: look at the Fed’s balance sheet.

“[Central banks are] where over the last 12 years or so, the biggest changes in money creation have been coming from,” King said. “I shouldn’t be able to explain market moves to the extent that I can just by looking at stupid line items on the central bank balance sheets… nevertheless, these reserves changes often correlated really well, both with the long term moves and with the short term moves.”

If that’s the case, why didn’t equities take a hit during the recent Fed tightening cycle (however short lived)? “Massive” private inflows in U.S. equities, King says.

“That influence from central bank money creation has, especially over the last year, been overshadowed by a massive rising tide of inflows to US equity funds… central banks were withdrawing liquidity, but we as investors decided, ‘We’re going to pile in anyway.’”

pic.twitter.com/ahn88ypcUp

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 24, 2025

The Bullish Case: Kantro

Compartmentalized speculation and record-high profitability in the S&P may not send markets another 20% higher by year-end but should allow them to continue to “chug along” says Piper Sandler’s Kantro. He pointed out key differentiators from past speculative fervors:

“In 2000, we had a market that was really full of junk and speculation, far more than we have today.”

Highlighting the billion-dollar market cap of “Fartcoin”, Kantro posited that much of the speculative capital has funneled into crypto rather than equities and thus likely does not pose a widespread risk.

He additionally pointed to the allocation of companies that “lose the most money” is at a record low. Meaning the S&P 500 is dominated with profitable firms more so than at any time in the past.

Lastly, high PEs (price-to-earnings ratios) do not scare Kantro because technology has evolved from the “old economy cyclicality”. Large companies are reaching more customers than ever at lower costs, something AI will accelerate further.

“In 2007, financials, industrials, energy, and materials added up to half the market. If you have a market that basically looks like Canada — those four sectors — you’re damn right, you should have a low PE.”

pic.twitter.com/0aWpQjCOU7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 24, 2025

We’re All Fed Watchers Now

Both strategists agree that the economic outlook is largely irrelevant to stock prices. For markets, it’s reactions to econ data that matter and no reaction matters more than Jerome Powell’s.

As King sees money creations slowly dwindling, he sees equities as likely to fall which could usher in a recession like in 2000 (where, he argues, crashing markets lead to the recession and not the other way around).

Kantro, however, views this through the bad-news-is-good-news lens that Fed dominance has necessitated:

“My whole bullish case… was that the markets are going to go up more because the economy is going to soften more,” he said. “In other words, the unemployment rate is going to go up — which it did — and eventually got the Fed to cut.”

Kantro goes on to point out that “all equity markets all bottom with rates peaking.” In other words, when the Fed is done hiking (and he thinks the recent pause is enough of a green light).

And to sum up the market rather perfectly…

Kantro: “Every client meeting I had people were asking me, ‘Is the Fed going to raise rates?’ It just shows you how quickly the sentiment has shifted. And the Fed being data dependent has only made everything much more reactive and myopic.”

pic.twitter.com/qMWvNofP8M

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 24, 2025

Check out the full debate here to hear more insights and fascinating charts.

Find King’s research at Satori Insights. Accredited investors can find Kantro’s research through Piper Sandler and everyone can tune into his new podcast “What’s Next For Markets?”.

These debates would not be possible without support from JM Bullion. Visit https://www.JMBullion.com to purchase gold and silver at competitive prices along with exclusive ZeroHedge-branded coins.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Donald Trump won the 2024 election in part because the left’s hysterical style of attacking Trump no longer worked.

After a decade of this unhinged furor, it proved worthless in winning public support… and for two simple reasons.

One, after years of Russian collusion hoaxes, the laptop disinformation farce, and the warped lies about the “suckers” and “fine people on both sides”—the shrill left became predictable.

So, the bored public began tuning them out, switching channels, hitting the mute button, and pulling the plug.

Like the deleterious effects of inflation that eventually render a currency worthless, nonstop hectoring, hysterics, pontification, and distortion finally made all such criticisms of Trump mostly as valueless as 1930s German marks.

Second, the wearied public never heard reasoned counterarguments from the likes of a Rachel Maddow. Instead, on spec, she kept mouthing, “The walls are closing in” on Trump.

Joe Biden did not explain why his open border was a better idea than Trump’s closed one. He preferred mumbling about “semi-fascists!” and “ultra-MAGA!”

The Never Trumpers did not critique the Trump deficits. Instead, they hammered away that Trump was Hitler, or Mussolini, or Putin—or just a dangerous dictator or autocrat.

Angry retired generals never demonstrated why Trump was, in their view, an existential threat to democracy. Instead, they shouted nonstop in op-eds and interviews that he was a fascist, Nazi-like, no different from the guards at Auschwitz, a pathological liar, and should be summarily removed.

Worn-out voters began to understand these psychodramas were substitutes for substantive criticism or occasions for legitimate debate.

Indeed, the exhausted public finally concluded that the hysterics increased in direct proportion to the poverty of the charges.

So, what did ten years of such derangement achieve for the left?

Trump now has control of the White House and both houses of Congress operate under Republican majorities.

The Supreme Court is mostly conservative. Almost all of Trump’s issues—the border, immigration, the economy, foreign policy, and crime—poll well over 50 percent.

No matter, the left is still hammering away at the trivial and irrelevant—and remains paralyzed in furor and hysterics.

When Snoop Dogg performed for the Trump inauguration, Ann Navarro of The View, in racist fashion, called the African-American rapper “a trained seal.”

When Pete Hegseth went before the Senate for confirmation as Secretary of Defense nominee, Democrats asked almost nothing about nuclear strategy, recruitment shortfalls, or a paucity of artillery shells.

Instead, what followed were animated gotcha lectures about Hegseth’s prior adultery.

No sooner had Hegseth finished his successful audit than the left rounded up his former sister-in-law, now divorced from his brother.

A hardcore Democrat, she confessed she wanted his nomination rejected. She further claimed—with no evidence—that she had “heard” from his ex-wife that Hegseth was a wife-beater.

His former wife immediately denied the charges. She pointed to their prior divorce settlement that recorded neither had ever lodged such a complaint against the other.

Next, the left went after Elon Musk. Recently, he had finished an address by touching his heart and then extending his arm out to the crowd.

To the left, that greeting now became proof of a “Nazi salute.”

Yet in no time, the internet cited photos of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Elizabeth Warren all extending their stiff arms out in identical fashion to Musk.

We were next told by critics that Donald Trump was not technically president because he did not place his left hand on the Bible as he swore his presidential oath.

The Constitution, of course, demands no such act. But it does explicitly state that no religious test shall be required to hold public office.

During a National Prayer Service for newly sworn-in President Trump, the Episcopal bishop of Washington D.C., Mariann Budde, hijacked the sermon. She rebuked Trump—sitting right in front of her—because he supposedly had portrayed illegal aliens and transgendered children “in the harshest of lights.”

Budde later bragged that had she used the occasion to sandbag Trump with a “one-on-one conversation.”

She talked grandly of mercy, but not of the thousands of Americans who have been physically assaulted or attacked by illegal aliens, or tens of thousands of deaths due to illegally imported fentanyl, or the unfairness of open borders to legal immigrant applicants, or the suffering of our citizen poor when their social services are overwhelmed by some 12 million illegal entries of the last four years.

In sum, the left wants no debate because they know voters have rejected what they saw and suffered during the last four years of the Biden administration.

Forgetting nothing, learning nothing, like zombies, leftists keep screaming banalities.

But like addicts and their feel-good fixes, their hysterics only further turn off the public as they destroy themselves.

President Trump’s campaign rhetoric and post-election comments critical of China sparked fears of a renewed trade war on the first day of his second term. But such fears have yet to materialize. Instead, Goldman analysts have described Trump’s initial trade policy on day one as having a “more benign tone.”

In a Thursday night interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, the president showed his reluctance to escalate the trade war, stating that he would “rather not” impose tariffs on China. He has emphasized this week his willingness to negotiate with Chinese President Xi Jinping and has so far averted a clash between the world’s two largest economies. 

“We have one very big power over China, and that’s tariffs, and they don’t want them,” Trump told Hannity in an interview that aired Thursday, adding, “And I’d rather not have to use it. But it’s a tremendous power over China.”

On Tuesday, Trump considered a 10% tariff on goods imported from China starting February 1. The proposed tariff would be in response to years of fentanyl precursor chemicals flowing from Chinese companies into Mexico, where Mexican drug cartels cook them and then smuggle them into the US via the Biden-Harris regime’s previously open southern borders.

In the prior election cycle, Trump floated tariffs on China by as much as 60%, which would’ve sparked a tit-for-tat trade war and crushed US trade with the Chinese economy heavily reliant on exports. 

“It’s hard to know exactly what US President Donald Trump was getting at with his latest comments on China tariffs … That said, it’s difficult to see Trump backing down from his tariff threats. And analysis by Bloomberg Economics shows there’s a lot at stake for China, and the world,” Bloomberg Chief Asia Economist Chang Shu wrote in a note. 

Fiona Lim, a senior strategist at Malayan Banking Bhd, pointed out that global “markets are likely to reduce bets on tariffs right now.” 

US Dollar slides from Trump’s Day One at White House. 

“Trump continues to take a softer approach with China,” Lim said. 

Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jan Hatzius, alongside Alec Phillips, David Mericle, and others, told clients on Tuesday that Trump’s first day of trade announcements was “more benign than expected,” adding, “Trump’s comments on China were notably less hawkish than during the presidential campaign or even his more recent comments since the election.” 

From China’s perspective, “this is a very positive start,” said Wang Huiyao, president of the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based think tank and adviser to Beijing, as quoted by The Wall Street Journal.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said earlier this week that China is ready to work with the Trump administration to improve ties from “a new starting point.”

Carlos Casanova, senior Asia economist at Union Bancaire Privée in Hong Kong, told WSJ that Beijing might be able to navigate the 10% tariff next month by offering incentives such as tax cuts to exporters. He said that a deflationary environment in China has made Chinese goods increasing attractive to US buyers despite additional tariffs, adding, “Ten percent will be quite manageable.” 

On Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning outlined that both countries have “huge common interests.” She said, “The two sides should step up dialogue and consultation.” 

Earlier on Thursday, Trump said in a virtual interview at the World Economic Forum that he has “always had a great relationship” with the Chinese leader. 

“All we want is fairness. We just want a level playing field,” Trump continued, adding, “But I like President Xi very much. I’ve always liked him.”

Trump’s efforts to keep the Chinese video-sharing app TikTok operating in the US can be viewed as an ‘olive branch‘ to Beijing, signaling a willingness to negotiate on trade instead of reigniting a tit-for-tat trade war. 

Authored by Stephen Moore via DailyCaller.com,

The media and the intelligentsia are laughing at President Donald Trump’s idea of the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. At first hearing of what seemed to be an outlandish idea, I guffawed too.

Trump’s argument is that Greenland is of strategic military and national security value to the United States.

He is also betting this giant island has other rare and undiscovered assets.

There is no question that it would serve as a strategic buffer between the United States and Russia and perhaps other hostile nations, including China.

This would be a purchase, not a conquest. But does it make sense? Let’s turn back the clock.

Anyone who paid attention to their U.S. history class in high school has heard of “Seward’s Folly.”

This was the American acquisition of Alaska in 1867 by then-Secretary of State William Seward.

The price tag was $7 million. That would be the equivalent of less than $1 billion today — or less than what Washington spends every day.

Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, so Russia practically gave it away to us.

The purchase of Alaska was showered with widespread criticism; it was an “icebox” that was viewed as uninhabitable and more suitable for polar bears than people.

How wrong the skeptics were. Alaska was soon discovered to have vast quantities of gold in the Yukon and played a strategic role during World War II. Then, of course, the North Slope of Alaska was discovered to have massive deposits of oil and gas. No doubt, Putin would love today to have Alaska in his portfolio.

Thank God for William Seward.

The idea of purchasing land in order to expand freedom and America’s manifest destiny predates the purchase of Alaska.

In the first hundred years of our country’s history, we repeatedly acquired land to expand America’s reach. Most famously, was Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase — which roughly doubled America’s land area from the original 13 colonies/states.

That purchase was criticized as a “land grab” as well. But it was the gateway to the development of the West.

Florida came shortly thereafter — a virtual gift from Spain.

The “Republic of Texas” was an independent territory and joined the U.S. voluntarily and we gladly and wisely brought the Lone Star state into the fold.

Needless to say, none of these acquisitions or additions was “folly.”

Which brings us back to Greenland.

Why does Denmark need it?

It is hard to imagine anything that would add more income, wealth and security to the less than 100,000 people living in Greenland than to plant the American flag there and make it a U.S. territory.

The residents of Greenland would be able to bequeath to their children one of the greatest assets on the planet — a U.S. passport.

While we are on the topic of acquisitions, if Trump is really thinking big, he should also consider offering to bury from Mexico a 50-to-100 mile stretch of coastal land stretching from San Diego down the Pacific coast.

If Mexico were to sell that land to us, this idyllic beachfront property might instantly become some of the most valuable land in the world — inflating in price by perhaps 10- to 20-fold.

Here is another thought experiment.

 Imagine how rich Cuba would be today, if it were an American territory. 

Cuba could and would be the Hong Kong of the western hemisphere if it detoured from its near seven-decade long excursion into communism.

Trump is not an imperialist. He wants to spread freedom, prosperity and peace to much of the rest of the world. The old joke about Greenland is that it is neither green nor land.

It is a vast sheet of floating ice. Plant the American flag on that ice and suddenly it becomes a hot property.

*  *  *

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as envoy for special missions, warned that NATO leaders would face backlash from the United States if they pushed to extend alliance membership to Ukraine without first boosting their own support for the embattled eastern European nation.

Amid the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, NATO leaders have discussed steps to extend the alliance membership to Ukraine, but the alliance is still working out details of the ascension plan.

Speaking at a Jan. 23 panel discussion on Ukraine on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the alliance is committed to extending membership to Ukraine, but still has to work out the ascension process.

“The question now of course is how this will exactly play out whenever hopefully as soon as possible,” said Rutte, a Dutch national.

Calling into the panel from California, Grenell pushed back on Rutte’s comments.

“I think you’re going to run into a big buzzsaw in America if we have the NATO secretary general talking about adding Ukraine to NATO,” Grenell said.

While Ukraine has sought NATO membership for years, the alliance’s ascension process requires the unanimous support of all current member nations. U.S. opposition alone could halt Ukraine’s membership.

Trump and his allies have raised concerns that the United States has borne the brunt of the cost of arming and sustaining Ukraine throughout the ongoing war and that the other NATO members have lagged behind alliance military spending targets.

“The American people are the ones that are paying for the defense,” Grenell said.

“You cannot ask the American people to expand the umbrella of NATO when the current members aren’t paying their fair share. And that includes the Dutch.”

NATO set a target in 2014 for each of its member nations to commit at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product to military spending. In 2023, only 11 of the alliance’s 31 members had met that spending target. The Netherlands finally hit the 2 percent target in 2024, but eight other countries are still lagging behind.

Responding to Grenell’s remarks, Rutte agreed that there is a problem with alliance members lagging behind their existing spending commitments.

Rutte then said the alliance will need to set even higher military spending targets to adjust to growing international threats and boost its arms production capabilities.

Rutte said he’s hopeful to get all alliance members past the 2 percent spending target within the coming months.

“Then we have, collectively, to move up. And we will decide on the exact number later this year, but it will be considerably more,” Rutte added.

Ukraine Negotiations

Beyond criticizing NATO allies for not bearing more of the burden of sustaining Ukraine, Trump has repeatedly indicated he would prefer to negotiate an end to the ongoing war.

In his own virtual remarks before the World Economic Forum on Thursday, Trump said, “Our efforts to secure a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine are now, hopefully, underway.”

Trump said Ukraine is ready to make a deal, and now a peace deal will depend on Russia. This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Trump on his return to the White House and said Russia is open to begin talks “on an equal and mutually respectful basis.”

Grenell told the WEF panel that Trump was “handed a terrible mess.”

“There are not a lot of great choices, but President Trump … has already made clear that he’s going to pressure both sides to end this,” he said.

At times on the campaign trail, Trump said he could negotiate a deal to end the fighting within 24 hours. His team has since softened that timeline for a deal.

“I would say just give President Trump a little time,” Grenell said. “He’s the best negotiator.”

Trump has threatened to impose new economic sanctions and tariffs on Russian goods if Moscow doesn’t quickly accept a deal.

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times,

Under a revised code of conduct on online speech, the European Commission says that Big Tech signatories need to allow a network of “monitoring reporters” to regularly monitor hate speech notices.

European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen attends the first meeting of the new college of European Commissioners in Brussels, Belgium on Dec. 4, 2024. Reuters/Yves Herman

On Jan. 20, the European Commission announced that updated hate speech guidelines will be folded into the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA is an EU-wide regulation that regulates the obligations of digital services.

Part of this requires social media platforms to remove, and take other specified steps to deal with, what is deemed disinformation. The DSA fully came into force in 2024.

Under the revised code, companies that are signed up must allow a network of “monitoring reporters” that are nonprofit or public entities with expertise on illegal hate speech to regularly monitor how the signatories are reviewing hate speech notices.

They will have to review at least two-thirds of hate speech notices received from monitoring reporters within 24 hours.

The EU said that the updated code of conduct, a voluntary instrument, builds on a 2016 code on “countering illegal hate speech online.”

European Commission Spokesperson Thomas Regnier told The Epoch Times by email that Facebook, Instagram, and X are among the signatories of the new code of conduct. These platforms were also part of the previous code of conduct, initiated in 2016, he said.

It was also signed by Dailymotion,  Jeuxvideo.com, LinkedIn, Microsoft-hosted consumer services, Snapchat, Rakuten Viber, TikTok, Twitch, and YouTube.

The EU also wants signatories to present “country-level data broken down by the internal classification of hate speech (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation).”

Some of the monitoring reporters include Amnesty International Italia, German organisation HateAid, and the French Ministry of the Interior’s dedicated portal to cybercrime, PHAROS.

Big Tech

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Jan. 7. that fact-checkers are “too politically biased” and that they “destroyed more trust than they created.”

He also called Europe a place of “censorship.”

“Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws, institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there,” he said.

Zuckerberg also told “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast that the EU had forced U.S. tech companies operating in Europe to pay “more than $30 billion” in penalties for legal violations over the past 10 or 20 years.

The commission also opened formal proceedings in December 2024 to assess whether or not Elon Musk’s X platform may have breached the DSA.

The EU has been scrutinizing the social media platform in recent weeks as Musk, now an adviser to President Donald Trump, hosted Alice Weidel, the leader of Germany’s right-wing Alternative for Germany party, in a live interview on X.

Musk also endorsed the party.

EU Debate

The announcement came before an EU debate on enforcing the DSA to “tackle illegal content, online disinformation,” and the geopolitical and economic implications of the new Trump administration.

“In Europe there is no place for illegal hate, either offline or online. I welcome the stakeholders’ commitment to a strengthened Code of conduct under the Digital Services Act. Cooperation among all parties involved is the way forward to ensure a safe digital space for all,” Henna Virkkunen, the European Commission’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, said in a statement.

Accompanying Virkkunen’s statement, Michael McGrath, commissioner for democracy, justice, the rule of law, and consumer protection, said that “hatred and polarisation are threats to EU values and fundamental rights and undermine the stability of our democracies.”

He claimed that the “internet is amplifying the negative effects of hate speech.”

The EPP Group, the largest and oldest group of center-right MEPS in the European Parliament, released a statement on Jan. 21 that said that “those wanting to earn money in Europe must comply with EU law.”

Andreas Schwab, EPP Group spokesman on the internal market, said, “We need to ensure that sanctions are taken without hesitation when violations are confirmed” and that “social media should not be used to foster polarisation and undermine European democracies.”

He added that the EPP Group will support a “Democracy Shield, which will include pilot projects, to tackle disinformation in all Member States.”

“We are not in the Wild West, where everything is allowed, and we are not the Chinese state that monitors everything. Freedom of speech applies, and it can be exhausting. But it does not include the right for every platform owner to do whatever,” Schwab said.

‘Very Severe Penalties’

In a 2024 report, Norman Lewis, visiting research fellow at the think tank MCC Brussels and former PwC director and former director of technology research at Orange UK, said the EU is institutionalizing laws against “hate speech” and “disinformation” that represent a “fundamental attack on free speech and democracy in Europe.”

“It is a system which institutionalizes non-accountability,“ Lewis previously told The Epoch Times.

“Platforms have to comply arguing that they have no choice if they want to continue operating in Europe.

“The fact-checkers are not accountable to anyone. In the end, the commission can claim they’re not censoring but Big Tech is, despite the fact that the commission created the environment that forces this censorship.

“If they don’t act upon it, then there are very severe penalties.”

The European Commission relies on officially designated fact-checkers, some of whom are nongovernmental organizations.

These entities flag specific pieces of content for platforms to review. Platforms are then obligated to act, either by taking down the content or investigating it further.