This suggests that Russia expects a political settlement or at least an armistice within the next six months so it’s now prioritizing the further legitimization of its control over the new regions by finally completing their legal integration into the country at the local administrative level by 10 September.
Putin signed a decree on Thursday obligating all Ukrainians in Russia without valid residence documents to legalize their stay by 10 September. They can do this by either applying for Russian citizenship via the simplified procedure for Ukrainian nationals that entered into force in summer 2022 or for residency by either proving legal employment or enrollment in a Russian education program. Many assumed that this had already happened some time ago, especially in the new regions, yet it’s only just now occurring.
Some Ukrainian nationals’ legally ambiguous status doesn’t mean that the state isn’t aware of who they are and what they’re doing, just that it wasn’t hitherto a priority to clarify this with regard to Russian law, likely due to stereotypically slow bureaucracy and the state’s focus on waging the specialoperation. With the Ukrainian Conflict drawing to a close due to the nascentRussian–US “NewDétente”, it’s now time to wrap up loose ends such as these for further legitimizing Russia’s control over its new regions.
Ukrainian and other foreign nationals must therefore legalize their presence there just as they’d have to do in any other country otherwise it would look like Russia is doubting the legitimacy of its own claims by making an exception for these locals. If Putin didn’t get around to decreeing that this is finally done within less than six months, the timeframe of which suggests approximately how long he expects the peace process to last at max, then that category of residents would literally be above the law.
From there, Ukraine could claim that Russia is “atoning for its guilty conscience of illegally occupying foreign land” by letting the locals over whom the state assumed responsibility “preserve their separate Ukrainian legal status”, thus serving as the pretext for Kiev to meddle in those lands after hostilities end. By mandating that they voluntarily legalize their presence in line with Russian law or be deported, Moscow neutralizes Kiev’s aforesaid claims, thus delegitimizing any post-conflict meddling on that basis.
In other words, this decree is meant to facilitate the incipient peace process by fortifying Russia’s legal claims to the four former Ukrainian regions that unified with it after September’s 2022 referenda, which reaffirms that Russia won’t cede these lands since they’re now being fully treated as integral territories. They were constitutionally considered as such for over two and a half years, but local bureaucracy took a long time to catch up in all legal regards, though that’s finally changing as a result of Putin’s decree.
Ukraine will predictably try to exploit this move by claiming that it amounts to some violation of the locals’ rights, but the reality is that locals can continue living as they were before the latest phase of the conflict broke out in early 2022, they just have to abide by Russian law. That was already the case ever since the state assumed responsibility for them, but it’ll now be more strictly enforced as the situation begins normalizing, which will likely lead to a ramping up of the FSB’s counter-intelligence operations.
After all, some of these same locals might remain loyal to Ukraine even after legalizing their presence, in which case they could gather and pass along intelligence about local military-political developments and/or carry out acts of terrorism. That was always a threat and will remain one far into the future, albeit under more difficult conditions for Kiev’s assets than ever before as these lands complete their integration into Russia after Putin’s latest decree with all that entails for strengthening local security.
Poland is preparing to lay up to one million anti-personnel mines along its eastern border as part of its newly announced East Shield defense initiative, according to Paweł Bejda, secretary of state at the Ministry of National Defense.
The decision comes as Poland, alongside Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, withdraws from the Ottawa Convention, which bans the use, production, and transfer of such mines.
“We have no choice. The situation at the border is very serious. Mines will be one of the elements of the East Shield,” Bejda stated in an interview with RMF FM, highlighting Poland’s increasing focus on fortifying its defenses against potential threats from Russia and Belarus.
Poland, along with its Baltic allies, recently announced its withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, citing the need for stronger border security.
“We do not have anti-personnel mines. They have to be produced — we have such capabilities. We want these mines to be manufactured in Poland,” Bejda said, revealing that the state-owned PGZ Group will oversee their production.
He estimated that Poland may need between several hundred thousand and one million mines, with the withdrawal process from the Ottawa Treaty potentially taking up to nine months.
The defense ministries of the four NATO member states issued a joint statement on Tuesday justifying their decision: “We believe that in the current security environment, it is paramount to provide our defense forces flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster the defense of the Alliance’s vulnerable Eastern Flank.”
During the interview, Bejda also commented on the recent conversation between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, emphasizing that Europe must be included in such diplomatic discussions.
“We are working together in Europe. I think that Europe has woken up and realized that Ukraine is on our continent. European leaders strive to be equal partners and to sit at the negotiating table. It cannot be that only President Trump talks to Putin — without the presence of Europe,” Bejda stated.
Poland is also working on expanding its military hardware, including a planned contract for additional K2 tanks. Bejda emphasized that negotiations are ongoing to ensure the transfer of technology to Poland and to allow for the modernization of the machines within the PGZ Group.
The deal includes 180 tanks already contracted with an additional 180 to come.
Bejda also highlighted plans to integrate drones into every branch of the military.
To accelerate production, the military is exploring the use of 3D printing technology, while specialized training programs for drone operators are also being developed.
He revealed that a dedicated team for the “dronization” of the Polish Army officially began its work on March 18.
For most of the past six decades, the United States has been facing the threat of implosion from a growing federal budget deficit. Today, that threat is no longer lurking. It is here. The annual federal budget deficit has left Americans saddled with unimaginable debt. It has increased more than sixfold in the last 20 years. Today it is on steroids. This year, interest on the federal debt will be approximately $1.1 trillion. By comparison, our annual defense budget is $850 billion.
Think of the exciting opportunities Republicans had when they narrowly captured control of the House of Representatives in 2022. Unfortunately, even before they were sworn in, the House leadership called for a secret vote on how to spend taxpayer dollars. By a vote of 158-2, they brought back to life earmarks that had been put to bed under Speaker John Boehner in 2011. Earmarks are special appropriations tailored to member’s pet projects. Historically, they were known as “pork-barrel” spending.
After a secret vote, those 158 GOP members enabled a system in which 7,500 pork-barrel projects were enacted at a cost to the taxpayers of $16 billion. It was not only – or even primarily – liberal “tax and spend” Democrats pigging out. Fifty of the largest earmarkers in the House were Republicans. In the Senate, eight of the 12 largest offenders were Republicans. Nor was it only established Republicans. Some of the largest MAGA voices were busy pushing earmarks. They include Florida representatives Matt Gaetz (who requested over $1 billion) and Brian Mast (who received some $437 million).
In the second year, the top seven earmarking specialists in the Senate were Republicans, for a grand total of $2.3 billion. In the last two years, highlights of congressional pork included the following:
Sen. Susan Collins earmarked $870 million for her own state, Maine (population 1.4 million). Those projects included “an outdoor heating facility” and “space education simulators.”
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski earmarked $851.1 million, including a “whale abundance survey” and a “crab enhancement project.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky requested 26 earmarks totaling $640.9 million.
A total of 31 members earmarked taxpayer dollars for universities they attended.
Another four lawmakers set aside taxpayer dollars for companies where their wives worked.
Actions speak louder than words. These GOP earmark enthusiasts have made a clear statement –they are totally comfortable with the exploding federal debt. Yes, it is true that many Democrats pushed earmarks. But it is also true that the Democratic Party did not bring back earmarks when they controlled the House. Those 158 GOP members did. And they far outspent the Democrats.
What those GOP House members and senators failed to realize is that the world has changed dramatically since Speaker Boehner left Washington.
A decade or so ago, The Economist pointed out that Big Data would change social science like the microscope changed medicine. That was a prophetic observation. Government is a social science. The combination of Big Data and the cloud is bringing a massive change to every aspect of our lives, including how we govern ourselves. It is bringing transparency. For the first time in our nation’s history, non-classified money spent by our governing class is available for public scrutiny. Today, it is difficult to hide government duplication, fraud, and incompetence.
Transparency also works to change the culture within our government.
Transparency educates the voting public by giving them access to federal, state, and local government expenditures on their cell phones, iPads, and computers. While the voters’ eyes glaze over budgets presented in billions or trillions (too many zeroes), they do understand fiscal irresponsibility when presented with egregious examples of government profligacy. Transparency has the potential to change our culture – and political outcomes – while encouraging competition in primary elections, since the lack of fiscal responsibility will no longer be hidden.
Changing the culture within government is encouraged by constant communication with the voting public and the governing bureaucracy. Again, actions speak louder than words. Actions send a clear message to a wider constituency of voters. Here are four actions President Trump and his administration can put in place to encourage a turn-off-the-lights culture, an it’s-taxpayer-dollars-I’m-spending culture.
Call for Congress to eliminate every earmark immediately. Point out that you will publish every remaining earmark every month until they are eliminated.
Announce that the White House will cut expenses by a fixed percentage. The president and the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk are already taking a broadsword to the executive branch agencies, but the symbolism of cutting White House expenses would set a powerful example. Successfully attacking the colossal federal debt requires the participation of everyone in government.
Suggest that Congress join the White House and cut their office and committee expenses and report their progress to the public quarterly. Again, everyone in the government must participate. If the White House can cut expenses, so can everyone else in government.
Announce that every department in your administration with a budget will focus on cutting waste, fraud, duplication, and incompetence and report to the public quarterly. And that you will monitor progress (or lack thereof) and report to the public quarterly.
The cloud, Big Data, and technology have given us tools we never had before to attack waste, fraud, duplication, and incompetence. Transparency! It is nonpartisan. It is not controllable. It is a culture-changer.
Mr. President, your administration is fortunately positioned to be the transparency launching pad. It will bring much-needed efficiency and effectiveness to the world of government.
The last time the U.S. budget was not in the red was during the Clinton administration. President Clinton pointed out that the federal debt could be eliminated in about 15 years. That did not take place. Our debt then was $5 trillion. Today it is more than $36 trillion. Think of where our great country would be today if it were not saddled with interest payments of over $1 trillion. That is an exciting thought.
The Trump administration has its work cut out for it. But transparency and political resolve can meet the moment.
Thomas W. Smith is the founder of Prescott Investors, Inc.
The top economies in this ranking are heavily tied to the oil sector, meaning fluctuations in production can have a drastic effect on GDP.
See below for the raw data behind this graphic.
Let’s take a closer look at the top two.
South Sudan (+27.2%)
South Sudan’s GDP has fluctuated up and down in recent years due to an ongoing civil war that has thrown its population into extreme poverty.
As a landlocked country, South Sudan also relies on pipelines that run through its northern neighbor, Sudan, to transport its oil to the Red Sea.
In 2024, South Sudan’s most important pipeline ruptured, putting massive strain on government revenue. Repairing the pipeline is difficult because parts of it lie in active conflict zones.
According to Bloomberg, South Sudan has been seeking alternative routes to export its oil, as well as cash bailouts from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to stay afloat.
Guyana (+14.4%)
Guyana is the only South American country featured in this ranking. It was once one of the poorest countries in the region until major oil deposits were discovered off its coasts in May 2015.
According to a 2023 article from the Associated Press, oil production in Guyana began in December 2019 and has generated over a billion dollars in revenue.
The Guyanese government is using this money to fund a massive infrastructure boom which includes new hospitals, schools, highways, and its first deep-water port.
Analysts expect the country’s total oil revenues will reach $157 billion by 2040.
Earlier this month in The National Catholic Register, Pope John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel, called Russia, “a modern Moloch, the bloodthirsty Canaanite god against whom the prophets of ancient Israel railed” – in a breathless criticism of President Trump’s Ukrainian peace efforts.
On February 12, 2025, he penned a rant syndicated by The Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver. Titled Russia’s Sacrilegious War on Ukraine, the piece advocated continued war in Ukraine until Russia loses:
There is no happy or just solution to Putin’s aggression that does not end with Putin losing. How that happens is subject to debate. But Putin must lose, both for Ukraine’s sake and for Russia’s…. for America’s sake, and for the world’s.
Weigel has served on the board of the CIA cutout, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), with Victoria Nuland. His advocacy helped save the organization in 1993, when it was almost (and should have been) shut down at the end of the Cold War.
For over a decade, Weigel has acted as a reliable mouthpiece for NED in its efforts to cause war in Ukraine. Mostly, he has provided a Catholic pretext for awful stuff, based on a tangential association with a long-dead pope.
Whatever its initial intentions – and they were chiefly benevolent – by 2025 NED had become the driving force in a Frankenstein foreign policy that that took its initial design to its rational conclusion: chaos and death.
The details of the Ukraine conflict are rarely covered in the Western media, but they are available to piece together from open sources. In 2010, Ukraine elevated Viktor Yanukovych to president in a democratic election. As reported at the time:
A total of 3,779 observers, including 650 from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, were dispatched to monitor the election. Ukraine’s presidential election, the fifth since the country regained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, was democratic and “organized in a transparent manner,” the OSCE said today in an e-mailed statement.
In 2013, Yanukovych would make the mistake of not signing an association agreement with the European Union and, instead, entertaining a regional economic alliance with Russia. John McCain and other prominent American politicians flew to Kiev to rally support for the EU.
Yanukovych tried to pass a law that prohibited Americans from meddling Ukraine. Weigel then got involved and wrote on January 16, 2014:
Following recent Russian precedents, one of the new laws “against extremism” also attempts to cut civil-society activists and their organizations off from their Western allies… the intent is clear enough: Any Ukrainian civil-society organization that accepts funds for civil-society or pro-democracy work from, say, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (full disclosure: I serve on the NED board)…. will be considered a “foreign agent.” It must identify itself as “as a civil association performing the functions of a foreign agent.” It must submit monthly financial and program reports to the state, and it must now pay income taxes.
Weigel called Yanukovych’s proposed measures Stalinist and anti-democratic. If you are looking for a moment when Washington lost all self-awareness and turned full-Orwellian, that might be it. The piece was unironically titled Gutting Democracy in Ukraine.
A week later, in a January 22, 2014 article published in the Kyiv Post, Weigel called Yanukovych’s government a “dictatorship,” a “thugocracy,” and its leaders “bandits,” even opining – in perfect Newspeak – that insurrectionists seeking to topple the democratically elected government were a “democracy movement.”
An American, he advocated for the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected leaders in favor of “competent technocrats.”
There followed a successful coup that replaced the democratically elected Ukraine government with a Western puppet. President Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that he had “brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.” The word “brokered” suggests that the Obama administration successfully replaced a government half a world away at the behest of Washington’s smart people.
A recorded phone call was leaked in which the American ambassador worked with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to choose the replacement government before the coup occurred.
The new U.S. backed government proceeded to use Nazi extremists to persecute ethnic Russians who had sided with Yanukovych. A civil war ensued. Readers are encouraged to watch the PBS Frontline documentary produced in 2014, previously linked, for more detail on these events.
Weigel did not raise a voice against the persecution of citizens by the government he helped to install on behalf of the Obama administration. For anyone looking beyond his religious branding, that was true to form.
In the 1980s, Weigel was a bit player in the field of international politics, peddling what little influence he had on matters like arms control. He fell in with some bad people, eventually winding up with Allen Weinstein, who founded NED.
Allen Weinstein is just one of many overt operatives who helped prepare the way for the political miracles of the past two years by sponsoring exchanges and other contacts with liberal reformers from the East. It’s worth naming a few more of them, to show the breadth of this movement for democracy: William Miller of the American Committee on U.S.-Soviet Relations; financier George Soros of the Soros Foundation; John Mroz of the Center for East-West Security Studies; John Baker of the Atlantic Council; and Harriett Crosby of the Institute for Soviet-American Relations. This has truly been a revolution by committee.
As a Catholic, the moment Ukraine’s new government started persecuting people, Weigel should have said, “I’m out.” Instead, he and his Washington-insider friends doubled down in spectacular fashion.
In September 2015, Vladimir Putin made a speech at the UN in New York harshly critical of NATO expansion on Russia’s borders, citing “the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War” that was having devastating effects in places like Ukraine. He said:
Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.”
The Republican Party’s then vanity candidate who had just declared his intention to run for president, Donald Trump, gave Putin’s speech a stellar review. He would appear on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX the next day and say, “I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, [Putin] is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well. They did not look good together.”
Trump spent the next few months distinguishing himself from all other Republican candidates by praising Putin, even daring to question the Russian president’s role in poisoning political opponents: “In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that. I don’t know that he has. Have you been able to prove that?”
Trump’s Russian heterodoxy uttered in 2015 is what made him, for the first time, a viable candidate – go back and see his polls rise after every such contrarian statement. Ordinary people appreciated the candidate who would defy Washington’s bipartisan warmongering.
Then powerful politicians from both sides of the political aisle – with no evidence – projected that Putin was responsible for Trump’s success. George Weigel supported the lie, writing in July 2017, “[Russia’s] purpose is to undermine and demoralize us, destabilizing Western societies by throwing election results into question, creating suspicions about Western intelligence services, and generally mucking things up.”
The absurd details of the Russia hoax are covered in Trump v. Atlanticism: Understanding Russiagate, for all who need a primer. As the previous quote demonstrates, the Pope’s biographer was firmly on the side of the intelligence services.
The diplomatic rift caused by Russiagate contributed mightily to the current war in Ukraine. Was any of it true? No. Even the Columbia Journalism Reviewhas reported that the whole thing was a fabrication.
Since 2014, Weigel has used the worst calumny to advocate for division among Christians in Ukraine. The slander was so extreme that in 2015 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church sent Weigel a letter imploring him to stop the name calling. The introduction to An Open Letter to George Weigel states the problem succinctly:
A very unpleasant rhetoric is being propounded by some Catholic writers against the Russian Orthodox Church as supposedly something of an agent of President Putin, who, according to the same rhetoric, is a monster beyond all description. It is blown so largely out of proportion that it could even be ignored by sober people, if there weren’t such overt pressure (one could say, bullying) being applied not only to force other Catholics to think the same way….
The letter provides an insightful historical accounting of Russia’s “Symphonia – Not ‘Separation’ – of Church and State” which, as the writers point out, “is obviously antithetical to the neo-Jeffersonian principle of strict ‘separation’ of church and state, now political dogma in virtually all Western countries imbued with the notion of secular liberal democracy.”
With that, the priests laid bare the fundamental theological problem with Weigel’s advocacy. He champions not Catholicism but neo-Jeffersonian dogmas as moral absolutes – a trite jingoistic view that is the philosophical basis of neoconservatism.
Undeterred by the thoughtful letter, Weigel spent over a decade casting Vladimir Putin as Hitler. It never occurred to him that formulating policy based on bad historical analogy is illogical and can work great harm. He has done little to reconcile the Catholic Church’s condemnation of liberation theology with his support for arming factions in far-away conflicts against perceived despots.
There is an undeniable religious reawakening in Russia that makes attacks by the Pope’s biographer especially indefensible. Putin has been critical of the West’s spiritual decay, comparing it to communism. In Putin’s words:
We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress…. The demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family, and even gender – they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal. The advocates of so-called “social progress” believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness…. [these] prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs. And not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today…. Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism.
Putin speaks of his own baptism, his beliefs, and the positive role of Christianity in Russian history. He put the girl rock band, Pussy Riot, in prison for desecrating an altar. The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church works in close cooperation with the government.
In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on the advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle in the presence of children, strictly limited advertisements for abortions, and prohibited elective abortions later than 12 weeks after conception. The Sochi Olympics closing ceremonies in 2014 featured a tribute to Russian writers, including communism’s most eloquent Christian critic, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose books are required reading in Russian schools.
Putin’s Christianity-sourced populism is anathema to godless factions in the West. President Obama personally boycotted the Sochi Olympics and sent in his place a delegation of gay athletes, to protest Russia’s laws against LGBT advocacy.
In 1983, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn issued the following criticism of the West in his “Men Have Forgotten God” speech at Buckingham Palace, upon his acceptance of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion:
[O]ur godless age has discovered the perfect anesthetic – trade! Such is the pathetic pinnacle of contemporary wisdom.
Today’s world has reached a stage which, if it had been described to preceding centuries, would have called forth the cry: “This is the Apocalypse!”
Yet we have grown used to this kind of world; we even feel at home in it.
Dostoevsky warned that “great events could come upon us and catch us intellectually unprepared.” This is precisely what has happened. And he predicted that “the world will be saved only after it has been possessed by the demon of evil.” Whether it really will be saved we shall have to wait and see: this will depend on our conscience, on our spiritual lucidity, on our individual and combined efforts in the face of catastrophic circumstances. But it has already come to pass that the demon of evil, like a whirlwind, triumphantly circles all five continents of the earth.
As Solzhenitsyn scoffed, “Trade!” The unvarnished truth is that the Ukraine war started in 2014 when the democratically elected government was toppled because it chose the wrong trading partner – Russia and not the EU. Catholic thought leaders like Weigel have been all-in on the blasphemy.
Today, tens of thousands of Ukrainians are dead. Putin and Russia are winning the war, and America has lost much of what was left of its diplomatic clout to conduct real foreign policy.
The slaughter of Christians as a direct result of the godless neoconservatism advocated by people like Weigel certainly seems like a pattern at this point. As I wrote in USAID, Soft Power, And How Solzhenitsyn Predicted this Crisis, “Ancient Christianity has been expelled from every place in the Middle East where American soft power has meddled.”
Ordinary Americans voted for a rapprochement with Russia in 2016. President Trump was investigated and impeached for even trying to pursue it. Instead, at the behest of institutions like Weigel’s National Endowment for Democracy, America acted on behalf of godless “Trade!” to fan the flames of war.
In his second term, President Trump neutralized NED and, a month later, negotiated a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. He cannot, unfortunately, restore the lives that have been lost or fix the damage done to American prestige by the coup in Kyiv in 2014.
Footnote 1: Weigel’s writing is replete with anecdotal citation to Russian atrocities in conducting war. His readers should be careful. Atrocities occur on both sides of war and are often not the result of national policy, but individual failure. A primary reason to avoid war is the moral quandaries it causes for people handed weapons and told to kill or be killed. And, too, atrocities are sometimes fabricated as a casus belli.
On the latter point, the think tank Weigel runs in Washington D.C. has on its website an article penned by its founder titled, The Essential CIA. The article speaks favorably of “massive deception” to achieve foreign policy objectives, quoting Churchill: “In wartime truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
The events in Kyiv may provide a prime example. Ukraine’s democratically elected government was toppled in 2014 after snipers fired into a crowd of protesters. Weigel immediately connected the attack to Yanukovych in the Kyiv Post, calling it murder, and comparing it to the Holodomor, Stalin’s Soviet backed famine in Ukraine.
Mostly, what makes Weigel’s citation to atrocity particularly out of place is his failure to ever address alleged war crimes committed by the Ukraine regime, except with absolute dismissiveness. A true moral leader would criticize the sin regardless of his political alignment for or against the sinner.
Footnote 2: The title of this essay may seem to denigrate St. John Paul II. It is not meant to. The book Weigel wrote is not an official biography. Whatever St. John Paul II’s beliefs were about American soft power, George Weigel, and the National Endowment for Democracy, he kept them to himself. Likely, if presented the facts recounted above, he would have wagged his finger and chastised Weigel, because he disagreed to the point of visible anger with those who incite wars in the name of Catholicism.
Yet, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, data from a Statista Consumer Insights survey reveals, a sizable chunk of respondents questioned in 2024 said they regularly drink bottled water (daily or weekly consumption).
This is despite the fact that the plastic waste generated is allegedly harmful to the environment, and that bottled water is much more expensive: up to 100 times more expensive than tap water. What’s more, several scientific studies have shown that bottled water is a leading source for human intake of microplastics, and could therefore potentially have harmful effects on health.
As the chart shows, of the 21 countries covered by the study, Italy, Mexico and Brazil are home to the most regular consumers of bottled water, at between 65 to 70 percent of the population.
For the first time under President Donald Trump, the US military engaged in trilateral exercises with Japan and South Korea. The move will be viewed as a provocation by the DPRK, which views US-led war games in the region as preparation for regime change in Pyongyang.
On Thursday, US Indo-Pacific Command announced that it had wrapped up four days of military drills in the East China Sea with the two allies. This week’s war games “build upon the regular, increasingly complex trilateral cooperation of the three nations, including the January 2025 trilateral bomber escort flights, as the three nations continue integration across the Joint Force,” INDOPACOM explained in a press release.
It added, “This current activity builds on previous exercises like Freedom Edge and our continuing operations together, advancing doctrine as well as tactics, techniques and procedures among our combined forces.”
The games were led by the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group. The South Korean Defense Ministry said the latest drills were also meant to prepare for conflict with North Korea.
“The exercise focused on enhancing trilateral cooperation for South Korea, the US and Japan’s deterrence and response capabilities against North Korea’s nuclear, missile and underwater threats and… bolstering their maritime security capacity,” the ministry said in a statement.
In response to the Vinson’s arrival in South Korea last month, Kim Yo-jong, the sister of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, said that Washington “is repeatedly committing provocative acts that ignore North Korea’s security concerns and worsen the situation.”
“The United States is openly demonstrating its intention to be the most hostile and confrontational toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through these practical actions,” she added.
“The root of the escalation of the situation on the Korean Peninsula clearly lies with the United States and its allies, who are further intensifying their military moves to transplant NATO’s infrastructure into the region and raise the level of war preparedness.”
Other than stoking tensions with Pyongyang, war games on the Korean Peninsula have had other consequences. In February, nearly 30 South Koreans were injured after the country’s warplanes accidentally bombed a civilian area during live-fire military drills with the US.
As of 2024, nearly two-thirds (65.7%) U.S. households owned their home, while the rest rented.
However, homeownership rates vary widely across states and between urban, suburban, and rural areas, reflecting differences in affordability, housing availability, and local economic conditions.
In the map below, by USAFacts,Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu visualizes the share of households that are owner-occupied by state in 2023.
Below, we show home ownership rates by state in 2023.
State/Area
Share of households that are owner-occupied (2023)
West Virginia
77.0%
Delaware
75.7%
Mississippi
75.5%
Maine
75.5%
Wyoming
74.5%
New Hampshire
74.3%
Michigan
74.1%
Minnesota
74.0%
Alabama
73.8%
Vermont
73.7%
Indiana
73.3%
South Carolina
73.0%
Iowa
71.8%
Maryland
71.6%
Montana
71.0%
Idaho
71.0%
Pennsylvania
71.0%
Utah
70.3%
New Mexico
70.3%
Arizona
69.7%
South Dakota
69.3%
Wisconsin
69.2%
Virginia
69.1%
Tennessee
68.9%
Missouri
68.7%
Kansas
68.5%
Nebraska
68.4%
Kentucky
68.4%
Connecticut
68.2%
Oklahoma
68.0%
Illinois
67.8%
Louisiana
67.3%
Florida
67.3%
Colorado
67.2%
North Carolina
66.9%
Ohio
66.6%
Washington
66.3%
Arkansas
65.9%
North Dakota
65.7%
Georgia
65.5%
Rhode Island
64.4%
Alaska
64.3%
Oregon
64.10%
Texas
63.6%
New Jersey
62.7%
Massachusetts
61.9%
Hawaii
61.8%
Nevada
61.2%
California
55.8%
New York
53.3%
District of Columbia
40.2%
West Virginia had the highest homeownership rate in 2023, with 77% of households owning their homes.
One key factor behind West Virginia’s high ownership rate is its relative affordability. The state consistently ranks among those with the lowest median home sale prices, and it has the lowest home price-to-income ratio in the country.
Additionally, the state’s largely rural landscape and lower population density may contribute to its high homeownership rate, as housing availability is less constrained than in densely populated urban markets.
In contrast, states with the lowest homeownership rates such as Hawaii, California, and New York, also have some of the highest home prices and home price-to-income ratios, making ownership less attainable.
Places like New York and Calfornia also face high demand in urban centers, a greater share of renters due to job concentration and lifestyle preferences, and tend to have stricter zoning regulations.
This pattern highlights that while affordability plays a significant role, homeownership rates are also influenced by factors like housing supply, economic opportunities, and regional job markets.
Learn more about U.S. real estate in this this graphic, which visualizes the annual nominal change in house prices by state as of the first quarter of 2024.
Every decade has a new food enemy. First, it was fat. Then, it was sugar. Now, seed oils are under fire—blamed for causing obesity and chronic disease.
They’re almost impossible to avoid. Seed oils are in everything—from salad dressings and fast food to protein bars and even baby formula. Critics claim they’re harmful, while supporters argue they’re safe, affordable, and even good for you.
However, the truth is more nuanced. The debate is often oversimplified. Even the term “seed oil” is misleading, lumping together oils that have been part of traditional diets for centuries with those created for large-scale food production.
At its core, the controversy isn’t just about whether seed oils are inherently good or bad—it’s about how they’re processed and consumed.
What Are Seed Oils, Really?
If you’ve been following health trends, you’ve probably heard claims that seed oils are toxic and should be avoided. What exactly are seed oils, and why do some people consider them harmful?
At their most basic, seed oils are extracted from seeds. This might seem harmless—after all, olive oil comes from olives, and coconut oil from coconuts.
But not all seed oils are the same. Some, like sesame and flaxseed oil, have been integral to traditional diets for centuries and are extracted through natural, cold-press methods that preserve their nutrients and antioxidants.
Others, however, are highly processed. Industrial seed oils—like soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, and rice bran—are mass-produced through high-heat extraction and chemical refining.
Manufacturers frequently use solvents like hexane to extract the maximum amount of oil. These oils are refined, bleached, and deodorized, earning them the label “RBD” oils. This process makes them neutral in taste and more shelf-stable, but it also removes beneficial compounds like vitamin E and antioxidants.
Many industrial seed oils were never intended for human consumption. Canola oil began as rapeseed oil, primarily used as a machine lubricant until Canadian scientists modified it in the 1970s to remove toxic compounds. The name itself—a blend of “Canada” and “oil”—was a marketing invention. “Vegetable oil” is another misleading term—it’s often a blend of industrial seed oils marketed to sound healthier than it is.
Cate Shanahan, a Cornell-trained physician-scientist specializing in dietary fats, explains that industrial seed oils were not developed with nutrition in mind.
“The crude oil from these seeds is inedible,” she told The Epoch Times. “Soy and canola weren’t bred for nutrition—they were bred for high yields and industrial durability.”
Most soy grown in the United States isn’t intended for human consumption at all. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, more than 70 percent of U.S. soybeans are used for animal feed, while another 5 percent is processed into biodiesel. What remains is primarily refined into soybean oil—a product stripped of much of the soy plant’s original nutritional value.
Additionally, more than 90 percent of American soy is genetically modified to withstand herbicides like glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray entire fields without harming crops. This high-intensity farming, combined with heavy industrial processing, results in oil far removed from its original form.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which retain their natural antioxidants, industrial seed oils require extensive refining to become shelf-stable. Shanahan argues that this process removes beneficial compounds, making them more prone to oxidation and degradation.
“What works for machines doesn’t always work for humans,” Shanahan said.
Are Seed Oils Good or Bad for Your Health?
Seed oils’ health effects are hotly debated. Some experts say they’re a heart-healthy alternative to butter and other animal fats, while others believe they might contribute to inflammation and disease.
The Case for Seed Oils As a Heart-Healthy Alternative
For decades, scientists have debated the role of different fats in heart health. Research suggests that replacing saturated fats—found in butter and red meat—with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from seed oils may offer cardiovascular benefits.
Advocates argue that the science is well-established.
“The research on seed oils is consistently positive,” Matthew Nagra, a naturopathic doctor, told The Epoch Times. “Numerous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that replacing saturated fat with seed oils rich in polyunsaturated fats can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, America’s top killer, without any clear detriment.”
Large-scale studies support this claim. A 2021 study of more than 500,000 people found that those who replaced saturated fats with oils like canola, corn, and olive oil had a lower risk of heart disease and early death.
“Our findings support shifting the intake from solid fats to non-hydrogenated vegetable oils for cardiometabolic health and longevity,” the authors wrote. Examples of solid fats include butter and lard.
A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine study reinforced these findings, showing that people who ate more plant-based oils—such as olive, soybean, and canola—lived longer and had lower heart disease and cancer rates. Meanwhile, those who ate more butter had a higher risk of early death. The researchers estimated that swapping butter for plant oils could reduce overall mortality risk by 17 percent, including a 17 percent drop in cancer-related deaths.
Because of this growing evidence, the American Heart Association (AHA) continues to recommend seed oils as part of a heart-healthy diet.
The Case Against Seed Oils: Oxidation and Inflammation
Not everyone agrees with the AHA’s endorsement of seed oils, and some experts question the research behind it.
“This study is of low quality,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Epoch Times in an email. “It lumps extra virgin olive oil with soybean and safflower oil, which is ridiculous.” He also criticized the study’s methodology, arguing that it fails to accurately measure butter consumption and instead relies on an imprecise estimation method. “This kind of nutritional epidemiology fuels dogma rather than providing clarity,” he said.
Beyond concerns about research methods, critics argue that the real issue with seed oil is oxidation.
Refining makes seed oils more resistant to spoilage, allowing them to last longer on store shelves. However, once exposed to heat, air, or light—especially during cooking—their chemical structure begins to break down.
Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which naturally contain antioxidants that help prevent degradation, industrial seed oils lose these stabilizing compounds during processing. As a result, they are more vulnerable to oxidation, a process that creates byproducts like aldehydes and free radicals. These compounds can damage cells, promote inflammation, and contribute to chronic disease.
Heat accelerates this process. Studies show that repeatedly heating vegetable oils—such as those used in restaurant fryers—can generate oxidative byproducts linked to tissue damage and increased cholesterol levels in lab animals. Some research has also found oxidized linoleic acid, a degraded form of omega-6 fat, accumulating in human fat tissue and artery plaques, raising concerns about long-term health effects.
Not all experts agree that oxidation is a major threat.
“These processes have pros and cons,” says Christopher Gardner, a nutrition professor at Stanford. “They help prevent oils from breaking down but also strip away some beneficial components.”
A review in The Scientific World Journal found that while refining removes antioxidants like vitamin E and polyphenols (compounds that help protect cells), it also eliminates impurities, making the oils more stable and less likely to spoil.
Still, oxidation happens faster in seed oils than in other fats. Research shows that PUFAs degrade more quickly when exposed to heat, light, and air, whereas monounsaturated fats (found in olive oil) and saturated fats (found in butter and beef tallow) remain more stable.
The Processed Food Connection
If there’s one thing both critics and defenders of seed oils agree on, They’re everywhere. And that’s no accident.
Cheap, abundant, and heavily subsidized seed oils are a pillar of the modern food industry. The U.S. government pours billions into supporting crops like soybeans, corn, and cottonseed, making their oils far more affordable than alternatives like olive or avocado.
Soybeans dominate the market, accounting for about 90 percent of U.S. oilseed production. In 2016, the soybean industry alone received $1.6 billion in subsidies—helping to keep production high and costs low.
Government support doesn’t just make seed oils cheap for home cooks—it makes them the backbone of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which now make up nearly 60 percent of the American diet. Along with refined grains and added sugars, seed oils form the foundation of modern processed foods, used to enhance texture, extend shelf life, and boost flavor at a low cost. These ingredients appear in everything from breakfast cereals to frozen dinners, making them nearly impossible to avoid in a typical supermarket.
A 32-ounce bottle of canola oil costs about $5.79, while the same amount of extra virgin olive oil can cost $13.99 or more. For food manufacturers trying to keep costs down, the choice is obvious. Because they’re inexpensive, neutral in flavor, and relatively shelf-stable, seed oils are a food manufacturer’s dream—allowing processed foods to last longer, taste better, and remain profitable.
Shanahan estimates that seed oils account for 20–30 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake. This figure wasn’t easy to calculate, as seed oils aren’t tracked as a category. Shanahan analyzed decades of production data from crops like soybeans and canola, using government and industry reports to uncover the extent of seed oils’ presence in modern diets.
“Humans have never consumed polyunsaturates at this level before,” she warns. “Historically, diets relied mainly on animal fats, not oils rich in PUFAs. If you don’t know to avoid them, you’re eating vast quantities.”
Gardner agrees—but says the issue isn’t just seed oils. The rise in seed oil consumption isn’t because more people are making homemade salad dressings, he said. It’s because ultra-processed foods—where these oils are used heavily—now dominate the American diet.
Gardner argues that even if seed oils were removed from the food supply tomorrow, ultra-processed foods wouldn’t disappear—they’d just be reformulated.
“If the same UPFs were made with another oil like butter, beef tallow, lard, or coconut fat, those foods would not suddenly become health foods.”
At its core, the debate over seed oils is about more than just the oils themselves. It’s about the processed foods they’re in—and whether we should be eating so many of them in the first place.
So, What Should You Cook With?
Rather than fixating on eliminating seed oils altogether, experts say the bigger issue is reducing ultra-processed foods and choosing high-quality, stable fats when cooking at home.
“If you want to improve your health by cutting back on seed oils, the best way to do that is by eating fewer ultra-processed foods,” Gardner advises. “That would be a win in several ways—less sugar, less refined grain, and less sodium.”
For those looking to make better choices in their kitchens, experts recommend using stable, minimally processed oils that are less prone to oxidation:
Better Options for Cooking
Avocado: High in monounsaturated fats, stable for high heat
Extra virgin olive: Rich in antioxidants, ideal for drizzling or light cooking
Butter and ghee: Naturally stable for high-heat cooking
Coconut: High in saturated fat, making it oxidation-resistant
Oils Best Used Cold
Flaxseed: High in omega-3s, best for dressings
Walnut: Antioxidant-rich, flavorful in salads
Sesame: Aromatic and moderately heat-stable
Industrially Refined Oils
Soybean
Corn
Canola
Cottonseed
Sunflower
Safflower
Grapeseed
Rice bran
While some specialty versions exist in cold-pressed forms, they are far less common than their mass-produced, highly processed counterparts.
The Bottom Line
The debate over seed oils is far from over, but one thing is clear: How you consume them matters.
A drizzle of canola oil on a homemade salad is not the same as eating French fries fried in old restaurant oil. Relying on ultra-processed foods filled with cheap oils, sugar, and additives is where the larger problem lies.
For most people, the best way to improve their diet isn’t to worry about every drop of seed oil—it’s to eat more fresh, unprocessed foods, says Gardner.
“It seems bizarre to blame the plant oils and not the foods they’re in.”
In 2012, the United Nations proclaimed March 20 as the International Day of Happiness or World Happiness Day, which has been held on this date every year since.
The aim is to promote awareness for a “more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach to economic growth that promotes the happiness and well-being of all people”. Although happiness and satisfaction are subjective parameters, the team behind the World Happiness Report has once again produced a country ranking this year that reveals clear differences between Western industrialized nations and countries in Asia and Africa.
In order to map the satisfaction of respondents in the 147 countries surveyed, participants were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their current life on a ten-point scale. This was used to calculate an average value for the results between 2022 and 2024 for each country.
As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, based on the report, Finland (7.736), Denmark (7.521) and Iceland (7.515) are the countries with the most satisfied residents according to calculations, while the three lowest scores are found among the residents of Lebanon (3.19), Sierra Leone (3.00) and Afghanistan (1.36).
The United States is ranked 24th out of the 147 countries in this year’s evaluation.
The report found that unemployment was a factor influencing life evaluation negatively, as were the anticipation of mental health issues or violent crime. Doubling one’s income had a positive effect, but it was by far not as big as the increase in perceived happiness correlated with carrying out benevolent acts like donating to charity, volunteering or helping a stranger. Expecting to have your wallet returned when lost coincided with an even bigger boost to life ratings, however.
It’s important to note here that the ranking of the World Happiness Report is not an objective survey based on key figures such as gross domestic product per capita, life expectancy or the quality of the social system. According to the authors, these are analyzed as “supporting factors” in the text of the report but have no influence on the score.
