By shutting down the government for a minimum of ten days supposedly over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Wile E. Coyote Democratic Party is about to blow up another Acme bomb in its mangy muzzle.
I will tell you why.
First, this DHS business is just a stupid prank to bamboozle the public.
It will not shut down ICE operations, as Chuck Schumer pretends. ICE was already funded with $75-billion in last year’s Big Beautiful Bill. The shutdown will only defund the Coast Guard and airport security. (Does that sound smart?)
Second, senators will be leaving the DC swamp and going home to their states where, it turns out, polls show that voters of both parties combined overwhelmingly favor election reform by 84-percent.
The House has passed the SAVE Act onto the Senate for action, up or down. For at least ten days of the shutdown, the senators will have to explain why proving that you are a citizen to vote is a bad idea — or conversely, why allowing non-citizens to vote is a good idea. So, thanks, Democrats, for sending the senators home to face their voters.
Eventually, senators will have to return to the US Capitol and take up the SAVE Act.
The act will require proof of citizenship to register, photo ID to vote in person and for requesting an absentee ballot. The bill would prohibit universal mail-in voting, require absentee ballots be received by election day, impose a five-year prison sentence for helping anyone to register without correct documents, and provisions to clean up the states’ voter rolls.
Additional legislation still in the House, introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI), would provide for Election Day only in-person voting by paper ballots, and yet other bills awaiting action would eliminate electronic vote-tallying machines. All the provisions above are common in most other civilized nations (and even a few that are not, such as Afghanistan). The Democratic Party is against all of it because they can only win national elections by deceit and chicanery.
When Senators return to DC, they will have to overcome the filibuster in its current mode, which is the silent or so-called “zombie” filibuster. You see, in the old days, before 1972, if senators wanted to filibuster, they had to actually hold the Senate floor and keep talking — bringing all Senate business to a complete halt until either they gave up or the majority could gather enough votes for cloture (ending debate). It was physically very hard on the senators, an ordeal, and to get through the hours of mindless blather, they would read the phone book, or the World Almanac, or a Sunday newspaper from page one to the obituaries, which subjected them to ridicule.
After 1972, the Senate introduced what they called “the two-track” system, which allowed the body to move on to other business under a filibuster, without requiring a member to stand and speak. All that was needed was for a senator to inform the leadership that he intended to block a vote, with the backing of 40 other senators. This led to a dramatic increase in the use of filibusters — transforming them from a rare, physically demanding gambit into a routine procedural threat.
Now, the catch is that this change in procedure was never formally voted on. Going from “talking” filibusters to “silent” filibusters didn’t happen through a deliberate decision by the full Senate to change the rules — it emerged in 1972 from a procedural workaround that then Majority Leader Mike Mansfield introduced.
It’s just a custom masquerading as a rule, and one that now Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) could declare null and void.
Doing so would bring back the old talking filibuster. Opponents of a given bill, such as the SAVE Act, would have to step into the well of Senate and offer arguments against election reform, or they could read through the Chicago phone book.
In either case, they’d expose themselves to ridicule. Perhaps those ten days at home during the present government shutdown will lead to an attitude change.
If that doesn’t do it, consider that sometime in the weeks and months ahead, you will be seeing some results from the seizure of the Fulton County, GA, 2020 voting records that took place in January. Since the FBI went in there on a warrant — meaning a judge saw probable cause of voter fraud — the country will likely be exposed to real evidence, for the first time, that one crucial swing state ran a corrupt election operation, and it will no longer be possible for the Democrats to yell that such claims are “baseless” or “debunked.”
It’s an astonishing sign of cultural decay that we are even arguing over election reform at this point.
The measures introduced during the dastardly COVID-19 trip – unlimited mail-in balloting, organized “ballot harvesting,” counting ballots for weeks after Election Day, doing so with Dominion / Smartmatic machines connectable to the Internet, and ignoring chain-of-custody requirements – were patently and obviously dishonest.
That’s what got you four years of “Joe Biden,” a walking-talking lie.
Is there anything that the Democratic Party doesn’t lie about? I’ll wait for your answer.
Somali Fallout: US Treasury Will Pay Snitches Up To 30% On Fraud, Money Laundering Prosecutions
On the heels of all that Somali fraud in Minnesota, the US Treasury Department on Friday launched a new portalwhere people can report suspected fraud, money laundering and sanctions violations.
According to officials, tips should be submitted with supporting documents. “FinCEN’s Office of the Whistleblower is accepting tips involving violations and conspiracies related to the Bank Secrecy Act, U.S. sanctions programs, and several other laws critical to safeguarding the U.S. financial system and national security. “
Individuals who voluntarily provide information about such violations or conspiracies to commit violations may be eligible for awards if the information they provide leads to a successful enforcement action by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) or the Department of Justice (DOJ) that results in monetary penalties exceeding $1,000,000, and the requirements in 31 U.S.C. § 5323 and its implementing regulation are otherwise met. A copy of the statute is available here. -FINCEN
How much are we talking about? Between 10-30% “of what has been collected of the monetary sanctions imposed in the action or related actions,” and it’s got to be north of $1 million.
“President Trump has been clear that Americans have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being diverted to fund acts of global terror or to fund luxury cars for fraudsters,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, adding that whistleblowers may receive financial rewards.
“At Treasury, we follow the money. We did it with the mafia, we have done it with the cartels, and we’re doing it with the Somali fraudsters,” he added. “We are going to offer whistleblower payments to anyone who wants to tell us the who, what, when, where, and how this fraud and money laundering has occurred.”
Bessent told CNBC‘s “Squawk Box” “It’s going to be a great way to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse,” adding “We’re setting up a website and we will be giving rewards up to 10% to 30% of the fines that we levy.”
Minnesota has seen a series of large-scale fraud schemes targeting state-administered federal programs, including child nutrition (Feeding Our Future), housing stabilization services, autism/early intervention (EIDBI), and other Medicaid-funded services. The largest single case, Feeding Our Future, involved a $250 million COVID-era scam where largely Somalian defendants submitted fake meal claims and invoices for nonexistent food distribution, with proceeds funding luxury purchases, real estate, and overseas transfers.
Wider probes into 14 high-risk Medicaid programs (totaling ~$18 billion spent since 2018) estimate that half or more may be fraudulent, pushing overall losses potentially into the billions; additional schemes in personal care assistance, home/community-based services, and substance-use programs have added hundreds of millions more. Many operations involved Somali-run nonprofits, providers, or shell companies that billed for undelivered or fabricated services, though the Feeding Our Future “mastermind” (Aimee Bock) was not Somali. Suspected fraud has extended to child-care/daycare centers (sparked by a late-2025 viral video alleging $30–100 million in overbilling) and other providers, prompting active FBI/DOJ investigations into dozens of centers.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has focused on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and his state, including its Somali community of up to 80,000 – alleging fraud dating to 2020 by some nonprofit groups which were backed by federal programs administering the state’s childcare and other social services programs.
The IRS is also launching a dedicated fraud task force focused on targeting the misuse of funding by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities, Reuters reports.
Brazilian lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to create a national Strategic Sovereign Bitcoin Reserve, known as RESBit, proposing the gradual acquisition of one million bitcoins over five years.
The bill, presented by Federal Deputy Luiz Gastão (PSD/CE), outlines a comprehensive framework to integrate Bitcoin into the country’s financial strategy and diversify national reserves.
The proposed legislation establishes several guidelines for RESBit.
First, the plan calls for a gradual accumulation of at least 1,000,000 BTC over five years.
It prohibits the sale of bitcoins seized by Brazilian judicial authorities, ensuring that these assets remain within public control.
The bill also allows for the collection of Brazil’s federal taxes in Bitcoin and offers incentives for public companies to engage in Bitcoin mining and storage.
Transparency is a central feature of the proposal. The bill mandates public disclosure of RESBit’s bitcoin holdings through internet-based platforms, enabling auditing by the public.
It emphasizes secure storage of digital assets using technologies such as cold wallets, multisignature wallets, and other internationally recognized mechanisms.
In addition, the legislation permits temporary holdings of spot ETFs backed by bitcoin in the reserve portfolio, subject to urgent and limited circumstances.
If approved, Brazil could join a small group of countries actively holding Bitcoin at a national level, potentially surpassing major holders like the United States and China.
Other countries like Brazil exploring Bitcoin reserves
Quite famously, El Salvador holds the mantle as the ‘world’s first country’ with a strategic Bitcoin reserve, reporting over 7,560 Bitcoin under President Nayib Bukele’s program.
Despite scaling back mandatory Bitcoin acceptance under IMF agreements, the government has maintained regular purchases, citing long-term financial sovereignty and reserve diversification. The National Bitcoin Office now splits holdings across multiple addresses to bolster security and transparency.
The Central American nation’s approach has inspired policymakers worldwide. In the United States, the BITCOIN Act of 2025 proposed somewhat of a federal strategic Bitcoin reserve, while several states, including New Hampshire and Arizona, have passed or proposed laws allowing portions of public funds to be invested in digital assets.
President Trump’s March 2025 executive order further directed federal agencies to explore Bitcoin accumulation from seized assets without new taxpayer costs.
In Europe, the Czech National Bank has a similar allocation in bitcoin, while Switzerland sees a citizen-led initiative proposing a constitutional mandate for Bitcoin holdings.
Hong Kong, Ukraine, and Pakistan are also exploring frameworks to hold Bitcoin at the national level, with Pakistan pledging never to sell its future reserves.
Trump Plans Venezuela Trip, First U.S. President Visit Since Bill Clinton
President Donald Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday afternoon that he plans to visit Venezuela, but offered no details or timeline. If it happens, it would be a historic trip, coming as Venezuelan oil flows accelerate under tighter U.S. oversight.
“I’m going to make a visit to Venezuela… We haven’t decided [when],” Trump told reporters, adding that he also had a “good meeting” with Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia.
Reuters said that Trump praised Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodriguez.
“We have a very good relationship with the president of Venezuela,” Trump said, noting that the U.S. is “working together very closely” with Rodriguez on access to oil.
Asked by Reuters if he will recognize Rodriguez as the official government, Trump responded, “Yeah, we have done that. We are dealing with them, and really, right now they have done a great job.”
On Thursday, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told NBC News that Venezuelan oil revenue is no longer being deposited into a Qatari account.
“An account was set up in Qatar, controlled by the U.S. government the whole time, to land that money in and then send the money from there down to Venezuela,” Wright said.
The energy secretary continued, “Now we have an account at the U.S. Treasury. The money won’t go to Qatar anymore.”
Wright also said that revenue from Venezuelan oil sales now tops $1 billion.
The last sitting US president to visit Venezuela was in 1997, when Bill Clinton traveled to Caracas and met with Rafael Caldera.
The Chicago mural honoring Iryna Zarutska, the innocent Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death in cold blood on a Charlotte light rail train, has been vandalized again—just two weeks after its unveiling.
This latest defacement underscores how deranged leftists will go to any lengths to suppress reminders of the deadly fallout from their soft-on-crime policies, even when the victim is a refugee who fled war.
The mural, painted on a three-story brick building at West Montrose and North Western avenues in Chicago’s North Center neighborhood, depicts Zarutska’s face gazing solemnly, a stark memorial to her senseless murder last August by repeat offender Decarlos Brown Jr.
?#BREAKING: The Chicago mural of Iryna Zarutska has been defaced for a 2nd time in just 14 days.
I don’t understand how anyone could do this…
You have to be a complete sociopath to want to vandalize a mural of an innocent refugee who was m*rdered in cold blood/
The artwork was defaced for the second time in just 14 days. Video footage shows the vandalism, highlighting the graffiti scrawled across the tribute.
This incident follows a pattern of attacks on similar murals nationwide, as we previously reported.
In Brooklyn’s Bushwick, a massive mural was tagged with “F-ck Trump” shortly after completion, while Manhattan’s Lower East Side version was hit with “Please vandalize this” spray-painted over Zarutska’s face.
Florida’s Pensacola mural faced repeated assaults, defaced at least three times with mockery of her death.
Zarutska, 23, escaped the horrors of Russia’s war in Ukraine, seeking safety in the U.S. as a refugee. Her killer, Brown, had been arrested and released 14 times prior, a direct result of Democrat-run cities prioritizing criminals over public safety.
Surveillance footage captured the brutal attack, with Brown reportedly boasting, “I got that white girl,” as bystanders tried to save her. The racial angle was downplayed by corporate media, in stark contrast to their amplification of other cases.
President Trump highlighted Zarutska’s murder in speeches, vowing to crack down on “savage bloodthirsty criminals” unleashed by leftist agendas.
The mural campaign, backed by over $1 million from Elon Musk and others, aims to keep her memory alive and spotlight these policy failures.
But leftists can’t tolerate it. Outlets like The Guardian have smeared the effort as “weaponizing her memory” through “sterile” art, ignoring the real hypocrisy: Zarutska embodies the very refugees they claim to champion, yet her story is erased because it bolsters Trump’s push for law and order.
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.
The Minnesota nonprofit fraud scandal, now expected to cost taxpayers more than $9 billion, is being dismissed by many as an isolated failure. However, this is far from the case, and writing it off as such would be a colossal mistake.
What it actually revealed is a broader problem in the Swamp—that institutions claiming to represent others often operate with little accountability and then quietly drift away from the very people who are footing the bill.
In Minnesota, nonprofit organizations became the perfect vehicle for abuse—shielded from scrutiny, politically protected, and flush with public money. However, in Washington, trade associations operate in largely the same way. They collect millions in dues from American businesses while increasingly choosing to serve their own leadership’s personal and political interests instead of those of their dues-paying members.
Their members only care about being able to deliver good-paying jobs to their employees and securing a more favorable regulatory climate so they can deliver lower-priced goods for the American people; however, you’d never know that if you looked at the public policy priorities of their association leadership officials, who seem more interested in fitting in at woke radical leftist cocktail parties.
Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, has repeatedly broken with Republicans by sharply criticizing Donald Trump, including after January 6, when he called Trump’s actions “mob rule,” urged Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, and faulted the administration’s handling of COVID-19. Despite that record, Timmons later congratulated Trump on his November 2024 victory and suggested they should “work together like we did before.” At the same time, Timmons praised and partnered with Joe Biden, backing the administration’s COVID-19 vaccine campaign and publicly supporting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act. In 2022, he also donated to Adam Kinzinger’s leadership PAC just days after Kinzinger was censured by the Republican Party.
If a presidency was truly so dangerous five years ago that it was deemed incompatible with democracy itself, it is fair to ask how the same association leadership can now claim alignment and cooperation without any explanation, accountability, or evident change in approach.
That kind of abrupt pivot invites skepticism from dues-paying manufacturers who expect their trade groups to be guided by member interests, not political positioning or reputational hedging.
The problem is compounded by a reliance on press releases in place of real relationships. Press releases don’t move policy—relationships do. Manufacturers don’t pay dues for moral posturing, elite signaling, or ceremonial access; they pay for results. When leadership spends years attacking an administration only to reverse course once the election is settled—substituting optics for engagement—it raises a fundamental question about who the organization is really serving.
Then there’s the Investment Company Institute, which represents asset managers navigating an intensely regulated environment. Its CEO, Eric Pan, earns roughly $3 million a year while publicly aligning himself with progressive causes and donating to Democratic candidates—even those running against Republican senators who oversee key committees affecting pensions and financial markets.
Under Pan’s control, the ICI went head over heels for Biden’s climate change agenda, endorsing a proposed rule by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would push to mandate climate-impact disclosures. Critics warned the proposals blurred the line between securities regulation and social policymaking, forcing companies to engage in politically charged “compelled speech” untethered from core financial risk. They cautioned that the rules would impose significant compliance costs, expose firms to heightened litigation risk, and overwhelm investors with data of dubious relevance. This makes sense from the standpoint that Pan brags about teaching his students at Columbia Law a “rich, progressive curriculum.” This kind of political posturing is putting the organization’s member companies at odds with the very policymakers who shape their regulatory futures.
Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long seen as the flagship advocate for free enterprise, lost credibility with many small businesses during the Biden years. While its executives collected multi-million-dollar compensation packages, the Chamber backed COVID mandates, massive spending bills, and climate policies that drove up costs for employers and workers alike.
When small businesses were struggling to stay afloat, the Chamber’s Washington insiders were doing just fine. The CEO, Suzanne Clark, earned $6.6 million, and the Chief Policy Officer, Neil Bradley, earned nearly $2 million.
For small businesses writing checks every year, what are those association dues actually buying? Better free-market conservative policies? Measurable regulatory relief? Or just access, prestige, and fat salaries for executives whose priorities no longer align with the firms they represent?
Trade associations should exist to fight relentlessly for free enterprise—predictable rules, property rights, competition, and growth. When they become tollbooths to Washington rather than shields against it, they fail in their mission.
The Minnesota NGO scandal should serve as a textbook warning of how institutions that operate without accountability eventually stop serving their stated purpose. Businesses, especially small businesses, should demand better.
Any group, whether in Minnesota or in DC, that claims to represent the American people should be able to answer three basic questions:
Who do you actually speak for?
What concrete wins have you delivered in the last 12 months for the people you serve?
Whose interests come first—your members or your executives?
Right now, too many are not able to answer these basic questions.
Ronald Reagan once said, “We must be willing to pay for excellence in government or risk a government run only by people of wealth or by those beholden to special interests.”
If we don’t demand the same for the groups that represent us at the government negotiating table, then those same negative consequences will arise. And that’s in no one’s interest.
Two Philadelphia Men Admit To AI-Assisted $3.5M Housing Aid Scam In Minnesota
This will be the first of many AI scams of its kind, we predict…
Two men from Pennsylvania admitted to repeatedly flying from Philadelphia to Minneapolis to exploit Minnesota’s Housing Stabilization Services (HSS) program, stealing about $3.5 million, according to prosecutors. Authorities say they used artificial intelligence to forge records and falsely bill for services, according to Fox News.
Anthony Waddell Jefferson, 37, and Lester Brown, 53, registered businesses as HSS providers, claiming they offered housing support and transition services. In reality, officials say much of the work never happened.
Launched in 2020, HSS helps people with disabilities, seniors, and those struggling with mental health or addiction secure housing. The Justice Department has noted the program had “low barriers to entry and minimal records requirements.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “Criminal fraud not only robs taxpayers — it shatters trust in our institutions… Our prosecutors will work tirelessly to unravel criminal fraud schemes.”
Fox News writes that prosecutors allege the pair billed Medicaid for services supposedly provided to about 230 clients. Both men pleaded guilty to wire fraud and face up to 20 years in prison.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated, “Minnesota will no longer be a haven for fraud under our watch,” adding that dozens of convictions have already been secured in the state.
Investigators say Jefferson and Brown promoted themselves as “The Housing Guys” at shelters and Section 8 housing sites to recruit clients. Jefferson allegedly hired relatives and associates to produce fake service notes, sometimes using invented employee names. Brown reportedly failed to keep required records. Authorities also say the men fabricated emails and used ChatGPT to generate false documentation.
Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva said, “They traveled across the country for one purpose: to prey upon and steal millions in taxpayer dollars,” emphasizing that such schemes threaten federally funded programs nationwide.
The article from the Wall Street Journal titled “Why My Generation Is Turning to Financial Nihilism” by Kyla Scanlon argues that Gen Z is embracing high-risk financial behavior out of despair and detachment. Of course, it is essential to recognize that Kyla, although well-intentioned, is a young twenty-something influencer with limited real-life experience, and sees things for “her generation” through a very narrow lens of “recency bias.”
Let’s start with understanding that “Financial Nihilism” is a term used to describe an attitude where people believe financial decisions are meaningless because the system is rigged, the future is hopeless, or traditional paths to wealth are broken. The term “Financial Nihilism” was first coined in 2020 by Demetri Kofinas, a podcaster, who used it to describe his belief that speculative assets lack intrinsic value, driven by a loss of faith in traditional economic systems.
However, while this phrase has gained popularity in recent years, particularly following the GameStop short squeeze, crypto mania, and the rise of meme trading, it disappeared when all of that collapsed in 2022. However, after three years of unprecedented market gains in every asset class, from stocks to cryptocurrencies to precious metals, “Financial Nihilism” has resurfaced to rationalize “speculative excess” and justify abandoning long-term investment strategies that have withstood the “sands of time.”
While Kyla produced a bombastic article to gain social media exposure by suggesting that Gen Z and Millennials no longer believe in saving, investing, or following traditional financial paths, the data shows something very different.
Over half of Gen Z holds investments in traditional financial products, according to FINRA and the CFA Institute.
A2023 Vanguard report showed Gen Z participants in retirement plans were increasing contributions, not fleeing traditional investing.
Charles Schwab’s Modern Investor Study found Gen Z prefers low-cost ETFs and index funds, strategies built around long-term returns.
Pew Research data shows that Gen Z and Millennials are investing at earlier ages than previous generations.
None of these behaviors is nihilistic. They are practical and reflect economic constraints, not philosophical despair.
Yes, there is undoubtedly a pool of young investors throwing “caution to the wind” and aggressively investing in speculative assets to “get rich quick.” But even my children, at the ripe old age of 22, think they are unique and different and that no one understands their challenges. We parents, of course, have “no idea” about their situation. Of course, this is the problem with our youth who have no real-world experience or a sense of history. We, the “old people,” were the ones speculating on Dot.com investments in the late 90s, just before it all went bust. As I wrote in“Retail Investors Flood The Market,”
“Is it 1999 or 2007? Retail investors flood the market as speculation grows rampant with a palpable exuberance and belief of no downside risk. What could go wrong?
Do you remember this commercial?
That commercial aired just 2 months shy of the beginning of the “Dot.com” bust. We “youngsters” at the time thought Warren Buffett was an idiot for avoiding technology stocks because “he didn’t get it.”
Turns out he was right.
But that wasn’t the first time that we youngsters had to learn the risks of chasing “hot investments,” and why “this time is NEVER different.” The following E*Trade commercial aired during Super Bowl XLI in 2007. The following year, the financial crisis set in, markets plunged, and once again, investors lost 50% or more of their wealth by refusing to listen to the warnings.
Why this trip down memory lane? (Other than the fact that the commercials are hilarious to watch.) Because what is happening today is NOT “Financial Nihilism,” it is the typical outcome of exuberance seen during strongly trending bull market cycles.
While young people, like Kyla, may think that “this time is different,” they lack the historical experience to support such a conclusion. Ask anyone who has lived through two “real” bear markets, and the imagery of people trying to “daytrade” their way to riches is all too familiar. The recent surge in speculative excess, leverage, and greed is not a new phenomenon.
With that said, let’s examine the issues with Kyla’s article and why “Financial Nihilism” is a myth.
“Meme Stocks and Crypto Aren’t Jokes Anymore. They’re Cries for Help.”
I loved this line from her diatribe as it suggests that Gen Z uses risky financial products as an emotional outlet. She implies that young people are not seeking returns but rather relief from feelings of hopelessness. While that framing sells well, it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While speculative assets like cryptocurrency and meme stocks attract younger buyers, that’s not proof of despair. Instead, it reflects broader exposure to digital markets, higher risk tolerance, easy access to trading (via platforms like Robinhood), leverage, and the rise of a gambling mentality.
But this is a newer development.
“Historically, access to capital markets was highly mediated, available only to institutions or individuals who had the time, money and resources to manage their assets with the help of brokers and financial advisors. Today, market data is readily accessible online and new technologies have significantly reduced the cost of trading and other barriers to entry. This means that more people can trade, at any time, from anywhere.” – World Economic Forum
Since 2016, the volume recorded at platforms that match orders from brokerages, a proxy for retail activity, has posted its third consecutive annual increase, rising by 15%. Meanwhile, the average daily volume of US-listed stocks has been ~12.0 billion shares since 2019, which is ~75% above the levels seen over the prior six years. Most notably, just over the last 12 months, daily volume has averaged a massive 16.7 billion shares.
Yes, retail investors are piling into the market. But why wouldn’t they after watching 15 years of market returns that are 50% above historical norms, and seeming “no risk” for speculative activities?
However, there is a difference between risk appetite and recklessness. As noted above, the data indicate that Gen Z is starting to engage with investing at a younger age than previous generations, and many hold investments for the long term while utilizing digital tools to experiment with their investments. That may include crypto or options, but it’s not a binary between discipline and nihilism.
Emotional narratives about “cries for help” obfuscate the data. Investors in their 20s often take more risk because they have longer time horizons. But where they are going wrong is through the amount of speculative risk and gambling behaviors they have adopted without financial guidance and education.
As noted above, “youngsters” gambling with investments is not new. Every generation throughout history has speculated on risk assets through every bull market cycle. But, unfortunately, regardless of age, speculative bubbles all ended the same way.
Gen Z didn’t “reinvent” the market; they are just entering a market that incentivizes risk-taking. Until it doesn’t.
“People My Age Don’t Think the System Works, So Why Follow Its Rules?”
Scanlon asserts that Gen Z has lost faith in traditional finance and institutions, and assumes systemic distrust is translating into a rejection of personal responsibility.
That isn’t an argument. It’s an excuse for “victimization.”In other words, my personal financial situation is not a result of my personal behaviors, spending habits, work ethic, or savings process, but it’s the “system’s fault.” Yet there is vast data to the contrary, showing that successful young individuals who follow the tried-and-true process of financial pathways succeed. Do they have as much wealth as their parents? Of course, they don’t, because they haven’t had the time to accumulate it. However, they are early on the path to success, which will likely outpace their peers.
Furthermore, this argument falsely equates skepticism with nihilism. Many young investors distrust centralized finance due to real-world events, including the 2008 crash, rising debt burdens, and stagnant wages. But rejecting blind trust in institutions is not the same as rejecting financial logic. Despite disillusionment, Gen Z invests at higher rates than Millennials did at the same age, according to Pew and the WEF. They also save a larger share of their income, using digital apps and platforms to automate their financial behavior.
Yes, Gen Z tends to distrust the government and financial media, but do you blame them, given the garbage that is produced daily on social media and YouTube by people with an agenda to promote? While skepticism fuels caution, it is not chaos. Gen Z is more likely to question fees, demand transparency, and seek passive investment tools, and that’s a smart move. Traditional rules of finance, such as saving consistently, spending less than you earn, and investing for the long term, are still followed; they just don’t generate “media-grabbing headlines.”
Calling this behavior “Financial Nihilism” misses the point. Gen Z is engaging with markets on its own terms, and while not all methods are necessarily healthy, it represents adaptation, not rejection.
“If the Future Feels Doomed, Why Not YOLO Trade Into It?”
Lastly, Kyla suggests that existential dread leads young people to treat the market like a casino. The idea is that if nothing matters, risk doesn’t either. This is the article’s weakest argument. While social and economic pressures are real, they are not driving widespread self-destruction. They are driving innovation in how people build and manage their wealth.
The idea behind this line is that young people, facing what feels like a bleak financial future, are throwing caution to the wind to gamble on crypto, options, and meme stocks to build wealth fast, rather than creating “lasting wealth.” This is where the term “YOLO trading” comes in, making aggressive bets with the mindset that there’s nothing to lose. However, as noted above, there is certain logic to that mindset, given that over the last 15 years, every market downturn has been met by either fiscal or monetary interventions. Repeated bailouts of bad investment decisions have created a “moral hazard” in the marketplace.
There’s truth here, but only part of it.
Yes, a subset of young investors is engaging in reckless speculation. They take on excessive risk, invest in volatile assets, and often trade on hype rather than fundamentals. Many borrow money to do it. This group exists, and their outcomes won’t be good. Some will lose money, and likely most will wipe themselves out entirely. The market is unforgiving when paired with leverage, inexperience, and emotional trading.
Here is a great example of the “YOLO” trading fallacy. Since the end of the “Meme Stock” craze in 2021, retail investors on Robinhood have made no money, even after accounting for the $4-5 billion wipeout in the January rout. That’s 5 years of their investing time horizon gone, whereas just investing in the S&P 500 index would have produced far superior results.
But this behavior doesn’t define the generation. It represents the tail end of the distribution—the loudest, not the largest.
What’s left out of Kyla’s article is what happens after the eventual realization that “trading” is a losing exercise over the long term. Early losses are the price of financial education, and, hopefully, if they survive financially, they will change their approach and revert to more traditional principles that have endured over the decades. In other words, they grow up and learn from the experience just as every great investor in history has.
The future is not doomed. But it is fragile for those who ignore risk. Financial outcomes depend on staying in the game long enough to benefit from compounding. If you blow yourself up in your 20s, you lose that opportunity.
The lesson is simple. Speculation is fun while you are winning, but that is not “Financial Nihilism.” It is simply greed masquerading as investing. However, the people who win in the long term are not gamblers. They’re grinders. They keep costs low, automate savings, and make decisions that allow them to survive market cycles. That’s not as flashy as YOLO trading, but that is how wealth is built.
What Gen Z Should Do: Build Survivability, Not Sensation
Despite the bad headlines, most young people are serious about their money. But seriousness alone doesn’t build wealth. The key is survivability, the ability to stay in the game long enough to benefit from compounding returns.
Do yourself and your financial future a favor: turn off bombastic, emotionally charged headlines and focus on what matters for building long-term wealth. Crucially, whether you agree with the current financial and economic system or not, learn to take advantage of it.
The only thing YOU can change is YOUR future. So stop worrying about things you can not control.
To get there, start here.
Turn off the social media, influencers, and other financial goblins and focus on your goals and behaviors.
Keep fixed expenses low
Build cash reserves that cover 6 months of spending
Use retirement accounts like Roth IRAs early
Allocate most of their portfolio to index funds or ETFs
Limit risky bets to no more than 5% of their total assets
Learn through action, not theory, and track everything
Avoid the leverage period.
The goal is not to outperform every year or get rich quickly. The goal is to stay solvent long enough for your savings to generate a return.
Financial nihilism is a myth. What’s real is volatility, income pressure, and distrust. The response shouldn’t be disengagement, but rather financial discipline. Long-run wealth isn’t about hope; it’s about repeatable behaviors that work consistently through market cycles.
The biggest problem for most young investors is the lack of research on the stocks they buy. They are only buying them “because they were going up.”
However, when the “season does change,” the “fundamentals” will matter, and they matter a lot.
Such is something most won’t learn from “social media” influencers.
As Ray Dalio once quipped:
“The biggest mistake investors make is to believe that what happened in the recent past is likely to persist. They assume that something that was a good investment in the recent past is still a good investment. Typically, high past returns simply imply that an asset has become more expensive and is a poorer, not better, investment.”
Investing is a game of “risk.”
It is often stated that the more “risk” you take, the more money you can make. However, the actual definition of risk is “how much you will lose when something goes wrong.”
Following the “Dot.com crash,” many individuals learned the perils of “risk” and “leverage.”
Unfortunately, for Gen-Z’ers, such is a lesson that is still waiting to be learned.
EU Weighs Deploying Training Sites In Ukraine As Kremlin Warns: ‘Legitimate Targets’
The European Union is weighing plans to set up two military bases inside Ukraine to train fresh troops – a move Moscow has already warned could make them targets of military strikes.
“We have been discussing the training of the Ukrainian soldiers, also on the soil of Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Wednesday. “We have identified two training centers that could be used for that purpose.”
The Kremlin made clear just a month ago: “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warns that the deployment of military units, military facilities, warehouses, and other infrastructure of Western countries on Ukrainian territory will be classified as foreign intervention, posing a direct threat to the security of not only Russia but also other European countries,” according to the warning of spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
Western governments have already trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the course of the four-year grinding war with Russia – but this has been concentrated in countries like Britain, Denmark, and Poland.
The Western training of Ukraine forces was happening long before the current war: Below is aSpanish military instructor (right) training a group of Ukrainian soldiers at the army base of Toledo, on December 2, 2022 – according to El Pais…
On Thursday, Colonel General Andrey Serdyukov accused Europe of accelerating preparations for direct confrontation. “The militarization of Europe is continuing at an accelerated pace, openly aimed at preparing for a military confrontation with Russia,” he said.
He added that “The territories are being rapidly fortified, and the relevant infrastructure is being improved.”
The alleged ‘NATOization’ of Ukraine was a prime reason Moscow listed for going to war in the first place. Since Putin’s ‘special military operation’ next door, the opposite trend has happened: NATO is firmly ensconced in Kiev, in terms of the billions in weapons, equipment, and funds already poured in.
Meanwhile, the EU has just this week approved a fresh $100 billion loan package for Ukraine.
As for proposed ‘EU bases’ – it’s hard to see this as in reality less than a full NATO established outpost in Ukraine. Russian leadership will see it as a recipe from taking the proxy war toward a full blown conflict directly with NATO.
The minute an ‘EU base’ comes under Russian aerial attack, the gloves would be off, and NATO would likely seize the opportunity to enter the conflict directly against a nuclear-armed superpower.
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from cutting more than $600 million in public health grants to four Democratic-led states, siding with the states’ argument that the cuts appeared politically motivated.
U.S. District Judge Manish Shah issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from rescinding the funds allocated to California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.
The ruling came a day after the states filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s directive, with officials in the filing calling it unconstitutional.
The cuts, directed by the White House Office of Management and Budget under Director Russell Vought, mostly go to the Public Health Infrastructure Grant, which funds public health departments to recruit and train workers, improve organizational systems, and modernize data infrastructure.
HHS said in a notice to Congress that the grants are “inconsistent with agency priorities,” according to the filing.
The priorities include modernizing public health infrastructure and not supporting illegal immigration, the lawsuit states.
The states alleged the reductions were retaliation for their policies on immigration, “gender-affirming care for minors,” and other issues opposed by President Donald Trump.
Trump has said that agencies should stop paying sanctuary cities, and the Office of Management and Budget has said that it directed health officials to withdraw the $600 million from the states.
“Starting February 1, we’re not making any payments to sanctuary cities,” Trump said during a Jan. 13 speech in Detroit, referencing jurisdictions whose policies prohibit local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
Trump said that such cities “do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens, and it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary.”
Shah wrote in his two-page order that the states had shown a likelihood of success in proving the cuts were “based on arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional rationales.”
The judge found the states would suffer “irreparable harm” without the injunction, while the public interest favored maintaining the funding. The temporary restraining order keeps the grants flowing while the case proceeds.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who led the lawsuit, said the directive threatened more than $100 million in grants for the state, including programs at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.
The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names Vought, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill, Trump, and other federal entities as defendants. It alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, claiming the cuts impose post hoc conditions on congressionally approved funds.
Specific reductions include $7.2 million from the American Medical Association in Illinois for supporting transgender procedures for children, and broader cuts to STI prevention and public health monitoring. The administration has prioritized banning federal funding for youth “gender-affirming care” and revoking certain childhood vaccine recommendations, drawing criticism from medical groups.
HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
