The approval of “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and other candidate states would institutionalize a three-tiered Europe between the “E6”, Central Europe, and the new partial members from Eastern Europe and the Balkans for facilitating Germany’s divide-and-rule federalist plans.
Politico reported on the EU’s plan to grant Ukraine partial membership by next year at the earliest as part of a comprehensive solution to that country’s conflict. An unnamed official described this as “reverse enlargement” and explained that “It would be a sort of recalibration of the process — you join and then you get phased in rights and obligations.”
This modus operandi would enable all the other candidates to join too and thus complete the bloc’s expansion in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
If Orban isn’t ‘democratically deposed’ during next month’s parliamentary elections, then the EU plans to appeal to Trump to pressure him into agreeing to this, absent which they’ll remove Hungary’s voting rights.
Left unsaid is the assessment from early November when this general idea was first reported about how “Poland Might Impede The EU’s Push To Speedily Grant Ukraine Membership” if this compels it to open its agricultural market to another deluge of low-cost and low-quality Ukrainian exports.
Per the preceding hyperlinked analysis, “neither half of its ruling duopoly wants to be blamed for the domestic consequences of Ukraine joining the EU, especially not ahead of fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ruling liberal-globalist coalition is already facing an uphill battle and would torpedo any hope of keeping control if they supported this, while President Karol Nawrocki from the conservative-nationalist opposition would betray his base if he went along with them.”
It’s therefore possible that the EU’s “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine doesn’t include unlimited tariff-free access of its agricultural products either to the bloc as a whole or only to Poland in order to secure Warsaw’s approval. In any case, Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU membership would de facto advance EU federalist goals by institutionalizing Germany’s “two-speed Europe” proposal, thus leading to three tiers of membership actually between the “E6”, other full members, and the new partial members.
The “E6” refers to the bloc’s six largest economies – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland – who’d collectively sit atop this institutionalized hierarchy that would unofficially be led by the German-Franco duopoly (or divided into factions by them if their rivalry becomes unmanageable).
Regardless of Poland’s participation or lack thereof within the “E6”, which the abovementioned hyperlinked analysis argues can’t be taken for granted, the EU would thus be formally divided.
The “E6” would push through reforms for facilitating federalization even if that end goal isn’t openly declared to avoid spooking some countries and their societies. The new partial members would then be pressured to conform with these new policies to obtain full membership, while the remaining full members from the second tier would be pressured by the first and third one into following suit. There’s a distinct geopolitical division between these tiers that deserves mention before concluding the analysis.
The “E6” represents Western Europe (with the exception of Poland), the new partial members would represent Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while the rest represent Central Europe. The EU federalists therefore want to pit the first three against the Central European members who oppose federalism in order to then impose that system upon them as a fait accompli. This observation further contextualizes the perceived urgency over approving “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and the other candidates.
The National Park Service reinstalled Washington, D.C.’s only statue of a Confederate soldier in October 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s effort to restore preexisting monuments in the capital. The depiction of Brigadier General Albert Pike was toppled by protesters in the summer of 2020, with many treating it as just another symbol of Confederate nostalgia. But it was erected to honor Pike’s civic and philanthropic legacy, not his role in the Civil War.
Pike’s bronze likeness was not donated by a Southern historical society or heritage league, nor funded by a Jim Crow–era government. It was privately commissioned by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of Washington, D.C., as part of a fundraising effort that began in the 1890s—years before the wave of Confederate monument construction. The statue honors Pike not for his service to the Confederacy but for his postwar work as a legal scholar, philanthropist, and advocate for the rights of indigenous tribes. This is emphasized by depicting him in civilian garb and holding a book rather than wearing his dress blues and brandishing a rifle.
Pike represented Native American nations in their claims against the federal government. He made various legal contributions in his home state of Arkansas, publishing The Arkansas Form Book, which helped standardize the state’s legal codes. He also advocated for expanding access to quality education for those on the frontier.
The reaction to the reinstatement of Pike’s statue ignores these other roles Pike played in American history and falsely lumps this specific monument in with every other Confederate memorial. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D–D.C.), for example, referred to it as “morally objectionable” and “an affront to the mostly Black and Brown residents of the District of Columbia.” Norton, who was at the forefront of attempts to move the statue as early as 1992, has again introduced legislation to permanently remove it.
The context surrounding the Pike statue is different from efforts in parts of the South to reerect Confederate war memorials and rename schools. It’s an effort to restore the monument in alignment with its original purpose. In doing so, the National Park Service isn’t celebrating Pike; it’s complying with legal obligations to maintain, upkeep, and protect monuments located on federal land.
Public memory often shoehorns complex historical figures into two categories: virtuous heroes or irredeemable villains. This impulse depends on rejecting historical context in favor of theatrical certainty. Pike’s life cannot be placed neatly into either box.
The National Park Service reinstalled Washington, D.C.’s only statue of a Confederate soldier in October 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s effort to restore preexisting monuments in the capital. The depiction of Brigadier General Albert Pike was toppled by protesters in the summer of 2020, with many treating it as just another symbol of Confederate nostalgia. But it was erected to honor Pike’s civic and philanthropic legacy, not his role in the Civil War.
Pike’s bronze likeness was not donated by a Southern historical society or heritage league, nor funded by a Jim Crow–era government. It was privately commissioned by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of Washington, D.C., as part of a fundraising effort that began in the 1890s—years before the wave of Confederate monument construction. The statue honors Pike not for his service to the Confederacy but for his postwar work as a legal scholar, philanthropist, and advocate for the rights of indigenous tribes. This is emphasized by depicting him in civilian garb and holding a book rather than wearing his dress blues and brandishing a rifle.
Pike represented Native American nations in their claims against the federal government. He made various legal contributions in his home state of Arkansas, publishing The Arkansas Form Book, which helped standardize the state’s legal codes. He also advocated for expanding access to quality education for those on the frontier.
The reaction to the reinstatement of Pike’s statue ignores these other roles Pike played in American history and falsely lumps this specific monument in with every other Confederate memorial. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D–D.C.), for example, referred to it as “morally objectionable” and “an affront to the mostly Black and Brown residents of the District of Columbia.” Norton, who was at the forefront of attempts to move the statue as early as 1992, has again introduced legislation to permanently remove it.
The context surrounding the Pike statue is different from efforts in parts of the South to reerect Confederate war memorials and rename schools. It’s an effort to restore the monument in alignment with its original purpose. In doing so, the National Park Service isn’t celebrating Pike; it’s complying with legal obligations to maintain, upkeep, and protect monuments located on federal land.
Public memory often shoehorns complex historical figures into two categories: virtuous heroes or irredeemable villains. This impulse depends on rejecting historical context in favor of theatrical certainty. Pike’s life cannot be placed neatly into either box.
Much has been written about President Trump’s press conference in the wake of Learning Resources. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board charged that the “rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.” Ed Whelan said the speech was “stupid and vile.”
I quite deliberately waited a bit to watch Trump’s remarks. I wanted to actually read the opinion first, and let the tumult of Friday settle down. It helps that I am not on social media, and completely turn off the internet on shabbat.
Now, with some distance from Friday, I watched the press conference. This might be one of the most important presidential remarks about the Supreme Court since FDR’s Court-Packing address. Of course, it is done in Trump’s inimitable style with dripping vitriol, but as Trump often does, he says the things we all think but are simply unsayable in polite company. People need to focus less on how Trump says things and more on what he actually says.
Rather than trying to summarize it, I will offer a passage-by-passage annotation.
Wow. That’s a lot of people. That’s a new record, we set a record every time.
Well thank you very much for being here.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.
“Courage” is a theme I have developed at some length. My article, Judicial Courage, traces how Justices Thomas and Alito have charged that the three Trump appointees lacked courage. It is telling that Trump sees this case in a similar fashion. Indeed, as I’ll explain in a future post, there are shades of this charge in Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent. Kavanaugh writes this is not an “ordinary statutory interpretation case.” Kavanaugh insists that “Like cases should be treated alike,” but that is not the case here. Kavanaugh asks if “this a ticket good for one day and one train only.” And so on.
I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices.
When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them. There’s no way.
I recently wrote that Justice Kavanaugh would be Trump’s most likely selection for Chief Justice in the (unlikely) event that Roberts steps down. The Justice Kavanaugh of today is not the Justice Kavanaugh we saw in 2018-2020.
Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you.
The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.
Trump isn’t wrong. I struggle to think of any significant case where the Court’s progressive justices cast a dispositive vote against the progressive side. Sure, in some cases, Justice Kagan has a free vote where there are already five or six votes in the bank. But when has Kagan or Sotomayor or Jackson cast a decisive fifth vote for a serious case? I would not include NFIB v. Sebelius on that list. Justices Breyer and Kagan only joined the Chief’s ruling that states can opt into the Medicaid expansion as part of a compromise to avoid invalidating the entire program. I think Justice Gorsuch’s dissent ably shows how Justice Kagan has flip-flopped on the issue depending on whose ox is being gored. Cass Sunstein praised both Justices Barrett and Kagan for their lawyerly virtues. He wrote “They are not ideological; you read their opinions and you do not know anything about their politics.” Well, I think this is likely true about Barrett.
Trump isn’t wrong here either.
They’re an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have, it’s a no. You can’t knock their loyalty, one thing you can do with some of our people.
Trump contrasts the progressive Justices from the conservative Justices. The progressive justices never break rank when it counts. But “some of our people,” that is, the conservative Justices, do.
Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it’s happened so often with this court
He think Trump is using “politically correct” as a way of saying the Justices are being swayed by elite interests. It brings to mind Trump’s tweet about Chief Justice Roberts after the Obamacare case: “Wow, the Supreme Court passed @ObamaCare. I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew.”
This is the passage that has gotten the most attention.
What a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and, not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement. I won by millions of votes, we won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, we still won in a landslide. Too big to rig.
But these people are obnoxious, ignorant and loud. They’re very loud. And I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it.
Trump is simply wrong here. He has a difficult time understanding that Justices can rule in a certain way based on certain legal positions. In his view, the Justices can only reach this result by being under the sway of shadowy interests on the right and the left. I wish he hadn’t used the “fools and lapdogs” line, as he made so many other important points. But trying to get Trump to control his language is a fool’s errand. Solicitor General Sauer, who was standing right next to the President, likely had to hold back any emotion. And as I’ve noted before, Sauer is the most likely pick should a Justice retire. It will certainly not be someone who favors restoring power to Congress. Did any of the President’s lawyers tell him he would be weakened by appointing Justices who wanted to overrule Chevron, enforce the non-delegation doctrine, and weaken agencies? Which branch of government did those lawyers work for?
This might be one of the most important lines in the entire press conference.
I wanted to be very well-behaved because I wanted to do anything, I didn’t want to do anything, that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court.
I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy.
Trump, likely on advice of counsel, was told to not say anything bad about the Court while the case was pending lest he sway the decision. The implication here is clear: if Trump criticizes the Court, he is more likely to lose. Trump even acknowledged this point in his roast at the Alfalfa Club.
“I had the nastiest, most vicious joke about John Roberts,” he said of the Supreme Court chief justice. “If you think I’m going to tell that joke you can forget it.”
“I’m going to kiss his ass for a long time,” he added, an apparent reference to the role Roberts could play in deciding current and future cases involving Trump and his administration.
Do you see the problem? Judges are supposed to decide cases without fear or favor. Whatever a litigant says about the Judge should have no bearing, whatsoever, on the outcome of the case. But of course we know this isn’t true. The clear import of some of the commentary about Trump’s press conference is that he made it less likely that Justices Barrett will rule in his favor in future cases. Do you see the problem? Judges are human. Indeed, judges are even more sensitive than mere mortals. So much of the commentary you read about the Supreme Court involves kissing ass, in an attempt to curry favor. I’ve never followed that approach. I speak my mind, especially for the Justices on the right. Does that make it less likely my petition gets granted or my article get cited? You bet it does. But speaking the truth is always more important than kissing ass. And I’m glad Trump is not trying to be a good boy anymore.
All of those tariffs remain. They all remain. I don’t know if you know that or not. They all remain. We’re still getting them and we will after the decision. I guess there’s nobody left to appeal to.
But again, those three people, such respect. I’ve had a lot of respect for them anyway, but such great respect.
Well, there is always the “Appeal to Heaven.” Maybe Martha Ann Alito could donate a flag to be raised over the new East Wing?
Next, Trump makes an important legal point, which (at least to me) suggests he understands the legal analysis.
To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even one dollar. I can’t charge one dollar, can’t charge a dollar. I would have used one penny, but we don’t make the pennies anymore. We save money.
Can’t charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA, not one dollar, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting. That’s what they’re supposed to be protecting.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country. I’m even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can embargo, I can do anything I want, but I can’t charge one dollar because that’s not what it says, and that’s not the way it even reads. I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can’t charge any money. So I’m allowed to destroy the country, but I can’t charge them a little fee. I could give them a little two cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything.
Think of that. How ridiculous is that? I’m allowed to embargo them, I’m allowed to tell them you can’t do business in the United States anymore, “we want you out of here,” but I want to charge them $10. I can’t do that.
Justice Kavanaugh made this precise point in his dissent, which Trump internalized:
Context and common sense buttress that interpretation of IEEPA. The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports—meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment. As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China.
That approach does not make much sense.
The greater power to embargo should include the lesser power to tariff.
Next, Trump turned to licenses.
It’s incorrect, their decision is incorrect. But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision. You know, they’ve been approved by the decision for those that thought they had us.
And they’re saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. So think of that. I have the right to license. It’s a very powerful word in many ways, licenses more powerful than tariffs. In fact, I was thinking about using it, but they came up with the idea that I can license just like the people that were opposing me told them to do, but not the right to charge a license fee.
Think of that. Who ever heard of such a thing? What licence has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? You get a licence, you charge a fee. It’s automatic, but not with this court.
But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries, but a much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had. But not the right to charge a fee. How crazy is that?
During the oral arguments, there was extensive discussion of licensees. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett both pressed Neal Katyal on licenses. But licenses were barely mentioned in the majority or dissent. Something happened here. And it is strange that Trump fixated on this part of the case, even though it was not in the opinion. He must have remembered it from some earlier juncture. Again, underestimate Trump at your own peril.
Indeed, Trump suggests he actually read the opinion. If so, he did something that most pundits did not actually do:
Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was a dead country one-and-a-half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.
But I read the language. I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100 per cent. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.
Again, Kavanaugh’s stock has gone way up in the past year or so.
As Justice Kavanaugh — whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I’m so proud of him — wrote in his dissent, “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” So think of that, “the decision might not substantially constrain.” And it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start.
“Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That’s because numerous other federal statutes” — which is so true” — authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case.” Even more tariffs, actually.
“Those statutes include” — think of that — “those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232” — all of these things I know so well — “the Trade Act of 1974, Sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338.”
All clear, but it’s a little bit longer process. I thought I’d make things simple, but they didn’t let us do that.
I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment.
Later in the Q&A, he would suggest he is not proud of his appointment of Justice Gorsuch and Barrett. Tariffs are probably Trump’s most important issue. What is #2? Illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. Wait to see if Trump behaves like a “good boy” after Barbara.
Trump seems convinced that the Court blessed his ability to impose fees under other authorities. And, Trump thinks that Chief Justice Roberts didn’t even realize what he was doing. I doubt it, but that is an issue for another day.
In actuality, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don’t think they meant that. I’m sure they didn’t. It’s terrible.
The next point is key. Democrats worked so hard to oppose Trump’s three appointees. And when that failed, they favored packing the Court. But why pack the Court when Republican appointees vote the way they do?
And to think that the Democrats who oppose this, only because they want to go the opposite way, they’d like to pack the court. They want to put on 21 people. They want to pack the court, pack the Supreme Court. Maybe they should do it. Maybe they would be better off if they did it. They want to pack the court. They want to do anything to hurt our country.
Trump continues to say the Court blessed his use of different statutes to impose fees. And he returns to the license point, which really seems to be in stuck his craw.
There will no longer be any doubt, and the income coming in and the protection of our companies and country will actually increase because of this decision.
I don’t think the court meant that, but it’s the way it is.
Based on long-standing law and hundreds of victories — and even, as I was pointed out before, even thousands of victories over the years — to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particularly use of IEEPA tariffs.
And essentially it’s, they used to get a fee. I can do anything I want with IEEPA, anything. I just can’t charge anybody for it. I could licence, I just can’t charge them. It’s ridiculous. But it’s OK because we have other ways, numerous other ways.
The ability to block embargo, restrict, licence or impose any other condition on a foreign country’s ability to conduct trade with the United States under IEEPA has been fully confirmed by this decision.
So now there’s no doubt, because, you know, there were a lot of questions about tariffs, because no president was smart enough to use them to protect our country from those countries and businesses that were ripping us off. You took a look at the deficits that we had with some of these countries, it was disgraceful what they got away with for many, many decades.
But now we know, because this decision affirms all those things that some people weren’t sure about.
In order to protect — and it says so — in order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariff authorities. So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs — they’re existing, they’re there — remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect.
Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I say quite simply, which I’ve said for a long time, make America great again. And interestingly, we’ve already made it great, so I don’t have to use that. But I don’t think we’ll ever give up on MAGA. MAGA is always going to be with us.
If you have a few questions, you can let us know. But just to end so, we’re going forward, we will be able to take in more money, and there will no longer be doubt — because there was always doubt.
Trump returns by calling the people who brought the lawsuit a “sleazebag.”
I know the people that brought the lawsuit and, you know, they’re sleazebags, major sleazebags. But I know them, and they’re foreign country-centric. They were sending things into our country, and the people representing them knew full well, but they were sending things into our country, and they were beneficial to other countries, but very, very bad for us. And I stopped it. And we’ll just keep it going.
You might recall that in May 2025, after the Court of International Trade halted the tariffs, Trump called Leonard Leo a “sleazebag.”
So we have more of a, we have a totally firm decision now, and I don’t think the court meant it because the court doesn’t show great spirit toward our country, in my opinion. A lot of bad decisions, but there are usually ways around it.
This is something we could have done, as Justice Kavanaugh said, we could have done this originally, but we’re doing it now, and the numbers could be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.
Trump took nearly 30 minutes of questions. Here are some of the more important exchanges:
Thank you so much, Mr. President. Justice Thomas and Alito, as you know, are the most conservative constitutional justices. Do you think that you’ll get to a point two more justices later this term with similar ideologies? And what type of vetting process will they go through to ensure they uphold the constitution?
I don’t know, but they’re great justices. That’s all I can say and I hope they’re going to be around a long time. I hope they’re going to stay healthy. They’re great people, they’re great — and Justice Alito too, to add to the group. These are great — these are great men with a great love of our country and a great understanding of the law.
I recently observed that Trump has no incentive for Alito or Thomas to step down. Trump’s time horizon ends on January 20, 2029. Why would he push out the two Justices who are most likely to rule in his favor?
Thank you, Mr. President — You said ahead of the decision that if the Supreme Court — Yeah, please. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side and I don’t like them. I think they’re real slimeballs. And, uh, got to do what’s right for the country. You got to do what’s right for the Constitution. That’s why I respect so much, Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. When you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you’ll read a dissent and it’s like, well, you don’t know. It could go either way. There’s no other way. The good news is it’s like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don’t have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.
I really wonder how often Trump reads dissents, and thinks the case can go either way.
Do you regret appointing Amy Coney Barrett —
— I’m not — I’m not talking to you — — I’m talking — I don’t talk — I don’t talk to CNN. It’s fake news. Go ahead.
He did not answer this question. A reporter came back to it later. Trump deflected again:
Mr. President, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, are you surprised in particular by their decision today?
I am.
And do you regret nominating them?
I don’t want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yeah. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them. Yeah.
It is unfortunate Trump brought in their families. The Justices have faced death threats, and Justice Barrett’s family has also received threats. Leave the family out of it.
Trump did say something we were all thinking. How could the Court take as much time as it did and say absolutely nothing about the remedy. It’s almost like Chief Justice Roberts does not care at all about the practical consequences of his ruling. He just wants to get it off his plate.
Well, thank you for the question. And I will say this, we really are at a very important point. I’ve been waiting for this decision so long. They could have made this decision a long time ago, not complex. They’re wrong on it. It’s a ridiculous decision. But they should have released this a long time ago. We waited months and that gave uncertainty. Now we have certainty and I think you’re going to see the country get much stronger because of it. Look, we were ripped off by almost every country in the world. If you look at the surpluses, almost every country in the world that did business with us, our people were stupid.
Trump returned to the remedial question again.
Thank you, President Trump. So since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion?
Think of it. Think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don’t even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked, also, to make you feel good. I said what about all the money that we’ve taken in? Sir, they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that?
Mr. President — — Mr. President, what you’re saying is, are you saying that you don’t plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?
I just told you the answer, right? I told you the answer. It’s not discussed. We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.
One sentence would have been helpful. But we didn’t even get that.
If Justice Barrett does not come to the State of the Union, will it be in protest of the “lapdog” comment? And if so, wouldn’t that mean Trump’s broader point was right–that the Justices are swayed by political pressure.
Mr. President, on the tariff check — Supreme court justices who ruled against this — the policy, striking it down, are they still invited to your State of the Union next week? And will you speak with them?
They are invited, barely, barely. Three are happily invited, no, no, they’re barely — they’re barely invited. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come. OK?
At least Trump’s grammar is correct.
Thank you for reading this far. I suspect there are many typos here. Sorry. You’ll have to deal with them.
Much has been written about President Trump’s press conference in the wake of Learning Resources. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board charged that the “rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.” Ed Whelan said the speech was “stupid and vile.”
I quite deliberately waited a bit to watch Trump’s remarks. I wanted to actually read the opinion first, and let the tumult of Friday settle down. It helps that I am not on social media, and completely turn off the internet on shabbat.
Now, with some distance from Friday, I watched the press conference. This might be one of the most important presidential remarks about the Supreme Court since FDR’s Court-Packing address. Of course, it is done in Trump’s inimitable style with dripping vitriol, but as Trump often does, he says the things we all think but are simply unsayable in polite company. People need to focus less on how Trump says things and more on what he actually says.
Rather than trying to summarize it, I will offer a passage-by-passage annotation.
Wow. That’s a lot of people. That’s a new record, we set a record every time.
Well thank you very much for being here.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.
“Courage” is a theme I have developed at some length. My article, Judicial Courage, traces how Justices Thomas and Alito have charged that the three Trump appointees lacked courage. It is telling that Trump sees this case in a similar fashion. Indeed, as I’ll explain in a future post, there are shades of this charge in Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent. Kavanaugh writes this is not an “ordinary statutory interpretation case.” Kavanaugh insists that “Like cases should be treated alike,” but that is not the case here. Kavanaugh asks if “this a ticket good for one day and one train only.” And so on.
I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices.
When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them. There’s no way.
I recently wrote that Justice Kavanaugh would be Trump’s most likely selection for Chief Justice in the (unlikely) event that Roberts steps down. The Justice Kavanaugh of today is not the Justice Kavanaugh we saw in 2018-2020.
Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you.
The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.
Trump isn’t wrong. I struggle to think of any significant case where the Court’s progressive justices cast a dispositive vote against the progressive side. Sure, in some cases, Justice Kagan has a free vote where there are already five or six votes in the bank. But when has Kagan or Sotomayor or Jackson cast a decisive fifth vote for a serious case? I would not include NFIB v. Sebelius on that list. Justices Breyer and Kagan only joined the Chief’s ruling that states can opt into the Medicaid expansion as part of a compromise to avoid invalidating the entire program. I think Justice Gorsuch’s dissent ably shows how Justice Kagan has flip-flopped on the issue depending on whose ox is being gored. Cass Sunstein praised both Justices Barrett and Kagan for their lawyerly virtues. He wrote “They are not ideological; you read their opinions and you do not know anything about their politics.” Well, I think this is likely true about Barrett.
Trump isn’t wrong here either.
They’re an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have, it’s a no. You can’t knock their loyalty, one thing you can do with some of our people.
Trump contrasts the progressive Justices from the conservative Justices. The progressive justices never break rank when it counts. But “some of our people,” that is, the conservative Justices, do.
Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it’s happened so often with this court
He think Trump is using “politically correct” as a way of saying the Justices are being swayed by elite interests. It brings to mind Trump’s tweet about Chief Justice Roberts after the Obamacare case: “Wow, the Supreme Court passed @ObamaCare. I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew.”
This is the passage that has gotten the most attention.
What a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and, not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement. I won by millions of votes, we won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, we still won in a landslide. Too big to rig.
But these people are obnoxious, ignorant and loud. They’re very loud. And I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it.
Trump is simply wrong here. He has a difficult time understanding that Justices can rule in a certain way based on certain legal positions. In his view, the Justices can only reach this result by being under the sway of shadowy interests on the right and the left. I wish he hadn’t used the “fools and lapdogs” line, as he made so many other important points. But trying to get Trump to control his language is a fool’s errand. Solicitor General Sauer, who was standing right next to the President, likely had to hold back any emotion. And as I’ve noted before, Sauer is the most likely pick should a Justice retire. It will certainly not be someone who favors restoring power to Congress. Did any of the President’s lawyers tell him he would be weakened by appointing Justices who wanted to overrule Chevron, enforce the non-delegation doctrine, and weaken agencies? Which branch of government did those lawyers work for?
This might be one of the most important lines in the entire press conference.
I wanted to be very well-behaved because I wanted to do anything, I didn’t want to do anything, that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court.
I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy.
Trump, likely on advice of counsel, was told to not say anything bad about the Court while the case was pending lest he sway the decision. The implication here is clear: if Trump criticizes the Court, he is more likely to lose. Trump even acknowledged this point in his roast at the Alfalfa Club.
“I had the nastiest, most vicious joke about John Roberts,” he said of the Supreme Court chief justice. “If you think I’m going to tell that joke you can forget it.”
“I’m going to kiss his ass for a long time,” he added, an apparent reference to the role Roberts could play in deciding current and future cases involving Trump and his administration.
Do you see the problem? Judges are supposed to decide cases without fear or favor. Whatever a litigant says about the Judge should have no bearing, whatsoever, on the outcome of the case. But of course we know this isn’t true. The clear import of some of the commentary about Trump’s press conference is that he made it less likely that Justices Barrett will rule in his favor in future cases. Do you see the problem? Judges are human. Indeed, judges are even more sensitive than mere mortals. So much of the commentary you read about the Supreme Court involves kissing ass, in an attempt to curry favor. I’ve never followed that approach. I speak my mind, especially for the Justices on the right. Does that make it less likely my petition gets granted or my article get cited? You bet it does. But speaking the truth is always more important than kissing ass. And I’m glad Trump is not trying to be a good boy anymore.
All of those tariffs remain. They all remain. I don’t know if you know that or not. They all remain. We’re still getting them and we will after the decision. I guess there’s nobody left to appeal to.
But again, those three people, such respect. I’ve had a lot of respect for them anyway, but such great respect.
Well, there is always the “Appeal to Heaven.” Maybe Martha Ann Alito could donate a flag to be raised over the new East Wing?
Next, Trump makes an important legal point, which (at least to me) suggests he understands the legal analysis.
To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even one dollar. I can’t charge one dollar, can’t charge a dollar. I would have used one penny, but we don’t make the pennies anymore. We save money.
Can’t charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA, not one dollar, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting. That’s what they’re supposed to be protecting.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country. I’m even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can embargo, I can do anything I want, but I can’t charge one dollar because that’s not what it says, and that’s not the way it even reads. I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can’t charge any money. So I’m allowed to destroy the country, but I can’t charge them a little fee. I could give them a little two cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything.
Think of that. How ridiculous is that? I’m allowed to embargo them, I’m allowed to tell them you can’t do business in the United States anymore, “we want you out of here,” but I want to charge them $10. I can’t do that.
Justice Kavanaugh made this precise point in his dissent, which Trump internalized:
Context and common sense buttress that interpretation of IEEPA. The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports—meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment. As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China.
That approach does not make much sense.
The greater power to embargo should include the lesser power to tariff.
Next, Trump turned to licenses.
It’s incorrect, their decision is incorrect. But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision. You know, they’ve been approved by the decision for those that thought they had us.
And they’re saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. So think of that. I have the right to license. It’s a very powerful word in many ways, licenses more powerful than tariffs. In fact, I was thinking about using it, but they came up with the idea that I can license just like the people that were opposing me told them to do, but not the right to charge a license fee.
Think of that. Who ever heard of such a thing? What licence has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? You get a licence, you charge a fee. It’s automatic, but not with this court.
But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries, but a much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had. But not the right to charge a fee. How crazy is that?
During the oral arguments, there was extensive discussion of licensees. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett both pressed Neal Katyal on licenses. But licenses were barely mentioned in the majority or dissent. Something happened here. And it is strange that Trump fixated on this part of the case, even though it was not in the opinion. He must have remembered it from some earlier juncture. Again, underestimate Trump at your own peril.
Indeed, Trump suggests he actually read the opinion. If so, he did something that most pundits did not actually do:
Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was a dead country one-and-a-half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.
But I read the language. I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100 per cent. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.
Again, Kavanaugh’s stock has gone way up in the past year or so.
As Justice Kavanaugh — whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I’m so proud of him — wrote in his dissent, “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” So think of that, “the decision might not substantially constrain.” And it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start.
“Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That’s because numerous other federal statutes” — which is so true” — authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case.” Even more tariffs, actually.
“Those statutes include” — think of that — “those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232” — all of these things I know so well — “the Trade Act of 1974, Sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338.”
All clear, but it’s a little bit longer process. I thought I’d make things simple, but they didn’t let us do that.
I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment.
Later in the Q&A, he would suggest he is not proud of his appointment of Justice Gorsuch and Barrett. Tariffs are probably Trump’s most important issue. What is #2? Illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. Wait to see if Trump behaves like a “good boy” after Barbara.
Trump seems convinced that the Court blessed his ability to impose fees under other authorities. And, Trump thinks that Chief Justice Roberts didn’t even realize what he was doing. I doubt it, but that is an issue for another day.
In actuality, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don’t think they meant that. I’m sure they didn’t. It’s terrible.
The next point is key. Democrats worked so hard to oppose Trump’s three appointees. And when that failed, they favored packing the Court. But why pack the Court when Republican appointees vote the way they do?
And to think that the Democrats who oppose this, only because they want to go the opposite way, they’d like to pack the court. They want to put on 21 people. They want to pack the court, pack the Supreme Court. Maybe they should do it. Maybe they would be better off if they did it. They want to pack the court. They want to do anything to hurt our country.
Trump continues to say the Court blessed his use of different statutes to impose fees. And he returns to the license point, which really seems to be in stuck his craw.
There will no longer be any doubt, and the income coming in and the protection of our companies and country will actually increase because of this decision.
I don’t think the court meant that, but it’s the way it is.
Based on long-standing law and hundreds of victories — and even, as I was pointed out before, even thousands of victories over the years — to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particularly use of IEEPA tariffs.
And essentially it’s, they used to get a fee. I can do anything I want with IEEPA, anything. I just can’t charge anybody for it. I could licence, I just can’t charge them. It’s ridiculous. But it’s OK because we have other ways, numerous other ways.
The ability to block embargo, restrict, licence or impose any other condition on a foreign country’s ability to conduct trade with the United States under IEEPA has been fully confirmed by this decision.
So now there’s no doubt, because, you know, there were a lot of questions about tariffs, because no president was smart enough to use them to protect our country from those countries and businesses that were ripping us off. You took a look at the deficits that we had with some of these countries, it was disgraceful what they got away with for many, many decades.
But now we know, because this decision affirms all those things that some people weren’t sure about.
In order to protect — and it says so — in order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariff authorities. So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs — they’re existing, they’re there — remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect.
Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I say quite simply, which I’ve said for a long time, make America great again. And interestingly, we’ve already made it great, so I don’t have to use that. But I don’t think we’ll ever give up on MAGA. MAGA is always going to be with us.
If you have a few questions, you can let us know. But just to end so, we’re going forward, we will be able to take in more money, and there will no longer be doubt — because there was always doubt.
Trump returns by calling the people who brought the lawsuit a “sleazebag.”
I know the people that brought the lawsuit and, you know, they’re sleazebags, major sleazebags. But I know them, and they’re foreign country-centric. They were sending things into our country, and the people representing them knew full well, but they were sending things into our country, and they were beneficial to other countries, but very, very bad for us. And I stopped it. And we’ll just keep it going.
You might recall that in May 2025, after the Court of International Trade halted the tariffs, Trump called Leonard Leo a “sleazebag.”
So we have more of a, we have a totally firm decision now, and I don’t think the court meant it because the court doesn’t show great spirit toward our country, in my opinion. A lot of bad decisions, but there are usually ways around it.
This is something we could have done, as Justice Kavanaugh said, we could have done this originally, but we’re doing it now, and the numbers could be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.
Trump took nearly 30 minutes of questions. Here are some of the more important exchanges:
Thank you so much, Mr. President. Justice Thomas and Alito, as you know, are the most conservative constitutional justices. Do you think that you’ll get to a point two more justices later this term with similar ideologies? And what type of vetting process will they go through to ensure they uphold the constitution?
I don’t know, but they’re great justices. That’s all I can say and I hope they’re going to be around a long time. I hope they’re going to stay healthy. They’re great people, they’re great — and Justice Alito too, to add to the group. These are great — these are great men with a great love of our country and a great understanding of the law.
I recently observed that Trump has no incentive for Alito or Thomas to step down. Trump’s time horizon ends on January 20, 2029. Why would he push out the two Justices who are most likely to rule in his favor?
Thank you, Mr. President — You said ahead of the decision that if the Supreme Court — Yeah, please. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side and I don’t like them. I think they’re real slimeballs. And, uh, got to do what’s right for the country. You got to do what’s right for the Constitution. That’s why I respect so much, Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. When you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you’ll read a dissent and it’s like, well, you don’t know. It could go either way. There’s no other way. The good news is it’s like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don’t have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.
I really wonder how often Trump reads dissents, and thinks the case can go either way.
Do you regret appointing Amy Coney Barrett —
— I’m not — I’m not talking to you — — I’m talking — I don’t talk — I don’t talk to CNN. It’s fake news. Go ahead.
He did not answer this question. A reporter came back to it later. Trump deflected again:
Mr. President, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, are you surprised in particular by their decision today?
I am.
And do you regret nominating them?
I don’t want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yeah. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them. Yeah.
It is unfortunate Trump brought in their families. The Justices have faced death threats, and Justice Barrett’s family has also received threats. Leave the family out of it.
Trump did say something we were all thinking. How could the Court take as much time as it did and say absolutely nothing about the remedy. It’s almost like Chief Justice Roberts does not care at all about the practical consequences of his ruling. He just wants to get it off his plate.
Well, thank you for the question. And I will say this, we really are at a very important point. I’ve been waiting for this decision so long. They could have made this decision a long time ago, not complex. They’re wrong on it. It’s a ridiculous decision. But they should have released this a long time ago. We waited months and that gave uncertainty. Now we have certainty and I think you’re going to see the country get much stronger because of it. Look, we were ripped off by almost every country in the world. If you look at the surpluses, almost every country in the world that did business with us, our people were stupid.
Trump returned to the remedial question again.
Thank you, President Trump. So since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion?
Think of it. Think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don’t even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked, also, to make you feel good. I said what about all the money that we’ve taken in? Sir, they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that?
Mr. President — — Mr. President, what you’re saying is, are you saying that you don’t plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?
I just told you the answer, right? I told you the answer. It’s not discussed. We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.
One sentence would have been helpful. But we didn’t even get that.
If Justice Barrett does not come to the State of the Union, will it be in protest of the “lapdog” comment? And if so, wouldn’t that mean Trump’s broader point was right–that the Justices are swayed by political pressure.
Mr. President, on the tariff check — Supreme court justices who ruled against this — the policy, striking it down, are they still invited to your State of the Union next week? And will you speak with them?
They are invited, barely, barely. Three are happily invited, no, no, they’re barely — they’re barely invited. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come. OK?
At least Trump’s grammar is correct.
Thank you for reading this far. I suspect there are many typos here. Sorry. You’ll have to deal with them.
Tokenized Tyranny: How Elites Are Digitizing Our World for Total Control
I’ve followed investigative journalist Whitney Webb’s work for years, and her once-distant warnings now feel eerily prophetic as they unfold in real time. What she has consistently exposed, the systematic digitization and commodification of everything from natural ecosystems to human life itself, is no longer speculative theory. It’s happening before our eyes.
When I first encountered Whitney’s reporting, I found it hard to believe. Could this level of control and financialization truly be underway? It seemed too dystopian, too extreme. Yet after digging deeper the evidence was undeniable. What she described was not exaggeration. It was an accurate and meticulously documented reality.
The tokenization of nature and humanity represents a deliberate strategy by the world’s most powerful financial institutions. Figures like BlackRock’s Chairman and CEO Larry Fink have openly championed turning the planet’s resources, and increasingly aspects of human existence, into fractionalized, tradable digital assets on blockchain-based ledgers. This creates new avenues for elite profit and unprecedented surveillance and control.
With Fink now serving as Interim Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees (alongside André Hoffmann), the technocratic elite have gained an ideal global platform to accelerate this agenda. What better forum than the WEF to mainstream and fast-track “total control” from cradle to grave.
The process begins with assigning unique digital identifiers to virtually everything: land, water, forests, carbon credits, even personal behaviors and biological data. These are then logged on universal ledgers, where ownership is sliced into tradable fractions, much like stocks. But this goes far beyond traditional finance. It encompasses the Earth’s finite resources and, ultimately, the very essence of human life, all reduced to programmable, monetizable units in a centralized system of power.
This is tokenized tyranny in action: a quiet revolution that could redefine ownership, freedom, and existence itself..
Nature on the Chopping Block: From Forests to Fractional Shares
For nature, tokenization means chopping up wild places like the Amazon rainforest into digital securities. Each token represents a piece of land or ecosystem service such as clean air or biodiversity. Companies like O.N.E. Amazon, which is tied to U.S. intelligence and crypto investors, plan to issue these tokens backed by preservation deals. They cap the supply to make them scarce like digital gold. They install massive sensor networks and satellites to monitor every hectare in real time and collect data on everything from tree growth to animal movements. The data feeds into AI systems that manage the assets:
Each initiative will be structured under a transparent, science-based framework ensuring traceability, accountability, and full respect for Panama’s sovereignty. Future projects may also explore nature-backed digital instruments as mechanisms to channel private investment into measurable conservation outcomes.
Juan Carlos Navarro, Minister of Environment of Panama, stated: “As part of the partnership, O.N.E Amazon will pilot its proprietary Internet of Forests (IoF™️), an advanced monitoring system powered by satellites, LiDAR, and ground sensors, to provide real-time ecological intelligence that supports environmental governance and transparency.”
“O.N.E Amazon was created to align global capital with the conservation of our planet’s most valuable ecosystems. Together with Panama, we aim to demonstrate how innovation, transparency, and shared purpose can turn conservation into a true economic opportunity, one that benefits both nature and people. O.N.E Amazon is more than a financial instrument, it is a new contract between humanity, capital markets, and nature. When innovation meets purpose, markets become engines of regeneration,” said Rodrigo Veloso, Founder and CEO of O.N.E Amazon.
Whitney calls this tokenization of nature “borgifying” the environment (Remember Star Trek and the Borg). It turns planet earth into a controllable grid.
Involved parties include former BlackRock executives, Trump administration figures, and firms linked to stablecoins like Tether. They push this under the banner of sustainability while securing profits through inequitable deals with indigenous groups. Those groups get minimal shares and lose autonomy over their lands.
Greenwashing in Action: Tokenized Nature Happening Now
The WEF (World Economic Forum) is involved in turning nature into a commodity for investors to profit:
Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to returns and outcomes is out now! This insight report by World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company provides a practical framework for investors to unlock capital for nature. Key takeaways: A portfolio approach is essential: 10 priority solutions can offer investors and issuers pathways to investable returns and nature outcomes at scale. Model transactions need to be replicated: Over 20 examples of existing transactions show that success in nature finance isn’t just theory — but needs replication. Markets can’t solve nature loss alone: Traditional finance has a central role, but needs enabling policies, robust data, better de-risking mechanisms, and shifting norms to recognize nature’s full value.
Another example is Estonia’s Single Earth, which tokenizes forests, swamps, and biodiversity to back its MERIT token. It allows companies to buy fractional ownership for carbon offsets while claiming to make nature the new gold:
“Single.Earth closes the $700 billion nature financing gap by channeling ESG (Environmental Social Governance)-driven company funds to high-impact landowners, while assessing ecological data for maximum impact globally.
Bridging Nature and Finance, Climate and Biodiversity, Corporate Sustainability through Nature Financing Enterprises buy tokens to balance their impact on nature and boost ESG scores, securing a greener financial future.”
In the Central African Republic, the Sango Project is tokenizing land, timber, and diamond reserves to attract investors. It turns national resources into blockchain assets. Even traditional commodities are involved, with platforms tokenizing oil and gas reserves or renewable energy sources:
“The Central African Republic (CAR) has extended its Sango blockchain project to tokenization of its land and natural resources. The country, one of the poorest and most crypto-friendly in the world, is also one of the most active in crypto innovation.”
Eco-Dystopia Ahead: When Nature Becomes a Profit Machine
In a future society under this system, nature becomes a Wall Street product where investors buy fractions of forests or rivers without ever setting foot there. Any “conservation” is dictated by profit motives rather than ecological needs. Entire regions could be locked into debt-like swaps where countries trade resource rights for loans. This leads to foreign-owned wind farms or bioenergy plants that displace locals.
Whitney explains that this creates a tokenized world where natural disasters or climate events can spike token values. It encourages exploitation disguised as green finance. Ecosystems are managed by algorithms that prioritize financial returns over life itself. In the guise of saving ecosystems, they are tokenizing the world and making profit from their exploitation of planet earth.
Humans as Assets: The Financialization of Flesh and Blood
When it comes to human resources, Whitney extends tokenization to the financialization of people themselves. Human potential, data, and behaviors are tokenized into investable assets. This builds on impact investing where elites bet on social outcomes like reducing poverty or improving education through human capital bonds. It turns individuals into data points on a ledger.
Personal information, health records, DNA, and even daily actions get digitized and fractionalized and linked to digital IDs and programmable currencies that track and control spending. It all connects to broader agendas from groups like the World Economic Forum. Humans are seen as resources to be optimized. Blockchain ensures every aspect of life from skills to biometrics becomes a tradeable commodity.
From Blockchain to Ball and Chain
Blockchain is often sold as a liberating technology. It’s sold as a super-secure, shared digital notebook where transactions get recorded in unbreakable blocks that form a chain. These spread across thousands of computers worldwide so no single boss can tamper with it. It promises privacy and freedom from banks or governments. But from my skeptical angle, like the one Whitney Webb takes, it’s actually shaping up to be a high-tech ball and chain designed to track and control every aspect of our lives. This happens despite those privacy boasts. While blockchain claims to be decentralized and anonymous, most versions, like Bitcoin’s, create a permanent, public ledger where every transaction is traceable forever. This makes it easy for powerful entities from governments to corporations to follow your money trail. They link it to your identity through exchanges or data leaks. They can build detailed profiles on your habits, associations, and whereabouts.
Elites are co-opting this tech. They push for things like central bank digital currencies built on blockchain that tie your finances to digital IDs with biometrics. This turns everyday spending into a surveilled activity. In the future non-compliant behavior like buying the “wrong” things or associating with certain people could get you flagged, frozen out, or punished. This could mean a world where your blockchain-tracked data feeds into AI systems that predict, manipulate, reward or punish your actions.
The ultimate goal is to enforce rules through programmable money. The programmable money can expire, restrict purchases, and track everything you purchase automatically. This is being pushed under the guise of security and efficiency. Critics on X say that because blockchains are so public and open, it’s easy for others to watch everything you do and even jump ahead of your trades to make quick money off you.
They argue that without true privacy, decentralization just hands control to the most resourced spies. This echoes Webb’s expose on how Bitcoin’s traceability makes it a tool for destroying real financial privacy in favor of elite-controlled systems.
The Blockchain Enabler: Fueling Human Tokenization at Scale
This blockchain backbone is exactly what’s needed to make the tokenization of human resources possible on a massive scale. Without it, you couldn’t reliably slice up and trade fractions of someone’s skills, behaviors, or biometric data. Blockchain provides the immutable ledger that records every tokenized “share” of human capital.
Whether it’s your work output, health metrics, or social compliance, it links them permanently to your digital ID so the elites can monitor, value, and manipulate them in real time. It turns abstract human potential into concrete, programmable assets that can be bought, sold, or penalized without escape.
Human Commodification Unfolding: From Bonds to Biometrics
It seems truly unbelievable and dystopian but real-world implementations are creeping in through programs like social impact bonds.
There investors fund initiatives such as prisoner rehabilitation or early childhood education.
“The Human Capital Project (HCP) is a global initiative launched by the World Bank to inspire and inform investments in human capital”
It paves the way for tokenized investments in workforce development. In refugee aid, organizations use blockchain combined with biometric IDs like iris scans or fingerprints to deliver and track assistance. This is how they implement the plan byte by byte as seen in UN pilots from the World Food Programme’s Building Blocks project in Jordan, where refugees scan their eyes to buy food with aid stored on a blockchain ledger. Or UNHCR’s efforts in Ukraine distributing programmable stablecoin cash directly to digital wallets. These systems make aid traceable and “efficient.” But I see them turning vulnerable people into monitored data commodities under the guise of inclusion and empowerment.
Your Skills as Tradeable Tokens
Companies are experimenting with turning workers’ skills and performance into digital tokens on blockchain platforms. They break down things like work history, credentials, or gig results into small tradable pieces. This mostly targets gig workers: drivers, delivery people, freelancers who do temporary jobs through apps. Platforms verify and tokenize these, letting people buy, sell, or trade tiny fractions of a worker’s “value” (fractionalized trading: like slicing someone’s skills into shares anyone can own and trade, similar to buying a piece of a stock). It turns personal labor into digital assets that can be bought and sold.
I know this sounds wild and hard to believe for most folks. I didn’t buy it either until I dug into the research myself. It’s all part of a larger agenda to digitize and control everything, your job and skills, your land, even nature under a single digital system run by a tiny elite of powerful companies and tech oligarchs. Critics call this endgame a form of fascist dictatorship known as technocracy, where “experts” and algorithms dictate life instead of democratic choice.
For a real-world example happening today, check out platforms like LaborX (part of Chrono.tech), a blockchain-based freelance marketplace where gig workers’ skills and work history are verified on-chain, and payments/rewards can involve tradable tokens tied to performance bringing tokenized labor closer to reality in the gig economy: https://laborx.com/
The Ultimate Warning: A Tokenized Hellscape Awaits
In my depiction of a tokenized future, society looks like a giant database where people own nothing tangible, as the WEF slogan suggests. The WEF idea of happiness is enforced through surveillance. Everyone carries a digital ID that opens access to jobs, services, or even basic rights. Tokens represent shares in human capital markets that reward or punish based on compliance.
Governments and corporations use this to engineer behaviors like tying aid to biometric scans or tokenizing refugee programs for “inclusion.” But it really cements a system of digital serfdom. I see this leading to a loss of freedom where the elite overlords hold all the tokens. They manipulate markets to siphon wealth while the masses are reduced to monitored data streams in a hyper-financialized digital prison.
Technocracy Tokenopoly
The world’s billionaire elite, already far beyond any need for more wealth, now crave absolute power and control. They are quietly fulfilling the 1930s vision of the Technocracy movement led by Howard Scott and Technocracy Incorporated which declared that scientists, engineers, and technical experts should replace democratic governments and elected leaders. They viewed traditional republics and ordinary citizens as too irrational and uninformed to govern effectively, insisting only a data-driven, expert-ruled system could rationally manage resources and society for maximum efficiency.
Today this technocratic ideal unfolds through the tokenization of everything: rainforests, rivers, biodiversity, human labor, skills, behaviors, and data all turned into tradable blockchain assets under the guise of sustainability and inclusion. Earth and humanity become pieces in a high-stakes game, satirized in Tokenopoly, where players buy and sell properties like the Amazon Rainforest, Nile River, Niagara Falls, CAR resources, Human Labor, and Biodiversity Credits, with cards commanding “Collect 100 Tokens” or “Go Directly to Digital Wallet.” Using AI, surveillance grids, programmable money, and immutable ledgers, the elite claim dominance and enforce compliance, building the tokenized, borgified system of digital serfdom
To pull off this nightmare, elites and tech oligarchs are racing to build AI data centers at breakneck speed devouring massive amounts of fresh water and energy just to hoard every scrap of our tokenized data. They can’t build them fast enough, but that desperation is our opening. People are waking up to their plan as their electric bills go sky high and their fresh water is drained by the data centers. People are starting to speak out.
Could their pride be their downfall?
How supremely arrogant of these self-anointed digital overlords to imagine they hold proprietary title over nature itself and over human beings, treating both as resources to be patented, monetized, and managed. How breathtakingly hubristic for them to insist that scientists, engineers, and technocratic elites are better suited to govern than the democratic process, elected representatives, and the will of the people.
Proverbs 16:18 – Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Expose their plan before it’s too late.
Don’t let them Borgify us and turn free humans into obedient, trackable nodes in their machine. Don’t let them steal nature and turn it into a commodity for the elite. Get active locally. Resist immediately. Slow their rollout to a crawl. The future isn’t theirs yet. We claim it by saying NO!
Resistance is NOT futile.
We will NOT comply.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
