Archive

2025

Browsing

Gold has been in the headlines over the last few months, perhaps more so now than in years. This heightened attention stems from shifts in global conditions, including worldwide inflation, escalating geopolitical tensions, a surge in central bank gold purchases, de-dollarization efforts, and the influence of BRICS nations.

If you follow financial media, $3,000 an ounce is the key number, according to analysts from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citi research, though their timings may vary.

Regardless, the global economy can change a lot over the next few months, especially when the new White House administration takes hold. So, despite analyst projections, keep a close eye on the technical action, as it will likely reflect these changes moving forward.

The weekly chart of gold futures ($GOLD) below gives a wider perspective on gold prices today.

FIGURE 1. WEEKLY CHART OF GOLD FUTURES. Note how gold started going slightly parabolic in March 2024. Is it topping?Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Gold began its upward trend after hitting a low during the fall of 2022. Throughout most of 2023, the yellow metal remained trapped within a broad trading range. However, in March 2024, gold broke out of this range, gaining significant momentum. This rally culminated in a three-month consolidation pattern, which is where gold is today.

Side note: While this consolidation pattern may resemble a symmetrical triangle to many, it lacks a few key characteristics—especially in terms of volume—so I am reluctant to label it as such.

Gold is generally considered to have a negative correlation with the US Dollar ($USD). As shown in the price overlay, the dollar has been rising since October 2024. Typically, when the dollar strengthens, gold prices decline. However, gold’s reaction to the dollar’s recent advance appears to be relatively subdued so far. So where does that leave us now, with rate-cut uncertainties weighing on market sentiment and inflation data, namely the CPI and PPI, set for release this week?

Shift over to a daily chart comparing $GOLD with the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD), a popular choice for stock investors seeking exposure to gold. I’ll compare both charts since they differ slightly.

FIGURE 2. DAILY CHART OF GOLD FUTURES AND GLD. Note the differences between the ETF and the futures, despite their correlations. Note that $GOLD is EOD, so you are not seeing the current decline at the time of writing.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The difference between gold in the futures market and GLD is quite notable. Since futures trade 24 hours a day, price gaps are rare. Additionally, trading volume differs slightly, with the futures market typically attracting larger institutional traders compared to GLD.

If you follow financial news, you may have noticed that many analysts highlight $2,600 as a key support level, suggesting that gold has the potential for further upside. This would be comparable to $238-$240 in GLD. If gold breaks below those levels, the next swing low, one that marks the lowest price point of the consolidation, it would be near $2,544, and for GLD it’s at $236. A break below these levels would invalidate the current uptrend and potentially lead to more downside.

In this scenario, it’s important to reevaluate the broader context—considering technical, fundamental, and geopolitical factors—to gain a clearer understanding of what might be unfolding.

If you’re curious about the momentum and money flow for $GOLD and GLD, you’ll notice a slight difference in their readings. This disparity could provide some actionable insights.

Take a look at a daily chart of gold futures:

FIGURE 3. DAILY CHART OF GOLD FUTURES. Compare this to the GLD chart below, which has the same set of indicators.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) shows a slight rise in momentum starting at the pattern’s low shown in the previous chart; currently, the RSI is above the 50-line and rising.The Accumulation/Distribution Line (ADL) marks the difference between the futures and the ETF. Here, the ADL line has risen above the price whereas it had been moving below it and then unison to it. This paints a picture of bullish accumulation potentially leading price toward a positive breakout.

The daily chart of GLD doesn’t show the same ADL reading.

FIGURE 4. DAILY CHART OF GLD. The ADL reading is declining rather than ascending here.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The RSI is the same as the $GOLD chart above, but the ADL in GLD’s chart appears to be descending rather than ascending. This suggests that money flow is decreasing in GLD, while it is increasing in the gold futures market.

Here’s one way to interpret this: If the ADL is rising in the futures but declining in the ETF, it could indicate a divergence in behavior between both markets: institutional and large-scale traders are accumulating positions, signaling confidence in gold, while retail investors are taking profits, less certain about gold’s prospects or more concerned about its risks.

Essentially, this brings up the question: If the institutional traders are the so-called “smart money,” are they going to lead gold higher before the retail crowd jumps in? That’s something to keep in mind as you chart the market.

At the Close

Gold remains a focal point in today’s market, much of it driven by economic and macroeconomic concerns. If gold prices break out above or below its current consolidation range, keep an eye on the key levels. Also, note that institutional actions currently differ from retail sentiment. Is the “smart money” leaning more bullish? That’s something to consider in the days ahead.

Again, the larger economic context is slippery and subject to variants, meaning conditions can change quickly. So, if you want to invest in gold, monitor these changes closely.

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

Boeing handed over 348 airplanes in 2024, about a third fewer than it did a year earlier as the aerospace giant struggled with a crisis after a midair door panel blowout a year ago and a machinist strike in the fall that halted production.

The tally widened the delivery gap with Boeing’s chief rival, Airbus, which gave 766 jetliners to customers last year, the most since 2019, though both companies are facing supply chain strains that have slowed production and fulfillment of their otherwise robust backlogs.

In December, Boeing delivered 30 airplanes as it restarted production of its bestselling 737 Max planes after the nearly eight-week machinist strike ended the month before. Deliveries are key for manufacturers because it is when customers pay the bulk of an airplane’s price.

A shortage of aircraft from suppliers has driven up lease rates, with rentals expected to hit records this year, aviation data firm IBA said in a report this month.

Boeing logged 142 gross orders in December for new planes, including 100 737 Maxes for Turkey’s Pegasus Airlines and 30 787s for flydubai, whose intention to purchase was first unveiled at the Dubai Air Show in late 2023. Boeing also took more than 130 orders off its books for India’s now-defunct carrier Jet Airways.

Boeing’s gross orders for the year stood at 569, while net orders were 377 airplanes — 317 including accounting adjustments. Airbus, which released its December and full-year tally last week, said it logged 878 gross orders last year and 826 net orders.

Boeing is scheduled to report fourth-quarter and full-year results before the market opens on Jan. 28, when CEO Kelly Ortberg and other Boeing leaders will face investor questions about their plans to ramp up production and restore the aerospace giant’s profitability.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Families who lost loved ones during the disastrous 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan are throwing their support behind Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth, who President-elect Trump tapped to head the Defense Department, underwent questioning from the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, where he faced over four hours of questioning from Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

The Abbey Gate Coalition, a group of the parents and families of those who tragically lost their lives in a terrorist attack after President Biden withdrew troops from Afghanistan, penned a letter to senators on Tuesday urging them to confirm Trump’s defense nominee and doubling down on their criticism of the current administration’s handling of the deadly event.

‘We have been sitting by watching the current administration do nothing but attempt to take victory laps and thumb their noses at the sacrifice that our children made on that fateful day,’ the letter reads. ‘They have had no interest in giving us any of those answers that we seek, and have attempted to put Afghanistan in the rear view mirror as was further evidenced yesterday in President Biden’s final address on his foreign affairs and his supposed successes.’

The coalition has been critical of the Biden administration since the withdrawal, writing in the letter that they have been ‘stonewalled’ by his administration.

‘We have been stonewalled at every turn and only given ‘bread-crumbs’ to attempt to make us just go away! We feel that there has been a complete coverup at the department of Defense with the current Secretary of Defense leading the way,’ the coalition wrote.

The families said the process for accountability over Afghanistan begins with the confirmation of Hegseth to lead the Defense Department.

‘We ask that you please hear our words and feel the pain that we do, knowing that it was avoidable in respect to what happened to our children,’ the letter reads.

The Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan led to the deaths of 13 U.S. service members defending the Kabul airport during the operation, while hundreds of Americans and tens of thousands of Afghan allies were left in the country under Taliban rule. Conservative critics, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the withdrawal paved the way for adversaries such as Russia to invade Ukraine. 

The Taliban claimed control of Afghanistan following the withdrawal. 

The families who lost loved ones during the botched withdrawal have previously and repeatedly slammed Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over their deaths, including launching a scathing defense attack against Harris – when she was running for president – after the anniversary of the withdrawal last year. Parents and other loved ones claimed that the ‘administration killed my son’ and that they ‘have not seen any support from you or your administration.’

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly remembered the service members who died, and invited their families to the Republican convention in Milwaukee in July. 

‘Look at our faces. Look at our pain, and our heartbreak. And look at our rage. [The Afghanistan withdrawal] was not an extraordinary success,’ said Cheryl Juels, the aunt of Marine Sgt. Nicole Gee, at the RNC. ‘Joe Biden owes the men and women who served in Afghanistan a debt of gratitude, and an apology.’

​​’While Joe Biden has refused to recognize their sacrifice, Donald Trump spent six hours in Bedminster with us,’ said the mother-in-law of Nicole Gee at the RNC. ‘He allowed us to grieve, he allowed us to remember our heroes. Donald Trump knew all of our children’s names, he knew their stories, and he spoke to us in a way that made us feel understood, like he knew our kids.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, faced a Senate grilling on Tuesday as lawmakers determine whether they will vote in support of the nominee. 

Hegseth faced intense questioning from Democrats in his Armed Services Committee hearing, including his previous comments related to women serving in military combat roles, and was also interrupted by protesters who disturbed the hearing at some points. 

Trump nominated Hegseth in November, just days after his decisive election win over Vice President Harris, lauding him ‘as a Warrior for the Troops, and for the Country.’

After Hegseth wrapped up his hours-long hearing, Fox News Digital compiled the top five moments. 

Hegseth’s emotional opening remarks

Hegseth became emotional during his opening remarks on Tuesday morning while thanking his wife and other family members for supporting him through the nomination process. 

‘Thank you to my incredible wife, Jennifer, who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. I love you, sweetheart, and I thank God for you,’ he said, beginning to choke up. 

‘And as Jenny and I pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome, belongs to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,’ he said. ‘His grace and mercy abounds each day. May His will be done.’

Hegseth, a former Fox News host, married Jennifer in 2013, with the couple sharing a blended family of seven children. 

‘Thank you to my father, Brian and Mother Penny, as well as our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids: Gunner, Jackson, Peter Boone, Kensington, Luke, Rex … Gwendolyn. Their future safety and security is in all of our hands,’ he said.

Sen. Hirono claims Hegseth would lead a military invasion of Greenland if confirmed

Democrat Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono was slammed on social media Tuesday during the hearing for asking Hegseth if he would lead a military invasion of Greenland if confirmed as the secretary of defense. 

‘[The] president-elect has attacked our allies in recent weeks, refusing to rule out using military force to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal and threatening to take, to make Canada the 51st state. Would you carry out an order from President Trump to seize Greenland, a territory of our NATO ally Denmark, by force? Or would you comply with an order to take over the Panama Canal?’ Hirono asked on Tuesday. 

Trump has said in recent weeks that he hopes to purchase Greenland from Denmark, referred to Canada as the U.S.’s ’51st state’ and outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Canada’s ‘governor,’ and he has also vowed to ‘demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.’

Hegseth brushed off Hirono’s question during the hearing, saying, ‘Trump never strategically tips his hand.’

‘I would never publicly state one way or another to direct the orders of the president,’ Hegseth responded.

Viewers of the exchange erupted on social media after Hirono’s question, including labeling her the ‘least intelligent Member of Congress’ and others calling the grilling a ‘clown show.’

‘Hirono was playing judge, jury, and executioner based on lies and stupidity,’ Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., wrote in a post on X.

Hearing erupts into protests

Hegseth’s opening remarks during the hearing were interrupted by a handful of protesters as they shouted at the nominee about the war in Israel and called him a ‘Christian Zionist’ and a ‘misogynist.’

‘Veterans are committing suicide and are homeless, but we send money to bomb children in Gaza,’ one female protester in fatigues shouts as she’s escorted from the hearing, Fox News Digital video shows. 

At least three protesters were seen being hauled out of the hearing in zip ties or with their hands behind their backs. 

‘You are a misogynist,’ one protester shouts at Hegseth. 

‘Thank you for figuratively and literally having my back,’ Hegseth said after he was interrupted, returning to his opening statement. ‘I pledge to do the same for all of you.’

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Hegseth about the protesters during his hearing, including the war in Israel that has been ongoing since October 2023. 

‘Another protester, and I think this one was a member of Code Pink, which, by the way, is a Chinese communist front group these days, said that you support Israel’s war in Gaza. I support Israel’s existential war in Gaza. I assume, like me and President Trump, you support that war as well,’ Cotton said.

‘I support Israel destroying and killing every last member of Hamas,’ Hegseth responded. 

‘And the third protester said something about 20 years of genocide. I assume that’s our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think our troops are committing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan?’ Cotton continued. 

‘Senator, I do not. I think … our troops, as you know, as so many in this committee know, did the best they could with what they had. … And tragically, the outcome we saw in Afghanistan under the Biden administration put a stain on that, but it doesn’t put a stain on what those men and women did in uniform, as you know full well, Senator,’ Hegseth responded. 

Hegseth repeatedly grilled on support of women in combat roles

The nominee was repeatedly grilled by senators regarding his previous comments on women serving in combat roles, including by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

‘You say we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. So specific to Sen. Cotton’s question, because Sen. Cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat, specifically as secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now?’ Gillibrand asked. 

Her question referred to Hegseth’s 2024 book, which states, ‘Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in combat units.’

Hegseth pushed back that his argument related to women serving in the military focuses on military standards not eroding. 

‘Senator, I appreciate your comments. And I would point out I’ve never disparaged women serving in the military. I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform, past and present. My critiques, senator, recently and in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances where I’ve seen standards lowered,’ he responded. 

Ernst, a veteran and Republican who initially did not publicly support Hegseth’s nomination, also questioned the nominee’s views on women in the military, saying he had a platform to make his opinions ‘very clear.’ 

‘I want to know, again, let’s make it very clear for everyone here today, as secretary of defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?’ Ernst asked. 

Hegseth again redirected the conversation back to his concerns over ensuring military standards remain high. 

‘Senator, first of all, thank you for your service. As we discussed extensively as well, and my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, combat roles given the standards remain high, and we’ll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded,’ Hegseth responded. 

Ernst also pressed Hegseth on what efforts he would take to combat sexual assault within the ranks, noting it as one of her top three concerns surrounding the military.

‘A priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. This has been so important,’ Ernst said. ‘Sen. Gillibrand and I have worked on this, and we were able to get changes made to the uniform code of military justice to make sure that we have improvements and on how we address the tragic and life-altering issues of rape, sexual assault. It will demand time and attention from the Pentagon under your watch, if you are confirmed.’

‘So, as secretary of defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response?’ she asked.

Hegseth said that, as they had previously discussed, he would appoint an official to such a role.

Dem Sen. Kaine grills SecDef nominee over infidelity in front of young daughter 

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., hit Hegseth with a handful of personal questions, including the timing of his extramarital affairs, as Hegseth’s 7-year-old daughter sat feet away during the hearing. 

‘I want to return to the incident that you referenced a minute ago that occurred in Monterey, California, in October 2017. At that time, you were still married to your second wife, correct?’ Kaine asked, referring to a 2017 accusation of sexual assault against Hegseth. The nominee was investigated and cleared of wrongdoing.

‘I believe so,’ Hegseth responded.

‘And you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife,’ Kaine pressed. Hegseth has been married three times. 

‘Senator, I was falsely charged, and I [was] fully investigated and completely cleared,’ Hegseth said. 

Kaine shot back, ‘So you think you are completely cleared because you committed no crime? That’s your definition of cleared?’

‘You had just fathered a child two months before by a woman that was not your wife,’ he continued before citing that Hegseth’s daughter was in the audience. ‘I am shocked that you would stand here and say you are completely cleared. Can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child who had been born two months before?’

‘Senator, her child’s name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she’s a child of God,’ Hegseth responded.

‘She’s 7 years old, and I am glad she’s here,’ he added.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller, Aubrie Spady and Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., invoked secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth’s daughter during a heated hearing, prompting pushback from conservatives on social media who argued that the comments crossed a line. 

So you think you are completely cleared because you committed no crime?’ the former vice presidential candidate said to Hegseth during his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday. 

‘That’s your definition of cleared. You had just fathered a child two months before by a woman that was not your wife. I am shocked that you would stand here and say you’re completely cleared. Can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child who had been born two months before? And you tell us you are completely cleared? How is that completely cleared?’

Kaine was commenting on Hegseth’s behavior in earlier marriages, including an October 2017 incident in Monterey, California, in which Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, was later cleared of wrongdoing following an investigation, and has since described the incident as consensual. ‘I was fully investigated and completely cleared,’ he said of the allegation.

‘Senator, her child’s name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she’s a child of God,’ Hegseth responded. ‘She’s 7 years old, and I am glad she’s here.’

And you cheated on the mother of that child,’ Kaine responded. ‘Less than two months after that daughter was born, didn’t you?’

Hegseth told Kaine those were ‘false charges’ and reiterated that he was ‘completely cleared’ and ‘grateful’ to the marriage he has to the ‘amazing woman’ behind him.

Kaine persisted, ‘You’ve admitted that you had sex at that hotel in October 2017. You said it was consensual. Isn’t that correct?’

The two continued to go back and forth on the veracity of the claims against Hegseth, with Kaine pressing the nominee on whether he honored his wedding vow. 

‘I will allow your words to speak for themselves,’ Hegseth said at one point. 

As I’ve acknowledged to everyone in this committee, I’m not a perfect person. I’m not claiming to be,’ Hegseth said before being cut off by Kaine, who went on to accuse Hegseth of withholding information about the accusation when being vetted by the Trump team. 

Kaine ultimately moved on to questioning Hegseth about his relationship with drinking and other allegations that Hegseth has dismissed as ‘false.’

Conservatives on social media, along with Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., at another point in the hearing, took issue with Kaine’s line of questioning, particularly invoking Hegseth’s daughter.

‘Senator Tim Kaine really did try to use Pete Hegseth’s 7 year old daughter against him, despicable,’ conservative commentator Drew Hernandez posted on X. 

‘IRONY ALERT: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) tries to lecture Pete Hegseth on adultery,’ The First TV posted on X. ‘Reminder that Tim Kaine ran on the same failed presidential ticket as Hillary Clinton, legal wife of Bill Clinton.’

‘Tim Kaine has a lot to say about Pete Hegseth’s conduct during his marriage,’ Article III Project senior counsel Will Chamberlain posted on X. ‘Here’s Tim Kaine campaigning with Doug Emhoff, who – while married – impregnated his nanny and forced her to get an abortion.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Kaine’s office for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Biden administration lifted Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism on Tuesday, reversing a move made by the Trump administration in 2021.

The decision, which is reportedly part of a Catholic Church-sponsored deal to free political prisoners in Cuba, was first reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday. 

In a certification that Biden issued later Tuesday afternoon, he claimed that the Cuban government ‘has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period,’ as well as ‘provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.’

‘The United States maintains as the core objective of our policy the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba.,’ a national security memo issued by the White House read. ‘Achieving these goals will require practical engagement with Cuba and the Cuban people beyond what is outlined in NSPM-5 [National Security Presidential Memorandum 5], and that takes into account recent developments in Cuba and the changing regional and global context.’

‘Accordingly, I hereby revoke NSPM-5.’

Cuba was given the designation in January 2021, shortly before Biden took office. At the time, the U.S. Embassy of Cuba accused the country of ‘repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism in granting safe harbor to terrorists.’

‘The Trump Administration has been focused from the start on denying the Castro regime the resources it uses to oppress its people at home, and countering its malign interference in Venezuela and the rest of the Western Hemisphere,’ the statement read. ‘With this action, we will once again hold Cuba’s government accountable and send a clear message: the Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice.’

The statement referenced Raul Castro, the then-first secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba and the brother of notorious dictator Fidel Castro. According to the State Department, Cuba was first named a state sponsor of terrorism in 1982, and the designation was rescinded in 2015.

‘Cuba maintains close and collaborative ties with designated state sponsors of terror such as Iran and North Korea,’ the State Department’s 2019 report read. ‘The Cuban regime continues to host ELN leaders associated with now-defunct peace talks to reside in Cuba, despite Colombia’s repeated requests for their extradition. Cuba also continues to harbor multiple fugitives who committed or supported acts of terrorism in the United States.’

 

‘The Cuban people are courageously standing up for their freedoms after 62 years of subjugation under a communist dictatorship,’ Rubio said of the 2021 protests. ‘This is truly a historic moment, and one that as a Cuban American I’m proud to witness. The people of Cuba have made their voices clear. We must stand in support of the Cuban people’s ongoing efforts to live in a nation free from tyranny and censorship.’ 

Before Tuesday’s announcement was made, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, denounced the Biden administration’s move, calling it ‘unacceptable on its merits.’

‘The terrorism advanced by the Cuban regime has not ceased,’ Cruz said in a statement. ‘I will work with President Trump and my colleagues to immediately reverse and limit the damage from the decision.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department, but officials declined to comment. Fox News Digital also reached out to the White House for confirmation.

Fox News’ Caroline McKee contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A group of House Republicans is pushing to completely block U.S. funding for the World Health Organization (WHO).

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, policy chair for the conservative House Freedom Caucus, introduced the bill on Tuesday and argued the international health body ‘doesn’t serve our interests and doesn’t deserve our money.’

He also attacked WHO member countries’ current effort to draft an international pandemic preparedness treaty, accusing the organization of a bid to consolidate and further its own influence.

‘Taking money from hardworking families struggling with the aftermath of Biden’s inflation crisis to send it to a bunch of leftist ‘public health’ tyrants in Geneva is unacceptable,’ Roy told Fox News Digital.

‘I am confident that President Trump will cut the WHO’s funding off — as he did last time — but this legislation will ensure that no future administration can restart it.’

At least a dozen GOP lawmakers are backing the bill.

A significant number of Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump, have been critical of the WHO, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump announced he was halting funding to the WHO during his first term in April 2020, a move that drew blowback from the U.S. medical community, Politico reported at the time.

‘Fighting a global pandemic requires international cooperation and reliance on science and data,’ Patrice Harris, president of the American Medical Association, told the outlet.

However, conservatives in Congress have viewed the organization as a power-hungry group that did not take U.S. interests into account.

The U.S. is currently the biggest contributor to the WHO, according to World Population Review. The organization’s website states that 60% of its funding comes from member states.

Roy’s ‘No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act’ would stop all contributions to WHO, both committed and other voluntary funding.

A spokesperson for WHO said the body was focused on maintaining its relationship with the U.S. when reached for comment on Roy’s bill.

‘The WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said in December, at a press conference, that the new U.S. administration has not yet taken office and it requires time, like any new government, to do so. As Dr Tedros has said, WHO will do everything to cooperate with the incoming U.S. administration to continue to strengthen global health security,’ the spokesperson said.

‘I would add that the WHO-US partnership, and America’s contribution to global health security more broadly, has protected and saved millions of lives in America and around the world. WHO values greatly its relationship with the US and is committed to maintaining and strengthening it.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Rashida Jones, the president of MSNBC, announced Tuesday that she is stepping down after four years of steering the cable news network.

Jones, who made history as the first Black executive to lead a major U.S. television news network, made the announcement to top MSNBC anchors, leaders and network staff on Tuesday morning. (MSNBC and NBC News are both units of NBCUniversal.)

Rebecca Kutler, the network’s senior vice president of content strategy, was named interim MSNBC president. Jones, who recruited Kutler to the network in 2022, plans to stay on in an advisory role until March.

Rebecca Kutler will be interim president of the network.MSNBC

“I came to this decision over the holidays while reflecting on our remarkable journey and the many successes we’ve achieved together as a team. This has been the most rewarding chapter of my professional career and I am immensely proud of what we have accomplished, which has been made possible only by you,” Jones said in a memo to staff.

The announcement comes nearly two months after Comcast announced a plan to spin off most of its cable TV networks into a separate publicly traded company, currently known as SpinCo. The new company will include MSNBC, CNBC, the USA Network, Oxygen, E!, SYFY and the Golf Channel.

Jones took charge of MSNBC in February 2021 after the inauguration of President Joe Biden and the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol. She drove MSNBC to ratings triumphs on major political nights.

She retained and signed new long-term deals with the network’s top talent, including Rachel Maddow. She also created a live event series; relaunched a new mobile app and premium subscription series; and made investments in other network digital offerings.

MSNBC has seen a post-election ratings dip. The network still ended last year as the No. 2 network across cable, with 807,000 average viewers daily and 1.3 million viewers in the prime-time hours.

Rashida Jones.MSNBC

The cable television business writ large is at a crossroads as consumers move toward streaming alternatives such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. In this business environment, some cable channels remain profitable with healthy cash flows, but other brands have rapidly declined.

In a memo to staff, Mark Lazarus, the incoming chief executive of SpinCo, praised Jones for her years helming MSNBC.

“Rashida has expertly navigated MSNBC through a years-long, unrelenting and unprecedented news cycle, all while driving the network to record viewership and making investments in nonlinear businesses. MSNBC is well-positioned for the future,” Lazarus said in a memo to staff.

Lazarus told staff members on a network call that MSNBC will retain its name after the spin-off transaction is complete.

Jones previously served as senior vice president of NBC News and MSNBC, overseeing and leading the production of cross-network special events, including election night coverage and presidential debates.

Kutler came to MSNBC from CNN, where she spent two decades, most recently as a senior vice president.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk will likely claim office space at the White House as he prepares to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to a new report.

Musk may occupy space in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building right next to the West Wing that houses the bulk of office space for White House staffers, the New York Times reports.

Musk and transition officials have talked about what Musk’s access to President-elect Trump will look like after the inauguration, but solidified plans are pending, according to the outlet, which noted that usually special passes are required for those to freely visit the West Wing.

Musk is heading up DOGE with tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy as they target ways to eliminate government spending, waste and streamline efficiency and operations. However, the paper reported that it’s uncertain whether Ramaswamy is also expected to occupy White House office space.

DOGE is not part of the federal government but rather is a blue-ribbon committee that is expected to suggest executive orders for the Trump administration and work alongside the Office of Management and Budget to execute reforms.

DOGE’s objective is to cut $2 trillion from the federal government budget through efforts to slash spending, government programs and the federal workforce.

However, Musk recently cast doubt on the likelihood of eliminating $2 trillion from the federal budget and said there was a better chance at cutting $1 trillion.

‘I think we’ll try for $2 trillion. I think that’s like the best-case outcome,’ Musk said during tech trade show CES last week in Las Vegas. ‘But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting $1 [trillion].’

The Washington Post reported this month that aides for Musk and Ramaswamy had started interviewing staffers from government agencies for DOGE, including the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. 

Approximately 50 people are part of DOGE’s team, which is seeking to expand to roughly 100 staffers by the inauguration. These staffers are working from SpaceX’s offices in Washington, D.C., according to the Washington Post. 

Those close to Musk, who donated millions of dollars to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, said he is still determining whether he will take on the role of leading DOGE as a special government employee and, therefore, be required to file financial disclosure forms, the New York Times reports. 

But certain restrictions could apply if Musk chooses to forgo special government employee status, such as requiring public meetings and sharing DOGE documents with the public, according to the outlet. 

Musk, along with other tech industry titans and venture capitalists, are slated to meet in Washington, D.C., this week for a dinner to discuss global innovation in artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship with incoming Trump administration officials. 

Outside the Box Ventures, a firm founded last year by journalist-turned-investment banker Katherine Tarbox and French Ambassador to the U.S. Laurent Bili, is sponsoring the dinner.

‘This gathering represents more than discussion. We hope it symbolizes a new chapter in public-private collaboration to harness technology’s transformative power for the nation’s future,’ a source close to the planning told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital’s Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Editor’s note: The following commentary was first published on the author’s blog: Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.

The release of the first part of Jack Smith’s report at midnight on Tuesday night was the special counsel’s version of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision: we had seen it before. 

Putting aside the public filings where Smith fought to get this information out before the election, there was little new in the report. What the report did not contain is an explanation of how Smith destroyed his own cases against Trump. However, one notable element was Smith’s reliance on a dubious concurrence by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the subject of a prior column on my blog about what would be an interpretation that was too clever by half.

Much of the report was vintage Smith in dismissing countervailing precedent and insisting that he could ‘obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.’ He may be right about obtaining a conviction before a Washington, D.C. jury and a highly motivated judge against Trump.  However, he would not have been able to sustain any conviction — and this report makes that abundantly clear.

Smith repeats the same conclusory evidence, such as citing how Donald Trump said ‘fight’ ten times in his January 6, 2021, speech. He minimized the immunity decision by removing some evidence but kept largely the original indictment. However, the treatment of the obstruction claims was the most telling and indicative of Smith, who has repeatedly lost cases due to overextending constitutional and statutory authority.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States rejecting the use of obstruction of legal proceedings against January 6th defendants will potentially impact hundreds of cases. For some, it may lead to dismissals or, in cases with multiple charges, resentencings. 

One of those cases that will be impacted is the pending prosecution of President-elect Donald Trump who is facing four charges, including two obstruction counts. It was not clear if Special Counsel Jack Smith would yield to the decision or possibly take the dubious path laid out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her concurrence.

However, Smith tended to push the law to the breaking point to bag defendants. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

As I wrote previously after the decision, ‘It is doubtful that [Smith] will go quietly into the night after the Fischer decision.’ In most cases, a prosecutor would go back and secure a superseding indictment in light of the loss of the obstruction claims. Those claims were central to the narrative of the government under the Trump indictment. However, I wrote that it ‘is not Smith’s style’ to yield to precedent and that he would likely ‘take a not-so-subtle hint from Jackson in her concurrence.’

Jackson supported the majority in finding that the obstruction provision, Section 1512(c), was enacted after the Enron case to address the destruction of documents and records.

Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly obstructing an official proceeding by altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or other object with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. However, a second provision under subsection (c)(2) allowed for charges that would ‘otherwise’ obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. The Court held that the obstruction cases under Section 1512(c)(2) must be tied to impairing the integrity or availability of evidence.

However, in a single justice concurrence, she added a way that Smith and other prosecutors might still be able to shoehorn January 6th into a Section 1512 offense:

‘That official proceeding [Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote] plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding ‘in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).’ Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.’

Once again, no other Supreme Court justice joined Jackson in the concurrence.

Right on cue, Smith revealed that he was going to do precisely what I feared in taking a position supported by a single justice. In his report, Smith wrote:

‘Mr. Trump’s and his co-conspirators’ obstruction involved replacing valid elector certificates from the contested states with false ones they had manufactured-the Office anticipated the possibility of such a result in Fischer and confirmed that the evidence would prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even under a narrow interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).’

Just saying that a proceeding involves ‘certain records’ is transparently artificial and forced. Even the submission of an alternative slate of electors is not the destruction of electors certified by the secretaries of state.

The federal law allows for challenges in Congress, which Democrats previously utilized without claims of insurrections or attacks on democracy. J6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., voted to challenge the certification of the 2004 results of President George W. Bush’s reelection; committee member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016. Both did so under the very law that Trump’s congressional supporters used in 2020. And then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., praised the challenge organized by then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in 2004.

Those challenges under the same loose theory could have been viewed as attempting to negate or destroy certifications from the states. It would have likely, in my view, result in another reversal. However, Smith is always about securing convictions more than sustaining appeals. That is why he filed the second case in D.C., where he was given the best possible judge for the prosecution, a judge viewed by many as predisposed against Trump.

In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan had said that the rioters ‘were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.’ She added then, ‘[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.’ That ‘one person’ was then brought to her for trial by Smith.

So Smith was going to proceed on the theory of a single justice with the help of a favorable jury and a motivated judge. Little has changed with Smith since his unanimous reversal in the McDonnell case, which seems much of the reason that he was appointed.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS