CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

The recent U.S. operation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro demonstrated that military power is not only about troop numbers or superior combat technology.

With the successful extraction of Maduro and his wife from a military compound in just 2.5 hours, the extremely effective operation showed how far training, intelligence, and logistics go towards driving military power.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, ranks the world’s most powerful militaries in 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from the Global Firepower Index, which assesses 145 countries.

The World’s Top Military Powers

The index evaluates more than 60 factors, including active military manpower, land, air and naval assets, logistics, natural resources, and geographic considerations.

Importantly, a lower Military Power Index score indicates greater overall strength.

Rank	Country	Military Power Index	Active Military Manpower
1	???? United States	0.07	1,328,000
2	???? Russia	0.08	1,320,000
3	???? China	0.08	2,035,000
4	???? India	0.12	1,455,550
5	???? South Korea	0.17	600,000
6	???? United Kingdom	0.18	184,860
7	???? Japan	0.18	247,150
8	???? France	0.19	200,000
9	???? Turkiye	0.19	355,200
10	???? Italy	0.22	165,500
11	???? Brazil	0.24	360,000
12	???? Pakistan	0.25	654,000
13	???? Indonesia	0.26	400,000
14	???? Germany	0.26	181,600
15	???? Israel	0.27	170,000
16	???? Iran	0.3	610,000
17	???? Spain	0.32	133,282
18	???? Australia	0.33	57,350
19	???? Egypt	0.34	440,000
20	???? Algeria	0.36	325,000
21	???? Ukraine	0.38	900,000
22	???? Poland	0.38	202,100
23	???? Taiwan	0.4	215,000
24	???? Vietnam	0.4	600,000
25	???? Saudi Arabia	0.42	257,000
26	???? Thailand	0.45	360,850
27	???? Sweden	0.48	24,400
28	???? Canada	0.52	68,000
29	???? Singapore	0.53	51,000
30	???? Greece	0.53	142,700
31	???? Nigeria	0.58	230,000
32	???? Mexico	0.6	412,000
33	???? Argentina	0.6	108,000
34	???? North Korea	0.6	1,320,000
35	???? Bangladesh	0.61	163,000
36	???? Netherlands	0.64	41,380
37	???? Myanmar	0.67	150,000
38	???? Norway	0.68	23,250
39	???? Portugal	0.69	24,000
40	???? South Africa	0.69	71,235
41	???? Philippines	0.7	150,000
42	???? Malaysia	0.74	113,000
43	???? Iraq	0.77	193,000
44	???? Switzerland	0.79	101,584
45	???? Denmark	0.81	20,000
46	???? Colombia	0.84	293,200
47	???? Chile	0.84	80,000
48	???? Finland	0.84	24,000
49	???? Peru	0.86	120,000
50	???? Venezuela	0.89	109,000

The United States ranks first, with the lowest Military Power Index score and more than 1.3 million active-duty personnel. Its position reflects unmatched global reach, advanced technology, and extensive logistical capabilities.

Russia and China follow closely behind. China stands out for having the largest active military manpower among the top three, with just over 2 million personnel, while Russia combines large troop numbers with extensive land and strategic capabilities.

Manpower Isn’t Everything

While troop numbers matter, they do not tell the full story. Countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, and France rank among the top 10 despite having far smaller active forces than some lower-ranked nations.

Japan ranks highly due to its advanced naval and air forces, including one of the world’s most capable destroyer fleets, modern fighter jets, and strong missile defense systems.

Despite a smaller army, the UK maintains strong air and naval assets and benefits from deep integration with NATO operations. Meanwhile, France ranks among the top militaries thanks to its nuclear arsenal, blue-water navy, and proven ability to conduct overseas operations independently.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Highest Cost of Violence on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Catherine Salgado via PJMedia.com,

It seems long past time for President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

In the chaos and violence following the death of an armed Minneapolis would-be terrorist shot while fighting Border Patrol, another protester has bitten off the finger of a federal officer.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin posted photos on X showing the loathsome protestors who so viciously assaulted federal officers, and also photos of the one officer’s wounded hand and the severed finger.

What absolute scum these protestors and the politicians who encourage them are.

McLaughlin explained, “In Minneapolis, these rioters attacked our law enforcement officer and one of them bit off our HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] officer’s finger. He will lose his finger.”

What a proud victory for Walz and co.! They managed to ruin a brave officer’s life.

Just ponder how deranged and bestial you have to be to seek out a federal law enforcement officer for the express purpose of assaulting him, and then deliberately bite off his finger.

I can't help but think of Gollum biting off Frodo's finger at the climax of The Lord of the Rings to obtain the Ring; and the fiction has a parallel to the reality. As Tolkien meant the Ring to represent sin and evil, and as Gollum is destroyed and driven mad by it, so leftist domestic terrorists seem drunk on and driven mad by their lust for violence and revenge.

Indeed, the protestor who bit off the HSI officer's finger is d*mn lucky he didn't get shot. One hopes he at least faces some legal accountability, but that seems in precious short supply in Minneapolis.

As for the shooting that triggering the other violence, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem explained that Border Patrol officers were simply trying to carry out the arrest of an illegal alien who was wanted for violent assault.

“During the operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots,” she declared.

“This violence is directly fueled by hateful rhetoric from Minnesota's sanctuary politicians. It must end now.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz rushed to frame the armed protester as an innocent victim of eeeevil federal goons, raving about a “horrific shooting by federal agents” and labeling them “violent, untrained officers.” 

This is why there is violence. The gunman who died had two magazines of ammunition and no ID on him, indicating he planned to trigger a mass casualty event. Furthermore, he was trying to intervene on behalf of a violent criminal illegal alien — which is in itself a felony (as is protecting illegal aliens, as Minnesota politicians do).

There is no possible way a sane person could be on the side of such a man, and yet Democrats are all on his side. Of course, fully committed Democrats are also insane.

Pray hard for our brave HSI, Border Patrol, and ICE officers in Minneapolis.

Local police are not helping them, local authorities are lying about them, and mobs of protestors are literally out for their blood.

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Though America is beset by increasingly bitter political divisions, there are two convictions that unite Americans across party and demographic lines. Large majorities are certain that Congress isn’t serving the interests of the American people, and that Capitol Hill would become far more virtuous with the imposition of term limits.

Despite their broad appeal to our “throw out the bums” instincts, term limits would probably make Congress even worse than it is now. Even as a proposed policy, the concept does the country a disservice by distracting Americans from the more extreme remedies required for a federal government guiding us along a dangerous path into mounting partisan hostility, unconstitutionally-concentrated power, and obliviousness to coming financial ruin.

According to a 2023 McLaughlin and Associates poll, an overwhelming 87% of US adults favor congressional term limits, a finding that’s consistent with other surveys. Proposals vary. Reflecting a common recommendation, one of the term-limit bills introduced this session would limit House representatives to six two-year terms, and senators to two six-year terms, thus maxing out both varieties of legislator at a dozen years. Notably, members who served before 2023 -- including the bill’s introducing sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) -- would be exempted.

One dynamic that makes term limits appealing is the overwhelming power of incumbency in US electoral politics: Federal incumbents who sought reelection had a 98% success rate in 2024, matching the pace of 2022 and edging the 96% rate seen in 2020.

Jarring as they are, those stats create a false impression of the degree of stagnancy in the House and Senate. That’s because -- over the dozen years often floated as a term-limit maximum tenure -- a substantial number of legislators already leave on their own. According to the most recent Pew Research calculations, over a 12-year period, 69% of House seats and 62% of Senate seats had different occupants at the end versus the beginning.

With those numbers in mind, Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie -- who has backed term-limit bills-- cautioned that the idea is not a “silver bullet.” Pointing to the notion that term limits would open more seats to good people since incumbents are otherwise hard to dislodge, Massie noted the substantial churn in seat-holders, and asked, “Where are all the good guys/gals?”

Note that about 84% of congressional seats are “safe seats,” where party control isn’t in question, and the real election happens in the party primary. This incentivizes primary candidates to take positions that maximize their appeal to their party’s extreme, which contributes to polarization in Washington. Term limits wouldn’t change that, other than increasing the frequency of contested primaries, which, if anything, might make the phenomenon slightly stronger.

Cycling more people out of Congress may exacerbate one of the worst dynamics of Washington: the “revolving door” that sees legislators frequently moving on to lobbying posts and board positions, and incentivizing them to cater to lobbyists and corporations before their swing through the door happens. “Mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence,” wrote Casey Burgat at Brookings.

Term-limit proponents are hopeful that bringing new faces into Washington would reduce the power of special interests, lobbyists and the entrenched bureaucracy -- the last of which is sometimes called the “Deep State.” However, lacking understanding of complex federal issues and experience with DC’s legislative machinery, wide-eyed, rookie legislators are even more susceptible to outside influences who bring clear guidance sprinkled with money and favors.

Advocates of term limits often envision a warm, fuzzy new era where career politicians are replaced by humble “citizen legislators” who come from all walks of life and professions. However, the great majority of US representatives and senators held some other office before winning their current seat, and there’s no reason to think term limits would do away with the inherent advantages that state and local officeholders have when they seek federal office.

Many champions of term limits are convinced that term-limited federal legislators would spend far less time on electoral politics and fundraising. Don’t bet on it. First, until a legislator’s final term, they’d still be focused on re-election. More importantly, much and perhaps even most of the time and energy that members spend on fundraising isn’t for their own campaigns, but for their parties.

Here, it’s important to spotlight a little-known yet powerful congressional dynamic, one that guarantees that even term-limited legislators would continue spending substantial time on party fundraising: Each party ties committee assignments to how much money a legislator raises for the party.

The numbers are big. “Between 2023 and 2024, Democratic Party members were expected to raise between $100,000 and $30 million per year in dues to the party to move up in the [House] chamber,” wrote Maya Kornberg of the Brennan Center for Justice. It’s the same on both sides of the aisle. Here’s how Republican Massie candidly described the arrangement to Reason’s Matt Welch:

“[Members] have to raise money and give it to the party in order to rent or buy their committee assignments. Literally, the party comes to you, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, and says, ‘if you want an important committee, you’re going to have to pay us this much money,’ not one time, but every election cycle. You can’t go back to your district and ask your constituents at a fundraiser to help you buy a seat on a committee. You get that money from the lobbyists who are in Washington, DC.”

For members striving for plum committee assignments, there’s another major avenue of fundraising, one that turns legislators into glorified telemarketers, calling party donors across the country and asking for donations or inviting them to events that require them. It’s illegal to make such calls from their offices, so legislators walk to nearby party call centers to do it.

“You’re told…don’t even ask for one of these ‘A’ committees unless you’re ready to do the hard work across the street,” said Massie. He refuses to participate, and pays the price via exclusion from powerful committees such as Ways and Means, Appropriations, or Energy and Commerce.

As Florida Democrat and then-congressman David Jolly told CBS News, dialing for dollars is a major part of life on the Hill:

“The House schedule is actually arranged, in some ways, around fundraising…You never see a committee working through lunch because those are your fundraising times. And then, in between afternoon votes and evening votes, that's when you can see Democrats walking down this street, Republicans walking down that street to spend time on the phone making phone calls.”

Under term limits, the only thing that would change in this bleak picture are the particular faces trudging off to a Red Team or Blue Team call center, or lunching with lobbyists offering fundraising help -- rather than learning about any of the infinite issues subjected to federal governance. (Knowing their time on the Hill is limited, legislators will have even less reason to invest their time in building mastery of complex issues.)

In fact, to the extent that term limits manage to put a modest dent in the power of incumbency and render a few more of their seats vulnerable, parties would be even more concerned with raising money to either defend a majority or take it over, and would thus exert more pressure on members to refill the party’s coffers.

There’s one more way term limits would exacerbate the problem of outside influences: With a shortened span on Capitol Hill, more members would be focused on what they’ll do next. Though “citizen-legislator” daydreamers may have quaint visions of a farmer returning to his tractor, most term-limited legislators will be either planning a run for a different office, or looking for a job. Either ambition makes them susceptible to the policy overtures of people outside the chamber promising funding for future campaigns, help getting the inside track on a lobbying job of their own, or maybe a private-sector post in the industry the lobbyist represents.

Term limits would bring many unintended consequences that run counter to their advocates’ noble intentions. However, the concept’s worst attribute is that, even as a mere proposal, it diverts attention from what’s most wrong in Washington. Term limits focus on the frequency with which Washington’s power is exchanged, when the biggest problem is the power itself. For more on that, see the most-read article at Stark Realities: Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist

* * *

Stark Realities: Invigoratingly unorthodox perspectives for intellectually honest readers. Join thousands of free subscribers at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge

Authored by Alan Mosley via AntiWar.com,

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an $838.7 billion fiscal 2026 defense spending bill, moving one of the largest appropriations measures in US history toward final passage in the Senate. In a 341-88 vote that crossed party lines, lawmakers advanced the sprawling defense and related appropriations package, underscoring persistent majorities in both parties willing to expand military outlays even amid growing concerns about fiscal discipline.

The total exceeds the Pentagon’s original FY 2026 budget request by $8.4 billion but still falls far short of more than $50 billion in additional funds the Defense Department sought after submitting its budget to Congress. That gap reflects, among other things, a stark $26.5 billion in “funding discrepancies” between the Pentagon’s request and the broader reconciliation bill – essentially accounting errors that left vital programs underfunded and were partly addressed by the House’s topline increase.

To fiscal conservatives and critics of Washington’s military spending consensus, those discrepancies signal deep structural problems in defense budgeting: an inability to accurately forecast needs, manage programs, or adhere to prudent fiscal stewardship. Lining up nearly three dozen major weapon systems, force structures, and procurement lines every year, the Pentagon’s budget process has consistently produced overruns and unpredictable spending swings that funnel money to entrenched interests rather than identified national priorities.

Yet the House markup did not merely bridge gaps; it added money to programs that the services themselves did not request – or, in some cases, explicitly asked to cancel. Lawmakers tacked on $897 million for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter program, directed a contract award for engineering and development, and preserved $1.1 billion for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft, which the service had sought to terminate. The Army’s agile funding proposal was rejected, while about $300 million was allotted for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program despite the Army’s call to end it.

Such additions comprise what critics deride as classic “pork-barrel” spending: earmarks and authorizations that serve narrow local or industrial constituencies rather than measurable defense needs. Funding lines for munitions procurement, disparate platforms, and legacy systems balloon irrespective of operational justification, raising perennial questions about legislative oversight and taxpayer value.

Compounding those concerns, the House Rules Committee refused to allow several amendments aimed at reigning in spending or constraining executive war powers to reach the floor. Measures that would have restricted funding for operations in Venezuela and others that would limit the scope of presidential military action were blocked from debate, leaving the core text untouched since its release. To some observers, the procedural closure itself was as significant as the topline figures: despite robust majorities on the floor, substantive policy alternatives were stifled before they could be considered.

Historically, the sheer scale of the defense appropriation reflects decades of incremental growth in U.S. military spending. Annual defense budgets have routinely eclipsed half a trillion dollars for more than a decade, and the FY 2026 package continues a long trend in which appropriators add funds above and beyond executive branch requests. By contrast, civilian programs and domestic discretionary spending have struggled to keep pace, prompting both political and public disquiet about national priorities.

Supporters of the bill defend the scale and scope as necessary to maintain US military readiness, industrial base capacity, and technological edge in an era of renewed great-power competition. They argue that predictable and robust funding deters adversaries and reassures allies, even if some line items exceed Pentagon forecasts. Opponents counter that emboldening the military establishment with ever-expanding budgets encourages intervention abroad and diverts resources from pressing domestic needs.

While the House’s 341-88 vote gives the bill substantial momentum, its journey is not complete. The Senate must act before the end of the current funding deadline on January 30 to avert a lapse in appropriations. Senate debate may give rise to further amendments or adjustments, but the core framework reflects a bipartisan consensus that large and growing defense outlays are politically durable, even as questions about accountability, efficiency, and strategic purpose multiply.

A 37-year-old anti-ICE agitator who was armed with a handgun was shot and killed by federal Border Patrol agents on Saturday morning during what the Department of Homeland Security described as a targeted immigration enforcement operation, sparking immediate political outrage and street protests.

Border Patrol officers were conducting a targeted operation against an illegal immigrant wanted for violent assault. According to the federal agency, a man approached officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Officers attempted to disarm the individual before he violently resisted, leading to an armed struggle. 

?? JUST IN: Slowed-down video PROVES the armed man in Minneapolis began to draw his firearm before Border agents took him to the ground

Self defense, case closed, the left lied again.

Probably radicalized by Jacob Frey and Tim Walz. FAFO.pic.twitter.com/MWdqAlqvZK

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 24, 2026

In a press conference, Border Commander Greg Bovino said the agent fired after assessing an immediate threat to officers on the scene. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots,” he said.

According to Bovino, medics provided aid immediately, but the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. He said the suspect was carrying two loaded magazines and had no identification. Bovino described the encounter as a deliberate attempt to inflict mass harm on law enforcement.

“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” he said.

Bovino added that the situation escalated when a large group arrived and began interfering with officers.

“Then, about two hundred rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement,” he said, noting that crowd control measures were deployed to protect the public and officers. Bovino said the investigation remains ongoing.

“The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.”

Despite the lack of complete details, Democrats pounced on the story to once again attack federal law enforcement and President Trump.

Mayor Jacob Frey held a press conference alongside Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara to address the shooting and rapidly growing protests. While O’Hara tried to de-escalate and call for calm, Frey had other intentions entirely.

“I just saw a video of more than six masked agents pummeling one of our constituents and shooting him to death,” he said.

“How many more residents, how many more Americans need to die or get badly hurt for this operation to end? How many more lives need to be lost before this administration realizes that a political and partisan narrative is not as important as American values?”

Gov. Tim Walz also responded to the shooting. 

“I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” he said in a post on X Saturday morning.

“The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

Walz has been accusing ICE agents of being inadequately trained for weeks; however, in a statement responding to the shooting, the Border Patrol Union pointed out that Border Patrol agents “are trained extremely well to protect themselves, their fellow agents, and innocent third parties. When a supposed ‘peaceful’ protester brings a weapon (such as a loaded handgun) and brandishes it, there are going to be severe consequences and repercussions.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) issued a statement accusing federal agents of murdering another member of the community.

“This appears to be an execution by immigration enforcement. I am absolutely heartbroken, horrified, and appalled that federal agents murdered another member of our community. It is beyond shameful these federal agents are targeting our residents instead of protecting them,” she said.

“This isn’t isolated or accidental. The Trump administration is trying to beat us into submission rather than protect us. This administration cannot continue violating constitutional rights under the guise of immigration enforcement. ICE and CBP must leave Minnesota immediately. Their presence is terrorizing our communities, violating rights, and taking lives with zero accountability. Minnesota was once a place of refuge, and Trump has turned it into a war zone where unchecked federal forces murder our neighbors.” 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar urged the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to get ICE out of the state immediately. 

However, Vice President JD Vance, who was in Minnesota earlier this week, responded to the shooting by criticizing local authorities for failing to respond to requests for collaboration with federal agents.

“When I visited Minnesota, what the ICE agents wanted more than anything was to work with local law enforcement so that situations on the ground didn't get out of hand,” he said.

“The local leadership in Minnesota has so far refused to answer those requests.”

President Trump also blamed the lack of police for the violence.

“Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers?” He asked in a post on Truth Social.

“The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves.”

The situation remains fluid, but one thing is clear: a man with a loaded gun and two loaded magazines was clearly looking for trouble, resisted arrest, and put federal agents in a position where they had to defend themselves.

Iran has flatly rejected a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning what it described as the "violent crackdown on peaceful protests" by Iranian security forces, after two weeks of raging economic protests earlier this month, which also included a government enforced total internet shutdown.

Following a closed-door session in Geneva on Friday, 25 council members - including France, Japan, and South Korea - voted in favor of the formal censure.

But there were significant voices among the seven that voted against, including China, India, and Pakistan. Fourteen others abstained.

The council demanded that Tehran halt arrests linked to the protests and take steps to "prevent extrajudicial killing, other forms of arbitrary deprivation of life, enforced disappearance, sexual and gender-based violence."

UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the council that "the brutality in Iran continued, creating conditions for further human rights violations, instability and bloodshed."

Tehran blasted the resolution as another display of Western hypocrisy, arguing that the sponsors of the emergency session have never genuinely cared about human rights in Iran.

Iran’s envoy Ali Bahreini pushed back at the meeting, saying as follows:

"It was ironic that states whose history was stained with genocide and war crimes now attempted to lecture Iran on social governance and human rights."

This past week in Davos for the World Economic Forum, there was an interesting moment where US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent actually openly boasted that US sanctions helped drive the protests, after crippling the economy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues that US sanctions on Iran were intended to cripple the economy so people would take to the streets: "This is economic statecraft, no shots fired"
* I made this argument last week, and was accused of spreading Iranian propaganda... pic.twitter.com/O3Q32WhWhh

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 21, 2026

So Islamic Republic leaders are right to be skeptical when American, Israel, or European officials claims they 'stand' with the Iranian people, and seek 'democracy'. Already, UN officials are invoking historical "genocide" instances and are dubiously comparing them with what's going on in Iran:

A prosecutor said at least twice more people were killed in Iran in half the time compared with the Srebrenica genocide.

Iran's Bahreini reiterated some of his government's official casualty figures from clashes with police and security services, which were initially issued days ago via state sources. He said 3,117 people were killed during the unrest, but he also claimed that 2,427 of those deaths were caused by "terrorists" - covertly funded by enemies of Iran - namely the United States, Israel, and their allies.

How Will This Weekend's Mega-Storm Compare to the Winter Blasts of 2016 and 1996?

Meteorologist Ben Noll says this weekend's snowstorm could be similar to the Blizzard of 1996. For our more seasoned readers, 1996 was an unforgettable winter. Many younger readers, however, have grown up in snow droughts and years of corporate media narratives centered on Al Gore's global warming alarmism.

Yet here we are on Saturday morning, looking over the latest weather models that show more than half the country under a winter storm warning. Noll wrote on X earlier that "55 percent of all people living in the United States — some 190 million — were under an alert related to the storm."

The latest snowfall predictions stretch from Texas to the Northeast.

"This is legitimately one of the biggest storms I can recall tracking. Snow spans from Arizona to DC this evening," private weather forecaster BAWMX wrote on X.

This is legitimately one of the biggest storms I can recall tracking. Snow spans from Arizona to DC this evening... pic.twitter.com/GaxnLzjF9U

— BAM Weather (@bam_weather) January 24, 2026

Winter appears locked in across the Lower 48 for the next several weeks.

Winter is LOCKED in for the next 3-4 weeks.

Several cold blasts
Several storm threats

Its 2014 version 2.0
Period. https://t.co/jvirtQ6o4e pic.twitter.com/17YGcYyarZ

— BAM Weather (@bam_weather) January 24, 2026

Next, let's refine the snowfall outlook for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Courtesy of private weather forecaster NY NJ PA Weather weighs in below.

Thanks to early-week client notes from energy research firm Criterion Research, we were well ahead of the curve in explaining how the Arctic cold blast, combined with a major winter storm, could create power-grid risks. The storm threatens to crimp natural gas supply through production freeze-offs and reduced pipeline flows, increasing pressure on already stressed-out regional power grids. Our focus will be on the PJM grid this weekend.

Here's the reporting:

• NatGas Futs Erupt As Arctic Air Invasion Penetrates Deep Into US South

• US NatGas Spikes Most Since Ukraine Invasion On Arctic Blast, Major Winter Storm Threat

• US NatGas Poised For Biggest Weekly Spike On Record As "Blizzard Of '96" Fears Resurface

• Appalachian NatGas Output Faces "Intense Losses" As Arctic Blast Drives Power Grid Risk Higher

• NatGas Jumps 75% As Extreme Cold, Blizzard Risks Threaten Appalachian Gas Supply

• NatGas "Tightening Shock" Sparks Historic Weekly Rally As Major Winter Storm Imminent

• Winter Storm Threatens Appalachian NatGas With 'Freeze Offs' As Data Center Demand Tightens PJM Grid

Crickets from Greta and the climate crisis cult this week. Oh, wait, that's because the climate money ran out and the focus shifted entirely to Palestine. For those grounded in reality, prepare for what could be a historic winter storm this weekend. We've told readers in the PJM region and the Northeast to consider buying a whole-house generator, citing a Goldman note (read here). Become ungovernable with a wood fireplace and/or a coal-burning stove.

As for the travel space, it's a nightmare. For anyone traveling over the next 24 to 48 hours, expect delays and cancellations.

So far, roughly 9,000 flights have reportedly been canceled.

Authored by Rob Carpenter via FreightWaves.com,

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy just dropped what I’ve been calling the nuclear option.

In an appearance on Katie Pavlich Tonight Thursday, Duffy made clear that withholding $200 million in federal funding isn’t the end of this fight. If California doesn’t come into compliance on the non-domiciled CDL issue, Duffy said, “we will eventually pull their ability to issue commercial driver’s licenses to anybody in California.”

Not just the 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight. Every single CDL in the state.

I’ve written extensively about this standoff since the FMCSA released its audit findings last September, which showed that roughly 25% of California’s non-domiciled CDLs were improperly issued. I’ve covered the $160 million funding hit. I’ve warned about the decertification authority in 49 U.S.C. 31312 and 49 CFR 384.405, which most people in this industry didn’t even know existed.

How We Got Here

This didn’t start with the Trump administration’s September 2025 emergency rule restricting non-domiciled CDLs to certain visa categories. That rule, which limited eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders, has been stayed by the D.C. Circuit since November. The court found that petitioners were “likely to succeed” on their claims that the FMCSA violated federal law in its rulemaking.

The California problem predates all of that.

FMCSA’s August 2025 Annual Program Review found California had been violating federal regulations that existed long before Duffy took office. The state was issuing CDLs with expiration dates extending years beyond drivers’ lawful presence documentation. In one case that still makes my blood boil, California issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with passenger and school bus endorsements that remained valid months after his legal presence expired.

That’s not a new rule problem. That’s a California screwed-up problem.

California agreed in November to revoke all 17,000 improperly issued licenses by January 5, 2026. Then, on December 30, the California DMV unilaterally announced a 60-day extension to March 6, citing the need to ensure it doesn’t wrongfully terminate licenses for drivers who actually qualify.

Duffy’s response on X was blunt: “Gavin Newsom is lying.”

FMCSA never agreed to the extension. California proceeded anyway. On January 7, DOT made good on its threat and withheld approximately $160 million in National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grant funds. That’s on top of the $40 million already withheld over California’s refusal to enforce English language proficiency requirements.

The Nuclear Math

California has more than 700,000 CDL holders. The state is home to the nation’s largest trucking workforce, with over 138,000 truck drivers moving freight through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley, and every retail distribution center feeding the country’s largest consumer market.

Under full decertification, California would be prohibited from issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading any commercial learner’s permits or commercial driver’s licenses until FMCSA determines the state has corrected its deficiencies. Previously issued CDLs would technically remain valid until their stated expiration dates, but here’s where it gets ugly.

Other states could refuse to recognize California credentials during the noncompliance period. FMCSA could issue guidance declaring CDLs issued by a noncompliant state invalid for interstate commerce. The Commercial Driver’s License Information System, which enables interstate verification, could flag every California license.

For the 700,000 CDL holders in the Golden State, decertification wouldn’t just be an administrative headache.

It would effectively ground them from operating in interstate commerce.

I’ve been doing compliance work in this industry for over 25 years. I’ve never seen a federal-state confrontation escalate this fast or this far.

What’s That Look Like? 

The 17,000 non-domiciled CDLs at the center of this fight represent just over 9% of California’s for-hire carrier base. I believe that number represents just under half the total increase in CDLs 

This isn’t really about 17,000 drivers anymore.

J.B. Hunt’s analysis suggests that, between non-domiciled CDL restrictions and English language proficiency enforcement, we could see 214,000 to 437,000 drivers removed from the U.S. supply over the next two to three years. FMCSA estimates that 97% of the current 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders nationwide won’t be able to satisfy the new requirements under the September rule, assuming it survives legal challenge.

Transport Futures economist Noël Perry puts the at-risk population even higher when accounting for undocumented drivers and new-hire restrictions: potentially 600,000 drivers, or 16% of the active workforce.

Whether those numbers hold up or not, one thing is clear. The days of states running their CDL programs with what Duffy called “reckless disregard” for federal requirements are ending.

What Happens Next

California is stuck between a rock and a hard place it created for itself.

On the one hand, the federal government is withholding $200 million and threatening to revoke the state’s authority to issue any commercial credential. On the other hand, a class-action lawsuit filed by the Asian Law Caucus, the Sikh Coalition, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP argues that the DMV’s own administrative errors caused the mismatches in expiration dates and that drivers should be able to immediately reapply for corrected credentials.

The lawsuit names five individual plaintiffs and the Jakara Movement, a Fresno-based organization serving the Punjabi Sikh community. An estimated 150,000 Sikh truck drivers operate in the United States, and many of the affected drivers argue they’re being punished for what amounts to clerical errors by the state.

They’re not wrong about the clerical errors. The DMV admitted in correspondence with federal regulators that “shortcomings of its technical systems and processes” led to the mismatched dates.

That admission doesn’t help California’s legal position with FMCSA. It strengthens it.

If California knew it had systemic programming errors that extended CDL expiration dates beyond work authorization periods, why didn’t it fix them before the feds came knocking? That’s the question that should concern every carrier operating in interstate commerce. A CDL issued in violation of federal requirements may not be valid for interstate operation, meaning drivers holding those credentials could face enforcement action in any state, and carriers dispatching them could face significant liability exposure.

Governor Newsom told the press that DOT had agreed to the March 6 extension. Duffy says that’s not true. FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs has been equally clear: “We will not accept a corrective plan that knowingly leaves thousands of drivers holding noncompliant licenses behind the wheel of 80,000-pound trucks in open defiance of federal safety regulations.”

California’s argument that its CDL holders are involved in fatal crashes at a rate far below the national average, and that Texas-issued licenses have a 50% higher rate of fatal crashes, might play well in press releases. It doesn’t address the fundamental regulatory compliance issue.

FMCSA didn’t withhold $160 million because of crash rates. It withheld funding because California admitted to issuing 17,000 licenses in violation of federal requirements and then refused to revoke them on the agreed timeline.

The nuclear option remains on the table, and based on everything I’ve seen from Duffy over the past six months, I wouldn’t bet against him using it.

Left-wing nonprofit groups in Minneapolis appear to have moved beyond pressure campaigns targeting ICE agents and federal law enforcement, shifting from street protests/riots toward actions that may disrupt critical infrastructure on Friday. The apparent objective is to target economic chokepoints and critical infrastructure, a pressure tactic consistent with the color revolution playbook previously deployed by dark-money funded NGO networks aligned with the Democratic Party’s protest-industrial complex and financed by left-wing billionaire foundations.

Local media outlet The Minnesota Star Tribune reported on Friday evening that "at a demonstration outside Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport's main terminal, a Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman said police arrested roughly 100 demonstrators."

Following a morning demonstration outside Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport's main terminal, a Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman said police arrested roughly 100 demonstrators.

?? Elizabeth Flores/The Minnesota Star Tribune

Follow updates here:… pic.twitter.com/h39Z5689IN

— The Minnesota Star Tribune (@StarTribune) January 23, 2026

Footage from the protest area appears to show demonstrators - mainly white liberal boomers - blocking the main access road to Terminal 1 at the international airport.

We're not quite certain who organized the protest at the airport, but a flyer floating around social media appears to show the same left-wing nonprofit that organized 'No Kings' rallies across the country last year - largely seen as a failure because the mobilization effort only attracted white liberal boomers.

Here’s the flyer showing that Indivisible Twin Cities and 50501, dark-money-funded NGOs, could've been the organizers of the event to shut down critical infrastructure:

According to previous reporting by Peter Schweizer & Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute, the 'No Kings' protest brand was created by The Indivisible Project (or "Indivisible"). That entity and its eponymous offshoots - "Indivisible Civics," "Indivisible Action," "Indivisible East Bay," et al - sprung up as an activist mobilization machine in response to Trump's 2016 victory.

Parsing through 990 filings: Indivisible Civics funds the Indivisible Project.

As for Indivisible Project, the typical foundations that fund chaos nationwide also fund this entity.

The evolution of the protest to now shut down critical infrastructure comes as left-wing NGOs are attempting an "economic blackout" across Minnesota. As we noted days ago, the state is being used as a testing ground by Marxist revolutionists who will replicate pressure campaigns that work in the metro area across every sanctuary city when spring rolls around.

• Left-Wing NGOs Plan "Economic Blackout" Across Minnesota As State Becomes Testbed For Revolution

Let's take a step back because the protest at the airport is a similar playbook that was used by revolutionary pro-Palestine groups in recent years that targeted critical economic chokepoints of the economy, from highways to bridges to airports and even land ports (read here). The goal of the protest industrial complex is not to help the cause; rather, it is all part of a sinister plan to collapse the nation from within.  

There is good news: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat down with journalist Christopher Rufo earlier this month to discuss plans to investigate dark-money-funded NGOs sowing chaos nationwide.

Among the topics discussed in the Bessent-Rufo interview were left-wing nonprofits, with Bessent acknowledging that "we are examining" NGO activities and funding structures...

Bessent continued:

Yes, yes, and yes. So, these groups that are engaging in this—we have the authority and are examining them. Because when you see these protesters, someone is financing them. There are safe houses. When you see the 300 people with the same laser that they're using to blind DHS agents in courthouses in Portland, someone bought those lasers.

And again, what we do is follow the money—just like we followed it with the mafia, just like we follow it. We'll find out who's done this.

I announced today that we are going to put in effect a whistleblower program. And my sense is that the rats will turn on each other.

As I believe you reported—or someone talked about in a roundtable—one of the Somali fraudsters tried to bribe a juror with $120,000. What turned out, she'd been given $200,000 to bribe the jurors, and she skimmed. It's like the scorpion—it's in their nature.

EXCLUSIVE: Treasury ?@SecScottBessent? tells me that the Trump Administration will launch investigations into left-wing nonprofits that serve as a front for violent protests and criminal obstruction of ICE operations. It’s time to stop left-wing terrorism in America. pic.twitter.com/roorsk4XLA

— Christopher F. Rufo ?? (@christopherrufo) January 9, 2026

Bessent said "rats," the question there is whether he was referring to the actual rodent, or an acronym for the Rockefeller Foundation (R), Arabella network (A), Tides Foundation (T), and Soros Foundation (S), some of the foundations that have been funding the protest industrial complex against President Trump and attempting to derail the America First agenda.

Let's circle back to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's comments in late November:

• General Flynn Calls For National Address From Trump On Color Revolution Threat

As spring and warmer weather approach, the protest industrial complex will be operating at full steam. It is time for the Trump administration to get ahead of these Marxist revolutionaries, whose main goal is a color revolution and regime change in the White House, the end of America First, and to collapse the nation from within.