CMR is the leading provider
of funding and management
support for small to
medium-sized businesses and
entrepreneurs
Established 1984 C MR
is the leading venture
capital, management
support and business
services provider for
small to medium-sized
businesses - linking
excellent management
skills with the
substantial financial
resources of a global bank
of private investors.
CMR has over 450 senior
executives, operating
in the UK, USA, Europe, Asia,
Australasia and
globally,
providing both funding and
specialist help for
entrepreneurial
businesses .
For Businesses
CMR provides excellent
resources:
CMR FundEX Business Exchange - gives all companies & entrepreneurs direct access to CMR's global investor base.
CMR Catalyst Group
Programme -
transform
profitability through
merging.
CMR Company Sales Division helps owners to exit
at the best price.
CMR Corporate Recovery
Division -
experts in rescue and
turnaround.
CMR Technology Licensing
Division -
commercialising
innovation.
CMR Executive
Professionals - management support
and consultancy.
CMR Executives-on-Demandâ„¢ Fully experienced
senior executives
available quickly and
cost effectively.
We always welcome
contact with new
business clients- please get in touch
- we will do our
best to match
your needs and exceed
your expectations.
For Investors
Preferential access to new opportunities for investment and/or acquisition
P re-vets
propositions and
provides a
personalised service
to our investors
Syndication service
enabling investors to
link together as desired
Executive and
management support for
investments as needed
CMR's services to
our investors are not
only fast & efficient
but also free
W e
always appreciate new
members- you are welcome
to join as an investor
or as a CMR Executive.
When you
join us as a Senior
Executive:
CMR's strength is in the
skills and experience of
our executive members -
all senior, director level
people with years of
successfully running and
managing companies.
Because the demand for
CMR's support and services
is ever-increasing,
especially as we enter
recessionary times, we
have a growing need for
more high calibre
executives to join us from
every industry and
discipline.
You will be using your
considerable experience to
help smaller businesses
and entrepreneurs to grow
profitably.
We offer full training
and mentoring support to
help maximise potential.
We are
always keen to find more
high calibre senior
executives in all areas-
skills and location.
Make contact with us today
and maximise your
opportunities.
HEAD
OFFICE
124 City Road
London EC1 2NX
Tel: +44 (0)207-636-1744
Fax:+44 (0)207-636-5639
Email: cmr@cmruk.com
Registered Office:
124 City Road ,
London EC1 2NX
Also Glasgow,
Dublin, Switzerland, Europe, USA/Canada
Privacy Statement: CMR only
retains personal details
supplied directly by executives
joining CMR themselves either as
Full Executive Members or
Interim Management Members or
Investors. Those details are
only used within CMR and not
disclosed to any third parties
without that person’s
agreement. We will keep that
data until requested by the
person to be removed – at that
point it will be deleted.
Personal data is never sold or
used for purposes outside of
CMR’s normal operations. Any
correspondence should be
directed to the Managing
Director, CMR,
Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London EC1V
2N
Senior Executives
CMR is a worldwide network of senior executives. Join us to expand your career and business horizons.
Business Entrepreneurs
CMR has a complete range of resources & services provided by experts to help all businesses to grow and prosper.
Investors & Venturers
CMR has a continuous stream of business and funding propositions, which are matched to investor preferences. Join us - it's FREE!
FundEX
FundEX is CMR's worldwide stock market for small to medium sized companies and entrepreneurs to raise new capital.
Interim & Permanent Management
Many of CMR's executives can be recruited on an interim, permanent or NED basis.
Login
Main CMR Intranet members only
Regional Intranets
Mon, 02 Feb 2026 03:45:00 +0000 San Francisco Ends $5M-A-Year Program That Supplied Alcohol To Homeless Addicts
San Francisco Ends $5M-A-Year Program That Supplied Alcohol To Homeless Addicts
Sigh. It's not parody. It's San Francisco. The city is shutting down a controversial program th
Read more.....
San Francisco Ends $5M-A-Year Program That Supplied Alcohol To Homeless Addicts
Sigh. It's not parody. It's San Francisco. The city is shutting down a controversial program that used millions in taxpayer funds to provide alcohol to homeless residents struggling with addiction, according to the NY Post .
Mayor Daniel Lurie said the city will end the Managed Alcohol Program, which cost about $5 million each year and began during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“For years, San Francisco was spending $5 million a year to provide alcohol to people who were struggling with homelessness and addiction — it doesn’t make sense, and we’re ending it,” Lurie told The California Post .
The program was launched in April 2020, when the city placed unhoused residents in hotels during lockdowns. Medical staff supplied controlled amounts of beer and liquor to prevent dangerous withdrawal symptoms while stores and bars were closed. Although intended as a temporary measure, it continued for nearly six years.
During its operation, the program served only 55 people, translating to an average cost of roughly $454,000 per client.
Now, Lurie says the city has fully pulled its support.
“We have ended every city contract for that program,” he said.
Community Forward, the nonprofit that managed the initiative in recent years, confirmed that the city has terminated its funding. Financial records show the group received millions in public money, much of it spent on staff salaries.
San Francisco’s program was the first of its kind in the United States, modeled loosely on similar efforts in Canada. Unlike other harm-reduction policies, such as needle exchanges, MAP directly supplied alcohol to people already dependent on it.
Since taking office last year, Lurie has moved away from long-standing harm-reduction policies. He has also ended the distribution of drug-use equipment and pushed for stricter enforcement of street drug activity.
“Under my administration, we made San Francisco a recovery-first city and ended the practice of handing out fentanyl smoking supplies so people couldn’t kill themselves on our streets,” Lurie said.
“We have work to do, but we have transformed the city’s response, and we are breaking the cycles of addiction, homelessness and government failure that have let down San Franciscans for too long.”
Last year, he warned open-air drug markets that enforcement would increase.
“If you do drugs on our streets, you will be arrested,” Lurie said. “And instead of sending you back out in crisis, we will give you a chance to stabilize and enter recovery.”
The Post writes that recovery advocates welcomed the decision to end MAP. Tom Wolf, a former homeless addict who now works in outreach, said the program wasted public funds.
“They [were] wasting our money just paying people to keep using the drug that they’re hopelessly addicted to,” Wolf said.
He also criticized how harm reduction has evolved.
“Harm reduction itself is part of the overall social justice framework,” he said, adding that it has shifted from preventing disease to “supporting drug users.”
Steve Adami, head of the Salvation Army’s recovery-focused program in San Francisco, said the city is now rethinking decades of policy.
“Under Mayor Lurie, they have reassessed the outcomes of those models,” Adami said. “That we are a recovery-first city. He’s made a significant investment into abstinence-based and recovery-focused services.”
In May, Lurie signed the Recovery First Act, signaling a shift toward abstinence and treatment-based approaches.
Despite the changes, major challenges remain. San Francisco has limited detox capacity, with only about 68 beds for thousands of people who cycle through homelessness each year. Many residents seeking help still face long waits for treatment.
The end of the alcohol program reflects the mayor’s broader effort to reverse years of permissive policies as he tries to address addiction, homelessness, and the decline of the city’s downtown core.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 22:45 Close
Mon, 02 Feb 2026 02:35:00 +0000 Democrat Wins Texas Special Election, Eroding GOP's Slim House Majority
Democrat Wins Texas Special Election, Eroding GOP's Slim House Majority
Republicans' thin majority in the US House grew slimmer still on Saturday, as a special election in Texas has filled a long-vacant seat with a Democrat
Read more.....
Democrat Wins Texas Special Election, Eroding GOP's Slim House Majority
Republicans' thin majority in the US House grew slimmer still on Saturday, as a special election in Texas has filled a long-vacant seat with a Democrat who's vowed to "tear ICE up from the roots."
Progressive leftist Christian Menefee will represent Texas's 18th Congressional District, after beating fellow Democrat Amanda Edwards in a runoff election for a seat that's been vacant since Democrat Sylvester Turner died last March.
The development comes as new polls show Democrats with a national edge heading into November's midterms.
While the black-and-Latino-dominated Houston-area district was predestined to send another Democrat to Washington, the finality of a free-for-all race that started with 16 candidates means Republicans will soon have a razor-thin four-seat lead.
Texas Congressional Candidate Christian Menefee speaks to supporters during his watch party at The Post Houston on Election Day, in Houston, on Jan. 31, 2026. Karen Warren /AP Photo
Before Saturday, Republicans held a narrow 218–213 majority in the U.S. House . Democrats will likely push for Menefee’s immediate swearing in, which will erode the GOP lead to 218–214.
Three additional House vacancies in Georgia, New Jersey, and California have special elections scheduled in March, April, and August, respectively.
Democrats were furious last year when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) delayed the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) until mid-November, two months after she won a special election.
Despite Democrats’ excitement over Menefee’s win, it doesn’t offer much insight into which party has an edge in November’s midterm elections.
The 2024 Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Kamala Harris won Texas’s 18th district by a 40 percent-point margin over President Donald Trump, 69 percent to 29 percent.
Chistian Menefee (right) was endorsed by Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Photo: Menefee for Congress)
Democrats accused Gov. Gregory Abbott of slow-rolling the special election, so as to ease the pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson , who must repeatedly contend with rebellious GOP holdouts as he ushers bills through the legislative process in a closely-split House.
Though Turner died in March, Abbott didn't schedule the election until November, saying he felt it important not to rush things, given Harris County's checkered election history.
"No county in Texas does a worse job of conducting elections than Harris County . They repeatedly fail to conduct elections consistent with state law," he said in April.
The delay was compounded when the race went to a runoff.
Speaking to cheering supporters Saturday night, Menefee addressed some of his remarks to President Trump:
"The results here tonight are a mandate for me to work as hard as I can to oppose your agenda, to fight back against where you're taking this country and to investigate your crimes."
The progressive Menefee, who was Harris County Attorney, assured the crowd that he would work to deliver universal health care, impeach Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem , and "tear ICE up from the roots."
If recent polls are an indication, the GOP has ground to make up if it's to retain its hold on the House. A Fox News poll published this week found that, in a generic "which party do your prefer" question, 52% of voters said they'd back a Democrat to represent their district, compared to 46% who said they'd vote Republican .
Analysts caution that these polls have limited predictive value at this point.
"Political science analyses demonstrate that aggregate responses to this question begin to more accurately predict the actual House vote by around mid-summer," GOP pollster Daron Shaw told Fox.
Trump could be a significant handicap for Republican office-seekers.
On the issue of affordability, voters currently prefer Democrats by a whopping 14-point margin , and Dems are sure to emphasize the role of Trump's sprawling tariff regime in boosting prices.
He's also given them a heap of tone-deaf quotes to use in advertising - for example, saying "the word 'affordability' is a con job."
Meanwhile, Trump has dampened the enthusiasm of many conservatives, through his failure to deliver spending cuts, his administration's attempts to avoid releasing the Epstein files, and his pursuit of the Deep State's regime change agenda in Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 21:35 Close
Mon, 02 Feb 2026 02:00:00 +0000 Is An Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust Right For You? Are You Super Rich?
Is An Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust Right For You? Are You Super Rich?
Is An Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust Right For You? Are You Super Rich?
Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
An irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) can allow affluent individuals to pass on wealth to heirs while keeping it outside of their taxable estate . This could help them reduce or avoid the estate tax upon death, which can be as high as 40 percent.
Photo Smoothies/Shutterstock
It also can help you pass over assets to individuals with special needs without affecting their eligibility for government programs like Medicaid or Social Security Disability Income (SSDI).
But it may not be the best for everyone. It’s virtually impossible to amend an ILIT without a court order or the consent of its beneficiaries. There are also some more pitfalls to watch out for.
So let’s take a closer look at an ILIT and see if it’s right for you as part of your comprehensive estate plan.
What Is an ILIT?
You can establish an ILIT with the help of a qualified estate-planning attorney. The ILIT is a legal arrangement that holds assets, mainly a life insurance policy, for the benefit of another or others.
As a trust grantor, you create the trust . You may appoint a trustee to manage the trust. The trustee can be anyone such as a lawyer, a family member, a friend or an organization. The trustee uses trust assets to purchase a life insurance policy in your name . The trustee is also responsible for paying annual insurance premiums and administering the trust.
When you pass away, the policy’s death benefit is paid directly to the trust and then proceeds are distributed to the beneficiary.
Tax Benefits of an ILIT
One of the main reasons people utilize ILITs is to minimize any estate tax burden. When you transfer assets to an ILIT, you relinquish control of those assets completely and they technically become property of the trust, which is its own legal entity.
So these assets won’t be part of your gross taxable estate and thereby could minimize estate taxes or eliminate them.
In 2026, the federal estate tax is levied on assets upon death worth more than $15 million ($30 million for married couples) before they can be transferred to heirs.
These amounts are known as the lifetime gift and estate tax exemption.
Here’s an example of how an ILIT may reduce your estate tax liability:
Let’s say you have assets totaling $15 million and purchase a life insurance policy that pays a $5 million death benefit to your child. After you pass away, you would have a taxable estate of $20 million. That’s above the lifetime gift and estate tax exemption.
But if the $5 million insurance policy were owned by an ILIT, your taxable estate would remain at $15 million. That’s under the exemption amount.
However, keep this in mind: Life insurance gifted to an ILIT within three years of your death would be included in your gross estate for estate tax purposes.
But ILITs have more to offer.
ILIT Asset Protection
If set up right, an ILIT can protect the insurance policy cash value or death benefit from creditors of both you and your beneficiaries. The reason is that ILITs are not considered to be owned by the beneficiaries. And there’s another upside to this.
If your beneficiary has special needs, their eligibility for government programs like Medicaid and SSDI may be affected by the size of their assets. Since the ILIT is not technically owned by the beneficiary, this could avoid income-based drawbacks for qualification in government programs.
But there are some drawbacks to ILITs.
Irrevocable Means Irrevocable
Once you transfer assets to an ILIT, you relinquish control over those assets. You generally can’t take them back or make any changes to the ILIT once it has been established without the consent of all beneficiaries or some kind of court order.If you don’t have a large estate and therefore expect to owe no estate taxes, you may be better off with a revocable living trust. With these trusts, you still remain in control of its assets during your lifetime and you can make amendments to the trust as you please.
The Bottom Line
An ILIT can be an essential tool, especially for affluent individuals with large estates who believe they’d face federal estate taxes. Because the states that levy their own estate tax have their own exemption levels, an ILIT could also minimize state-based estate taxes.
ILITs also offer a certain degree of asset protection from creditors. So it may be a good idea when you or your beneficiaries are in litigious careers, too. And it also can be crucial for those with special needs, because ILITs can help them remain eligible for much needed government programs. But you have to be ready to relinquish control of assets in an ILIT completely.
Moreover, ILITs can be extremely complex and can backfire if not properly established and funded. This is why it’s a good idea to work closely with a qualified tax professional and estate planning attorney when pursuing an ILIT.
The Epoch Times copyright © 2026. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 21:00 Close
Mon, 02 Feb 2026 01:25:00 +0000 Hollywood Celebrities Are Losing Their Minds And Calling For "Revolution"
Hollywood Celebrities Are Losing Their Minds And Calling For "Revolution"
As the information age barrels forward the age of the celebrity is coming to a close. Largely because Hollywood elites do not understand how to navigate soci
Read more.....
Hollywood Celebrities Are Losing Their Minds And Calling For "Revolution"
As the information age barrels forward the age of the celebrity is coming to a close. Largely because Hollywood elites do not understand how to navigate social media and their true personalities always bubble to the surface. With no agents or managers to filter their impulsive opinions, narcissistic celebrities readily expose themselves and their stupidity.
The glamour and mystique of the entertainment world is dead, and celebrities killed it.
One unexpected consequence of the decline of Hollywood is that the apparatus of adult pretenders (actors) is starting to go dangerously insane. Big budget movies are losing hundreds of millions at the box office and new projects are in steep decline. Top actors are stooping to doing TV commercials to get paid, something most of them would have sneered at a decade ago. Acting royalty of the 90s and early 2000s are hitting the wall and getting too old to play the parts they want to play. Fresh younger actors with actual talent are rare.
The empire of degenerates is slowly fading into irrelevancy and the celebrity cult is desperately clinging to their delusions of grandeur. Yes, they've always been a little crazy, but something new is happening.
The return of conservative and nationalist ideals has spurred widespread American opposition to the agenda of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the key to the progressive strategy for deconstructing western civilization and replacing it with a relativistic socialist framework. For leftists, mass deportations represent a reversal of political gains that took them decades to achieve. This is why stopping ICE operations is absolutely the hill that leftists are willing to die on.
Every element of the leftist Utopian vision relies on the erasure of borders and the destruction of western principles through unchecked third world immigration.
Actors and directors and producers have long tried to use their "platform" to influence the masses politically, but now they are calling for blood in the streets, violent revolution, making lists of conservative neighbors "just in case" and pretending as if they are rebel leaders fighting for the downtrodden.
Others are fantasizing about revenge, including the rise of a new Democrat regime in which their conservative opponents are rounded up and imprisoned for nothing more than being conservative.
When activists commit crimes and are held accountable for their actions, the progressive hive loses its collective mind. It's important to understand that these people believe that they can do whatever they want as long as their motivations are deemed ideologically pure.
They believe that if they break the law while "exercising free speech" then they are protected from consequences. They also cannot accept the fact that they do not represent the majority of the country. They continue to pretend as if they didn't just lose an election, and that most of the country avidly supports deportations.
In truth, you will never see celebrities risking their lives for anything they claim to believe in. Their posturing is purely performative. But they could very well inspire some useful idiots to go out and commit terrible crimes. They claim it's all in the name of "freedom", but what kind of freedom? Keep in mind, these are the same people that joyfully attempted to burn the Bill of Rights to the ground under the Biden Administration - Now they are suddenly patriots?
Narcissists are like suicide bombers; if they discover they are losing they will try to take everyone else down with them. Hollywood activists used to be considered "cute" but now the mask is fully torn away. These are not good and reasonable people, they are lunatics who are used to running the asylum. They can't handle the idea that their celebrity no longer purchases power, so they are scratching and scraping for a chance to remain in the limelight, no matter the cost.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 20:25 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 23:40:00 +0000 Isaacman: NASA Aims To Build 'Martian Outpost' On Mars With Nuclear Propulsion
Isaacman: NASA Aims To Build 'Martian Outpost' On Mars With Nuclear Propulsion
Isaacman: NASA Aims To Build 'Martian Outpost' On Mars With Nuclear Propulsion
Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced his agency’s commitment to developing a nuclear propulsion system for missions to Mars within the next three years.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman (L) speaks at a press conference at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on Jan. 17, 2026. (T.J. Muscaro/The Epoch Times).
“Before the end of @POTUS‘ term, @NASA will lay the foundation of a ’transcontinental railroad' to Mars ,” Isaacman wrote on X on Jan. 30. “By utilizing nuclear electric propulsion, our nation will have the tools necessary to establish a Martian outpost and maintain American superiority in deep space.”
The administrator shared a clip from a Jan. 30 appearance on Fox News in which he explained that while NASA continues its work to put boots back on the moon, it will also launch its first nuclear power and propulsion rocket by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
“That’s going to essentially almost establish the transcontinental railroad to Mars ,” he said. “It’s how you efficiently move lots of mass to Mars. So it’s not necessarily always the fastest way to get there, but it gives you the tools to build out potentially a Martian outpost, certainly to mine and refine propellant on Mars, which is what you’re going to need to bring your astronauts back home.”
He explained that America would have the capability to send astronauts to Mars, but the hard part was bringing them back. Nuclear power and propulsion solved that problem.
Meanwhile, Isaacman reaffirmed that the Artemis program would continue to push forward the goal of the president’s national space policy to not just land humans back on the moon, but to construct a lunar base in order to stay and fulfill its scientific, economic, and strategic potential.
That base, he said, will involve a nuclear power plant, as well as mining operations, and refining Helium 3, which is considered to be the best fuel for nuclear fusion reactors, and plan to do it before communist China’s plan to do so by 2030.
“The Chinese said they’re going to do it ,” Isaacman said of a nuclear reactor on the moon, “We’re going to do it first .”
But all of these plans still start with the mission whose rocket stands at Launch Complex 39-B at Kennedy Space Center in Florida: Artemis II. That 10-day mission, which will carry humans around the moon for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972, and could do so as early as Feb. 8, awaits the results of a crucial dress rehearsal of launch day conditions set for Feb. 2.
“America’s mission to the Moon won’t end with a handful of landings,” Isaacman said on X. ”We will undertake repeatable and affordable missions that expand our presence across the lunar surface, fulfilling a 35-year promise to the American taxpayer.”
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 18:40 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 22:30:00 +0000 How Easy Is It To Open A Daycare In Minnesota?
How Easy Is It To Open A Daycare In Minnesota?
How Easy Is It To Open A Daycare In Minnesota?
Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Minnesota is facing heavy scrutiny after the Trump administration accused bad actors in the state of exploiting federal funds from child-focused programs for personal gain.
The Minneapolis skyline, on Jan. 11, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Dec. 29, 2025, that 98 people—85 of Somali descent— were indicted in welfare fraud cases in the state.
Minnesota was home to the “largest COVID-19 fraud case” in America, as 78 defendants—72 of Somalian descent—were accused of pocketing $300 million to $400 million dollars of “Feeding Our Future” funds that were supposed to provide children free meals during the pandemic.
Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, the mastermind behind the “Feeding Our Future” scandal, was sentenced to 28 years in prison in August.
The Trump administration last month announced it would freeze $185 million in federal funds to Minnesota until the scandal-plagued state could prove that the money was being used properly.
Even though federal funds have temporarily dried up in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, prospective child care providers are still able to obtain child care licenses.
The Epoch Times investigated how to open a day care in Minnesota , with a focus on the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, which have the highest concentration of Somali residents in the United States.
Licensing Applications
The State of Minnesota’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families manages licensing applications for child care centers and charges a nonrefundable fee of $500 to apply. Prospective small business owners can receive a license in approximately three to six months.
Aspiring providers have two routes to obtain a license: open a child care center or provide services at their own home.
An in-home day care license is hundreds of dollars cheaper and requires potential providers to go through their local county for a small fee. Some may even be eligible to receive a grant of $2,000 for startup costs.
Aspiring child care providers seeking licensure in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, which oversee applications in Minneapolis and St. Paul, have to pay a nonrefundable $50 application fee.
Before an application can be submitted, future business owners must first attend an orientation.
Ramsey County requires in-person orientation, which is offered once a month, whileHennepin County allows people to take a 30-minute online orientation and submit their application immediately. Hennepin County’s online orientation can be completed in four separate languages: Somali, Spanish, English and Hmong.
The orientation presentation explains the “many benefits” provided to licensed providers, including food programs, eligibility for loans and grants, and small business tax benefits.At the end of the orientation, the county provides an email address to request the six-page Family Child Care Application Form. The document, which is not available to download, asks a series of questions relating to the applicant, which will be used to help conduct a background check.
Children watch television at ABC Learning Center in Minneapolis, Minn., on Dec. 31, 2025. AP Photo/Mark Vancleave
Background Check
Hennepin County charges $49.10 for a background check per provider.
The background check form requires applicants to list specific information about their living situation, such as who could be around children under their care, and add references.
The check does a deep dive into a person’s entire criminal record, which includes a juvenile record for people under the age of 28.
Additional checks include where the person has lived in the past five years and if they’ve received government benefits.
Training
Licensed providers must attend several hours of mandatory training before they are granted their license, according to requirements by the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
The mandatory training includes a six-hour course titled “Supervising for Safety for Family Child Care” and a four-hour course on child development and learning and behavior guidance. Other required training includes “Pediatric First Aid & Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,” “Reducing the Risk of Sudden Unexpected Infant Death,” “Reducing the Risk of Abusive Head Trauma,” and “Basic Education for Safe Travel” if transportation will be provided.
The classes are offered by the state and amount to $219 total, although some of the courses are free.
Additional adult caregivers must go through the same training, but people who identify as a “helper” are not required to do so.
Other courses are offered for providers who plan to take care of infants and children under school age.
Processing and Approval
The processing period can take up to half a year, depending on how many applications are going through the system and if an applicant makes mistakes on initial forms.
The Epoch Times contacted Hennepin County for information on how many applications were denied in 2025 and did not hear back by the time this report was published.
Once approved, the licensed provider attends a small group meeting on how to “prepare your home and begin your child care business,” including requirements for space, sleeping, equipment, and safety.
Grants
Minnesota offers training for providers seeking child care assistance funds and lets people apply through the state’s Provider Hub.
A licensed provider in Minnesota has access to the Provider Hub and is eligible to participate in the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), which uses federal funds to help low-income families pay for child care.
CCAP, which has 23,000 children enrolled in Minneapolis, uses federal money from the Child Care and Development Fund.
Child care providers apply for smaller grants, provided by the state, using the Child Care Aware Grants Program, which gives up to $1,000 for family child care and $2,500 to centers.
Applications for regional grants open once a year, but “soon-to-be licensed” providers can also apply for startup grants of up to $2,000 for family child care and $3,000 for child care centers.
Students from Little Scholars in New York City, on Dec. 11, 2025. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Funding Freeze
Due to widespread fraud allegations in Minnesota, not all grants are available.
The Trump administration announced on Dec. 30, 2025, that it was freezing child care funding in all 50 states after Minnesota day care centers run by Somali residents became the epicenter of alleged fraud scandals .
The freeze impacts the Child Care and Development Fund, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Head Start program, and refugee assistance programs.
In 2025, the federal government provided nearly $2.4 billion to the Child Care and Development Fund, $7.35 billion to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and $869 million the Social Services Block Grant.
Minnesota received 7.7 percent ($184.9 million) of the money allocated to the Child Care and Development fund in 2025, according to data provided by the Office of the Administration for Children and Families.
The state received 3.5 percent ($262 million) of the funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2025, according to the state’s budget.
“Funds will be released only when states prove they are being spent legitimately,” Health and Human Services (HHS) Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said during the announcement.
Controversies
Minnesota and its Somali population has received heavy criticism after allegations of widespread fraud surfaced in the state.
YouTuber Nick Shirley went viral after posting a video which featured a series of Somali-run day cares, seemingly empty, despite receiving federal funding.
The Epoch Times confirmed that Quality Learning Center, which was featured in Shirley’s video, closed shortly after a viral video showed its sign misspelled Learning as “Learing.”
The scandals led Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to drop out of his bid for reelection on Jan. 5, even though he blamed the alleged fraud on “an organized group of criminals,” as opposed to the state’s oversight.
“Every minute I spend defending my own political interest would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences,” Walz wrote in his announcement that ended his bid for a third term as governor.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 17:30 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 21:20:00 +0000 Trump Says Federal Authorities Won't Respond To Protests In Democrat-Led Cities Unless Asked
Trump Says Federal Authorities Won't Respond To Protests In Democrat-Led Cities Unless Asked
Trump Says Federal Authorities Won't Respond To Protests In Democrat-Led Cities Unless Asked
Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced federal authorities will not intervene in protests in Democrat-led jurisdictions, but will continue to forcefully protect federal property.
Federal officers in front of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 9, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times
“I have instructed Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, that under no circumstances are we going to participate in various poorly run Democrat Cities with regard to their Protests and/or Riots unless, and until, they ask us for help ,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
“We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.”
The president’s message comes after federal authorities shot and killed protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti during recent immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shot Good on Jan. 7 as she struck the officer with her SUV while attempting to flee apprehension. Officials said the ICE agent suffered internal bleeding during the encounter.
A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer fatally shot Pretti on Jan. 24 during an altercation. Videos from the incident show Pretti was filming federal authorities with his phone, and stepped between one of the CBP officers and another protester the officer had pushed to the ground. The incident then devolved into a struggle between Pretti and several federal agents , ending with one or more of those federal agents shooting him.
Pretti possessed a permit to carry firearms, and had a handgun on his person at the time of the altercation. His death is now the subject of a federal civil rights investigation .
Representatives for Pretti’s family confirmed he was filmed in a separate Jan. 13 altercation in which he appeared to spit at a vehicle and kick out its taillight. The vehicle then stopped, and several masked federal agents proceeded to tackle him to the ground.
In his Saturday social media post, Trump said he issued instructions for ICE and Border Patrol personnel to “be very forceful” in protecting federal property.
“There will be no spitting in the faces of our Officers, there will be no punching or kicking the headlights of our cars, and there will be no rock or brick throwing at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors,” the president added. “If there is, those people will suffer an equal, or more, consequence .”
Trump said state and local governments also have an obligation to protect federal property, as well as local property.
The president also raised the prospect of deploying military personnel to assist in protecting federal property.
“Remember that I stated, in the strongest of language, to BEWARE — ICE, Border Patrol or, if necessary, our Military, will be extremely powerful and tough in the protection of our Federal Property,” he wrote.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 16:20 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 20:45:00 +0000 House Speaker Says He Has Votes To End Government Shutdown This Week
House Speaker Says He Has Votes To End Government Shutdown This Week
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he is confident that the House will end the partial government shutdown that was initiated on Saturday after Congress
Read more.....
House Speaker Says He Has Votes To End Government Shutdown This Week
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he is confident that the House will end the partial government shutdown that was initiated on Saturday after Congress failed to approve a measure to keep the government funded.
“We’ll get this done by Tuesday, I’m convinced,” Speaker Johnson said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“We do have to do it by a rule process, which will probably have to be on our own.”
However, Johnson did tell NBC's "Meet The Press" that “we have a logistical challenge of getting everyone in town," seemingly referring to transportation problems related to recent winter storms that left areas without power or canceled thousands of flights late last month.
The Speaker added that after conversations with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Republicans in the lower congressional chamber have “got to pass a rule and [will] probably do this mostly on our own,” adding that that’s “very unfortunate.”
“After the Senate acted over the weekend, we will now have 11 of 12 separate appropriations bills approved by both chambers,” Johnson added.
“Because they modified our package, they sent it over a little differently, which means we’ve got to address the bills again.”
As Jack Phillips reports for The Epoch Times , the U.S. government entered a brief shutdown on Saturday after Congress failed to approve a deal to keep a wide swath of operations funded. The Senate easily passed a spending package on Jan. 30, but the House of Representatives is currently out of town.
Johnson, whose party has a razor-thin majority in the House, told NBC on Sunday that the GOP’s intention is to fund all agencies except for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency that runs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others, by this Tuesday.
When that happens, he added, “then we will have two weeks of good faith negotiations to figure it out.”
Democrats are demanding reforms to ICE, such as requiring mandatory body cameras, and they also want to see the end of roving patrols and ICE agents’ use of face masks.
Lawmakers have said they would seek to shut down the government after two protesters were shot in Minneapolis last month while clashing with federal agents.
“I just don’t see how, in good conscience, Democrats can vote for continuing ICE funding” after the shootings, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
The Trump administration may make changes to some DHS practices but ICE agents are still likely to wear masks to protect their identities, Johnson said.
“There’s been tragedies in Minnesota and in Minneapolis in particular, brought about in large measure by the circumstances on the ground,” Johnson said, adding that agitators have been doxxing and threatening ICE agents.
He added that the “reason that ICE agents wear masks is to protect their own identities and protect their own families, and in some circumstances, they’ve had a price put on their heads effectively by local officials. And that’s what’s created the dangerous conditions.”
In multiple news releases, DHS said that violent attacks on ICE agents have skyrocketed in recent months under the Trump administration , which has vowed to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants—particularly those with violent criminal records. In October 2025, a man armed with a rifle opened fire on an ICE office in Dallas, killing at least two people before he killed himself.
DHS in January said that a 1,300 percent increase in assaults on ICE agents has been reported, while there has been an 8,000 percent increase in death threats and a 3,200 percent increase in vehicular attacks. In one of the Minneapolis shootings, video footage showed a protester, later identified as Renee Good, hit an agent with her vehicle as she tried to escape apprehension. The agent reacted by shooting and killing her.
The shutdown comes just weeks after the longest government shutdown in history ended in mid-November 2025.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 15:45 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 20:10:00 +0000 The Boomcession: Why Americans Hate What Looks Like An Economic Boom
The Boomcession: Why Americans Hate What Looks Like An Economic Boom
The Boomcession: Why Americans Hate What Looks Like An Economic Boom
Authored by Matt Stoller via The BIG Newsletter,
The models used by policymakers to understand wages, economic growth, and consumer spending are misleading. That's why corporate America is having a party, and everyone else is mad.
On Friday, Donald Trump nominated candidate Kevin Walsh to become Chair of the Federal Reserve. Warsh is mostly an orthodox Wall Street GOP pick, though he is married to the billionaire heiress of the Estee Lauder fortune and was named in the Epstein files. He’s perceived not as a Trump loyalist but as an avatar of capital; here’s Obama advisor and Democratic economist Jason Furman making the case for Warsh.
There’s a lot to say about the politics of the Fed, but a contact of mine in Trump-world told me the way these guys understand political success or failure is pretty simple. Are the wages of middle class Americans increasing? That’s it.
In other words, Warsh’s job is to make sure the public likes Trump’s economy. And that’s tough. In Trump’s first term, people were happy with the economy, this time they are not. In fact, if you judge solely by consumer sentiment, Trump’s first term was the third best economy Americans experienced since 1960. Trump’s second term is not only worse than his first, it is the worst economic management ever recorded by this indicator.
Seen in this light, it makes sense that there were the beginnings of a political realignment under Trump. Americans were genuinely getting rich in ways they hadn’t experienced in decades, and they did experience a horror show under Joe Biden. It also explains why Trump is so unpopular today, with Americans complaining about the economy in a way they didn’t in his first term.
This observation isn’t a commentary about Biden or Trump, but about a structural change in the economy. You can see how people think about economic growth itself has shifted. Here’s the relationship between growth and consumer sentiment. They used to rise in parallel, higher growth meant more consumer confidence, but they started breaking down in the mid-2010s, and fell apart completely post-Covid.
If you look not at whether sentiment is correlated with growth, but at absolute levels, the situation is even more clear. Growth has been pretty good from 2021-2025, but the public is really mad.
What’s odd is that wages are increasing today about the same as they were in Trump’s first term. In 2018, when the University of Michigan consumer sentiment indicator was at a buoyant 98.4, real average hourly wages were up annually by 1.1%. In 2025, when the sentiment indicator was at 57.6, the lowest ever recorded, real average hourly wages increased annually by… 1.1%.
I think Warsh has a rough task, because the models underpinning how policymakers think about the economy just don’t reflect the realities of modern commerce. The fundamental dynamic is that those models were constructed in an era where America was one discrete economy, with Wall Street and the public tied together by the housing finance system . But today, Americans increasingly live in tiered bubbles that have less and less to do with one another. Warsh will essentially be looking at the wrong indicators, pushing buttons that are mislabeled.
While corporate America is experiencing good times, much of the country is experiencing recessionary conditions. Let’s contrast consumer sentiment indicators with statistics showing an economic boom. Last week, the government came out with stats on real gross domestic product increasing at a scorching 4.4% in the third quarter of last year. There’s higher consumer spending, corporate investment, government spending, and a better trade balance. Inflation, according to the Consumer Price Index , is low at 2.6.% over the past year. And while official numbers aren’t out for the final three months of the year, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast shows that it estimates growth at 4.2%. And there are other indicators showing prosperity, from low unemployment to high business formation, which was up about 8% last year, as well as record corporate profits.
These numbers would seem to cut against what I observed about how angry the public is on the economy. On CNBC, analysts discount consumer sentiment indicators. They are just a poll of what people think, not “hard” data of pricing or profits. The consumer powers ahead, even if consumers are unhappy.
Behavioral economists and psychologists have all sorts of reasons to explain that people don’t really understand the economy particularly well. But in general, when the stats and the public mood conflict, I believe the public is usually correct. Often, there are some weird anomalies with the data used by policymakers. In 2023, I noticed that the consumer price index, the typical measure of inflation, didn’t account for borrowing costs, so the Fed hike cycle, which caused increases in credit card, mortgage, auto loan, payday loans, et al, just wasn’t incorporated. The public wasn’t mad at phantom inflation, they were mad at real inflation that the “experts” didn’t see.
I don’t think that’s the only miscalculation. Let’s go back to the 2018 vs 2025 comparison, and look at a specific item in consumer spending, to see a good illustration of this phenomenon. “Consumer spending” is considered good, aka it’s stuff people want. It has many components, because people buy lots of different things, from food to clothing to health care.
There’s an item in the personal consumer expenditure data called Financial services furnished without payment (107), on which Americans are going to spend roughly $600 billion this year, or $2k per person. That’s not a small amount, and it’s also growing very quickly. So what is this item? Basically, it’s “free” checking. When you keep your savings in a bank, and that bank pays you much less than the market rate of interest, that’s a cost you don’t necessarily see, but a cost nonetheless. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) assumes the $2k a year you send banks by receiving too little on your deposits is tallied as “buying” free check and banking apps. That’s considered more consumer spending, and more consumer spending means a happier consumer. Aka, BLS thinks you really like your banking app.
I’ve done a bit of analysis of this category to see how it changed from 2018 to 2025. Banking services were overpriced at the beginning of Trump’s first term, but stayed pretty stable. For the entire Trump administration, this category of “consumer spending” increased by $10/month, from roughly $1000/year to $1120/year. Still overpaying for banking, but the increase wasn’t hugely noticeable over four years. For 2018, it was an increase of $2.50/month. The Fed had its interest rates at near zero, so banks couldn’t underpay that much. In 2019, the amount consumers “paid” banks even dropped, which is a price cut.
What happened next? Under Biden, as interest rates jumped and banks took advantage by raising prices to consumers, Americans paid an additional annual amount of $230 billion a year, roughly more than $700 per person. That’s a big increase. And how about 2025? Well, we don’t have the full year’s worth of data, but just taking the first three quarters it’s about the same increase as it was for the entire four years of the Trump administration.
This category matters for three reasons.
(1) Consumer Spending Doesn’t Tell You Much About Consumers Anymore
First, it’s “consumer spending,” meaning that it’s considered something people choose to spend their income on. When commentators talk about the “strength of the consumer” or consumers “continuing to spend,” this category is included in their formulation. That’s crazy. But no one wants a banking app or checks, it’s non—discretionary, akin to taxes. No one says “consumers choose to continue paying taxes,” because it’s not a choice. Neither, really is this one, though there is more flexibility because you can select among banks.
Economists distinguish between income and disposable income, which is what you earn after taxes. But increasingly, things that feel like taxes are eating up more and more of what people earn. For instance, according to the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, a large chunk of the increase in consumer spending in 2025 was health care, housing and utilities, and financial services. These are “non-discretionary,” meaning people have to pay them. But they show up as a bigger economy and more consumer spending.
Gross domestic product, after all, is just a sum of the financial value of all products and services produced inside the U.S. Are people psyched to pay more in rent and medicine and electricity costs? Are they getting better housing and health care and electricity? I doubt it. When Pfizer raises prices for a drug and sells the same amount, consumer spending goes up. Does this price hike reflect a happier consumer just because consumer spending went up? I don’t think so.
And it’s not just the big obvious stuff. Like imputed banking fees, a lot of this new fake spending and growth is not obvious. I coined a term for these, economic termites , which companies that find ways of exploiting market power in unnoticeable ways, like monopolizing hospital quality surveys. They ‘contribute’ to consumer spending and GDP, but create no actual value.
(2) Spending Inequality Is Real
And that brings me to the second reason the example of banks overcharging consumers matters. Who is more likely to be paying this cost? Rich people tend to get better deposit rates, so the answer is people with lower deposit amounts. That’s inequality, right there, and not income inequality, but spending inequality. There’s pervasive price discrimination against normal people, and this category is a good example.
But there are many others.
For instance, last November, the Atlanta Fed came out with a paper showing that from “2006 to 2020, poorer metropolitan statistical areas experienced annualized food inflation that was 0.46 percentage points higher than that of richer ones—amounting to a cumulative difference of 8.8 percentage points over the period.” The reason was consolidation, but the point here is there’s a different kind of inequality you can’t get from just consumer spending metrics. As another example, if you are middle class, and you are paying for a high deductible health care plan you are trying to avoid using, you are getting less than a wealthier person who has more comprehensive coverage.
Our models of inequality are based on looking at one side of the ledger, wealth and income. If you have a lot of money and/or a high income, you are rich, if you don’t, you aren’t. Analysts are fumbling at this situation by observing there is stark income inequality, the so-called “K Shaped Economy,” often accompanied by this chart.
But while income inequality matters, I’m not totally sure it captures what is happening. More inequality would cause people to feel that the world is unfair, but in a world with higher real income growth, it wouldn’t cause working people to be unable to afford what they could buy the year before. Yet they constantly report feeling pinched.
This mystery becomes less mysterious when you consider spending , aka the other side of the ledger. What if your dollar doesn’t go as far if you’re poor?
Imagine if there were a different currency for Americans based on class. Let’s say there were poor people dollars, which are worth 80 cents apiece, normal people dollars, which are worth 95 cents apiece, and rich people dollars, which are worth 105 cents apiece. If that were the case, how would someone in a policy role understand the welfare of the public?
When calculating consumer spending or inflation, they’d have to find a way to see that the spending of someone who is poor just doesn’t go as far as someone who is rich. To get an accurate account of how Americans are doing, basic national welfare, they would look at these three classes as if they each lived in different countries with different GDPs. And they could adjust based on differing currency valuations.
Doing such an analysis would solve the mystery of why working people feel pinched despite getting higher incomes. What looks like an increase in real wages in aggregate might not be an increase for some, because poor people dollars don’t go as far as rich people dollars. Such a situation isn’t something we’ve really considered, because we’ve just never had a society based on pervasive price differences among different classes. We certainly didn’t have one in 1934 when economists created the model for quantifying economic growth.
That said, treating subgroups as living in different economies is not as outlandish as you might think. There are multiple consumer price indexes, including an experimental one that tracks how prices change for the elderly. In a K-Shaped economy, we need different measurements beyond aggregate statistics for consumer spending and growth, or just looking at different wealth and income amounts. We need to know about spending inequality as well.
(3) Monopoly Driven Inflation Matters
The final interesting aspect of comparing deposits paid to consumers in 2018 vs 2025 is that it shows market power can matter when thinking about inflation and real wages. A few days ago, Fed Chair Jay Powell discussed tariffs, and whether supply side or demand side channels were driving price increases. Of course, tariffs are something that are verboten on Wall Street, so it’s ok to believe they negatively affect prices. By contrast, everyone who matters has agreed we should ignore whether monopolies contribute to prices, even though plenty of economic models treat tariffs and monopolies similarly.
But that ignorance needs to end. The reason banks don’t raise interest rates on deposits when the Fed increases rates is because they don’t have to, as there isn’t enough competition to force them to compete with each other over deposits. It’s a pain in the ass to change banks, intentionally so, which is why banks lobbied against an open banking rule to make it easier. Additionally, when banks advertising free checking or don’t charge a fee for online banking, they aren’t disclosing the additional large cost of low rates on deposits. Macro-economists scoff at market power as a driver of inflation, except when it comes to working people getting raises or immigration. But here we go.
In other words, while wage increases were the same in 2018 and 2025, and consumer spending went up both years, what people bought was not the same. In Trump’s first term, broadly speaking, higher incomes went to consumer spending for stuff people wanted. In his second term, broadly speaking, higher income is going to consumer spending for stuff people don’t want but have to buy, especially for poor and working people. And these are a result, in part, of elevated market power unleashed by the post-Covid moment and the Fed hiking cycles, as well as changing dynamics of health care costs.
Why GDP Doesn’t Measure Welfare Anymore
Finally, there’s a more philosophical point, which I don’t think explains the short-term frustrations people feel, but is directionally correct. Do people actually want what the economy is producing? For most of the 20th century, the answer was yes. When Simon Kuznets invented these measurement statistics in 1934, financial value and the value that Americans placed on products and services were similar. A bigger economy meant things like toilets and electricity spreading across rural America, and cars and food and washing machines.
Today? Well, that’s less clear. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , the second fastest growing sector of the economy in terms of GDP growth from 2019-2024 was gambling. Philip Pilkington wrote a good essay last summer on the moral assumptions behind our growth statistics. There is no agreed upon notion of what makes up an economically valuable object or activity, so our stats are inherently subtle moral judgments. Classic moral philosophers like Adam Smith believed in the “use value” of an item, meaning how it could be used, whereas neoclassical economists believed in the “exchange value” of an item, making no judgments about use and are just counting up its market price.
Normal people subscribe on a moral level to use value. Most of us see someone spending money on a gambling addiction as doing something worse than providing Christmas presents for kids, but not because of price. However, our GDP models use the market value basis. Kuznets, presumably, was not amoral, he just thought that our laws would ban immoral activities like gambling, and so use value and market value wouldn’t diverge. But they have.
It’s not just things like gambling or pornography or speculation. A lot of previously unmeasured activity has been turned into data and monetized, which isn’t actually increasing real growth but measuring what already existed. Take the change from meeting someone at a party to using a dating app. One is part of GDP, the other isn’t. Both are real, but only one would show a bigger economy.
Beyond that much of our economy is now based on intangibles - the fastest growing sector was software publishing. Is Microsoft moving to a subscription fee model for Office truly some sort of groundbreaking new product? It’s hard to say, while corporate assets used to be hard things like factories, today much of it is intangibles like intellectual property.
Let Them Eat Charts
A boomcession, where the rich and corporate America experience a boom while working people feel a recession, is a very unhealthy dynamic. It’s certainly possible to create metrics to measure it, and to help policymakers understand real income growth among different subgroups. You could start looking at real income after non-discretionary consumer spending, or find ways of adjusting for price discrimination.
But I think a better approach is to try to knit us into one society again. The kinds of policymakers who could try to create metrics to understand the different experiences of classes, and ameliorate them, don’t have power. Instead, the people in charge still use models which presume one economy and one relatively uniform set of prices, where “consumer spending” means stuff consumers want.
I once noted a speech in 2016 by then-Fed Chair Janet Yellen in which she expressed surprise that powerful rich firms and small weak ones had different borrowing rates, which affected the “monetary transmission channel” the Fed relied on. Sure it was obvious in the real world, but she preferred theory.
Or they don’t use models at all; Kevin Warsh is not an economist, he’s a lawyer and political operative, and is uninterested in academic theory. He cares about corporate profits and capital formation. That probably won’t work out well either.
At any rate, we have to start measuring what matters again. If we don’t, then we’ll continue to be baffled that normal people hate the economy that looks fine on our charts.
* * *
If you liked this issue of BIG, you can sign up here for more issues, a newsletter on how to restore fair commerce, innovation, and democracy. If you really liked it, read Matt's book, Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy .
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 15:10 Close
Sun, 01 Feb 2026 19:35:00 +0000 Lutnick Too? New Epstein Files Reveal Trip To Pedo Island After He Said He Cut Ties
Lutnick Too? New Epstein Files Reveal Trip To Pedo Island After He Said He Cut Ties
Lutnick Too? New Epstein Files Reveal Trip To Pedo Island After He Said He Cut Ties
We're gonna need a bigger cork board.
As far as massive distractions go, the latest Epstein files release seems to be all anyone is talking about. Not only do they mix random and salacious claims called into the FBI tip line (which could have been lodged by anyone for any reason - so you should assign low value to those), there are tons of new, high-value details - largely exposing people for lying about their relationship with Epstein .
Related:
Latest Epstein Release Catches Goldman's Top Lawyer In Massive Lie
Latest Epstein Emails Reveal Bill Gates Slipped Wife Antibiotics For STD He Got From Russian Hookers
Palmer Luckey One-Shots Jason Calacanis Over Epstein Ties
Other claims have been debunked, such as Elon Musk's 'Epstein Island Vacation ' email which is found nowhere in the actual release.
We've also got a crazy two-hour interview between Epstein and Steve Bannon recorded months before his 2019 arrest, and a ton of other things we still need to get to .
Lutnick Too!
Commerce Secretary and billionaire Howard Lutnick features in the new Epstein files - having once planned a trip to Epstein's private island .
The trip, planned in 2012, came years after Lutnick claimed he cut all ties with the pedophile . Yet in December of that year, Lutnick sent an email to Epstein saying that he had a group of people, including his wife and children and another family, who were visiting the Caribbean - and inquired as to where Epstein was located and whether they could visit for a meal.
Epstein, replying through an assistant, set up a lunch gathering .
When reached for comment, Lutnick told the NY Times "I spent zero time with him," before hanging up.
The documents suggest the visit did occur. The gathering was set for Dec. 23, 2012. A day later, an assistant to Mr. Epstein forwarded Mr. Lutnick a message from Mr. Epstein: “Nice seeing you,” it said.
In a podcast interview last year, Mr. Lutnick claimed that around 2005, he and his wife had been so revolted by Mr. Epstein that they decided not to associate with him again.
Mr. Lutnick said in the interview that Mr. Epstein invited them to tour his Upper East Side mansion , next door to Mr. Lutnick’s own home. When they noticed a massage table in the middle of a room, Mr. Lutnick recalled, Mr. Epstein explained that he received “the right kind of massage” every day. Mr. Lutnick said that he and his wife quickly left and decided to “never be in a room with that disgusting person ever again.”
Except, that was complete bullshit (the running theme with these new releases).
Lutnick's connection to Epstein isn't a huge surprise after a 2019 Crain's investigation found that Epstein had significant links to the property next to his infamous Manhattan townhouse at 9 East 71st Street.
Crain's investigation found that Epstein's history at the address is entangled with the adjacent property, 11 E. 71st St., now home to billionaire Howard Lutnick —as well as with 301 E. 66th St., a building belonging to Epstein's brother.
An entity called the SAM Conversion Corp. purchased 11 E. 71st St. in 1988, more than a year before the Nine East 71st Street Corp. bought the former school that would become Epstein's domicile. At the time, both companies used a Columbus, Ohio, address associated with Limited Brands founder Leslie Wexner, Epstein's mentor and client.
In 1992 SAM Conversion Corp. sold 11 E. 71st St. to the 11 East 71st Street Trust for "ten dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part," records show. Martha Stark, former commissioner of the city Department of Finance, told Crain's that the $10 figure is a placeholder used in many real estate sales—a holdover from a period when the value of property transactions was not publicly disclosed.
...
In 1998 Comet Trust sold 11 E. 71st St. to Lutnick, again for "10 dollars and other valuable consideration." The real estate transfer tax payment came to $106,400, from which Stark estimated the actual price to have been $7.6 million.
Lutnick, now the CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, took out a $4 million mortgage on the property the same day as the sale . His spokesperson did not reply by press time to requests for comment on the property's history and his relationship with his next-door neighbor.
These are the people governing us...
Tyler Durden
Sun, 02/01/2026 - 14:35 Close