America’s largest retirement safety net is facing renewed financial pressure, and the timeline is tightening. A new projection suggests Social Security’s core retirement fund could run out of full funding sooner than previously expected, raising fresh questions about benefit cuts, tax changes, and what this means for millions of Americans planning their financial future.

According to the latest analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is now projected to be depleted in 2032. That is one year earlier than previous estimates and highlights the growing urgency for policymakers to address the program’s long term sustainability.

Why the Timeline Moved Forward

Several economic factors are accelerating the projected depletion date. Higher inflation has increased cost of living adjustments, pushing benefit payments higher. At the same time, lower tax revenue from Social Security benefits, partly tied to policy changes affecting senior deductions, has reduced incoming funding to the system.

The Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is the primary source of payments for retired workers and surviving family members. A separate Disability Insurance trust fund covers disability benefits. Although these funds are legally separate, analysts often look at them together to evaluate the overall health of Social Security.

The combined trust funds are now projected to be exhausted in 2033, also one year sooner than previously expected.

Experts say the shift in timing is not shocking, but it reinforces the need for action.

“It’s not uncommon for CBO and the Social Security trustees to have slightly different projections. This is not cause for surprise or alarm, but it does underline that Congress should take action at some point in the next half decade,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works.

What Happens If Social Security Runs Short

Even if the trust funds reach depletion, Social Security does not disappear. Payroll taxes would continue flowing into the system, allowing partial benefits to continue. However, without legislative changes, those benefits would be reduced.

Last year’s trustee projections suggested benefits could fall by roughly 20 percent once the trust funds run out of reserves. That would represent a significant income shock for millions of retirees.

“If Congress failed to act, a 20 percent across the board benefit cut would be a disaster for seniors, people with disabilities and families who have lost a breadwinner,” Altman said.

As of early 2026, the average Social Security retirement benefit stands at about $2,071 per month. For many Americans, that income is not supplemental. It is foundational.

According to AARP, roughly 40 percent of Americans age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half their income, while about 14 percent depend on it for 90 percent or more.

The Bigger Fiscal Picture

The Social Security challenge is not isolated. It is part of a broader federal financial strain.

“There are no surprises here or bright spots of encouraging news. Our nation’s deficits, debt, interest payments and trust funds are all in terrible shape,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Rising federal debt, increasing interest costs, and demographic shifts are all putting pressure on entitlement programs. The United States is experiencing a major demographic transition as baby boomers retire and fewer workers are available to support the system through payroll taxes.

This worker to retiree imbalance is one of the biggest structural threats to Social Security’s long term stability.

Key Drivers Behind Social Security’s Financial Strain

Several major forces are shaping the program’s future:

1. Aging population
More Americans are retiring, and people are living longer. That increases lifetime benefit payouts.

2. Fewer workers per retiree
In 1960, there were roughly five workers supporting each retiree. Today there are closer to three, and the ratio continues to fall.

3. Rising benefit payments
Cost of living adjustments tied to inflation have boosted payouts significantly in recent years.

4. Slower payroll tax growth
Wage growth has not kept pace with benefit obligations, reducing incoming funding strength.

5. Policy changes
Tax and deduction adjustments affecting seniors have reduced some revenue flowing into the system.

What Congress Might Do Next

Lawmakers have several potential options, though none are politically easy. Historically, Social Security reforms have combined multiple changes rather than relying on a single solution.

Possible policy actions include:

• Raising the payroll tax cap so higher earners pay more into the system
• Increasing the payroll tax rate slightly
• Gradually raising the retirement age
• Adjusting benefit formulas for higher income retirees
• Means testing benefits
• Expanding immigration to increase the worker base

Some policymakers advocate expanding benefits and increasing taxes on higher earners, while others favor slowing benefit growth or restructuring the program to improve long term sustainability.

What is clear is that delaying action increases the severity of future adjustments.

For investors and workers, the most important takeaway is uncertainty, not collapse.

Social Security is unlikely to disappear, but it is also unlikely to remain unchanged. Future retirees may face lower relative benefits, higher retirement ages, or greater reliance on personal savings.

This makes personal retirement planning more critical than ever.

Key implications include:

• Relying solely on Social Security is increasingly risky
• Retirement savings targets may need to increase
• Income diversification becomes more important
• Longevity planning is essential

Americans who plan early and build supplemental income sources are far more resilient to policy changes.

What Investors and Workers Should Watch

Several developments could shape Social Security’s future over the next five years:

• Congressional reform proposals
• Changes to payroll tax policy
• Inflation trends affecting benefit adjustments
• Labor force participation and wage growth
• Federal deficit and debt trajectory

The closer the system moves toward projected depletion without reform, the more aggressive future policy changes may need to be.

The Bottom Line

Social Security is not about to vanish, but the timeline for reform is tightening. With trust fund reserves potentially running short in just over six years, policymakers face increasing pressure to act.

For Americans, the message is clear. The era of relying primarily on Social Security for retirement security is fading. Personal savings, diversified income streams, and proactive financial planning will play a much larger role in the decades ahead.

The sooner individuals adjust, the more control they will have over their financial future.

America’s largest retirement safety net is facing renewed financial pressure, and the timeline is tightening. A new projection suggests Social Security’s core retirement fund could run out of full funding sooner than previously expected, raising fresh questions about benefit cuts, tax changes, and what this means for millions of Americans planning their financial future.

According to the latest analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is now projected to be depleted in 2032. That is one year earlier than previous estimates and highlights the growing urgency for policymakers to address the program’s long term sustainability.

Why the Timeline Moved Forward

Several economic factors are accelerating the projected depletion date. Higher inflation has increased cost of living adjustments, pushing benefit payments higher. At the same time, lower tax revenue from Social Security benefits, partly tied to policy changes affecting senior deductions, has reduced incoming funding to the system.

The Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund is the primary source of payments for retired workers and surviving family members. A separate Disability Insurance trust fund covers disability benefits. Although these funds are legally separate, analysts often look at them together to evaluate the overall health of Social Security.

The combined trust funds are now projected to be exhausted in 2033, also one year sooner than previously expected.

Experts say the shift in timing is not shocking, but it reinforces the need for action.

“It’s not uncommon for CBO and the Social Security trustees to have slightly different projections. This is not cause for surprise or alarm, but it does underline that Congress should take action at some point in the next half decade,” said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works.

What Happens If Social Security Runs Short

Even if the trust funds reach depletion, Social Security does not disappear. Payroll taxes would continue flowing into the system, allowing partial benefits to continue. However, without legislative changes, those benefits would be reduced.

Last year’s trustee projections suggested benefits could fall by roughly 20 percent once the trust funds run out of reserves. That would represent a significant income shock for millions of retirees.

“If Congress failed to act, a 20 percent across the board benefit cut would be a disaster for seniors, people with disabilities and families who have lost a breadwinner,” Altman said.

As of early 2026, the average Social Security retirement benefit stands at about $2,071 per month. For many Americans, that income is not supplemental. It is foundational.

According to AARP, roughly 40 percent of Americans age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half their income, while about 14 percent depend on it for 90 percent or more.

The Bigger Fiscal Picture

The Social Security challenge is not isolated. It is part of a broader federal financial strain.

“There are no surprises here or bright spots of encouraging news. Our nation’s deficits, debt, interest payments and trust funds are all in terrible shape,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Rising federal debt, increasing interest costs, and demographic shifts are all putting pressure on entitlement programs. The United States is experiencing a major demographic transition as baby boomers retire and fewer workers are available to support the system through payroll taxes.

This worker to retiree imbalance is one of the biggest structural threats to Social Security’s long term stability.

Key Drivers Behind Social Security’s Financial Strain

Several major forces are shaping the program’s future:

1. Aging population
More Americans are retiring, and people are living longer. That increases lifetime benefit payouts.

2. Fewer workers per retiree
In 1960, there were roughly five workers supporting each retiree. Today there are closer to three, and the ratio continues to fall.

3. Rising benefit payments
Cost of living adjustments tied to inflation have boosted payouts significantly in recent years.

4. Slower payroll tax growth
Wage growth has not kept pace with benefit obligations, reducing incoming funding strength.

5. Policy changes
Tax and deduction adjustments affecting seniors have reduced some revenue flowing into the system.

What Congress Might Do Next

Lawmakers have several potential options, though none are politically easy. Historically, Social Security reforms have combined multiple changes rather than relying on a single solution.

Possible policy actions include:

• Raising the payroll tax cap so higher earners pay more into the system
• Increasing the payroll tax rate slightly
• Gradually raising the retirement age
• Adjusting benefit formulas for higher income retirees
• Means testing benefits
• Expanding immigration to increase the worker base

Some policymakers advocate expanding benefits and increasing taxes on higher earners, while others favor slowing benefit growth or restructuring the program to improve long term sustainability.

What is clear is that delaying action increases the severity of future adjustments.

Global Market News

T he Trump administration has officially rolled out TrumpRx, a new government-backed online platform designed to spotlight lower cash prices for prescription medications and expand access to direct-purchase drug options. The initiative is part of a broader push by President Trump to tackle one of the most politically sensitive and financially burdensome issues facing Americans today: the rising cost of prescription drugs.


The website does not sell medications itself. Instead, it functions as a searchable pricing hub that shows discounted cash prices for certain brand-name drugs and directs patients to approved partners where those medications can be purchased. While supporters say TrumpRx could increase transparency and competition, critics question whether it will meaningfully reduce what most Americans actually pay for prescriptions.

Here is what patients, investors, and the healthcare industry need to know.

What TrumpRx Is and How It Works

TrumpRx is a government-operated website that aggregates discounted cash pricing for select prescription drugs. It does not dispense medication, process insurance, or act as a pharmacy. Instead, it links users to pharmaceutical companies, coupon programs, and partner platforms where drugs can be purchased directly.

The system relies heavily on pricing technology from healthcare company GoodRx, which integrates real-time discount data through its API. A GoodRx spokesperson confirmed the company is a “key integration partner,” helping pharmaceutical companies host their self-pay pricing while feeding those prices into the TrumpRx system.

Patients using TrumpRx may:

View discounted cash prices for certain drugs
Receive coupons usable at participating pharmacies
Be directed to pharmaceutical company direct-purchase portals
Compare list prices versus self-pay pricing

The administration has framed the platform as a transparency tool that empowers consumers to shop for lower prices rather than rely solely on insurance networks and pharmacy benefit managers.

The Direct-Pay Drug Model Is Already Growing

TrumpRx arrives during a broader shift toward direct-to-consumer drug purchasing in the pharmaceutical industry. Several major drugmakers have already begun experimenting with bypassing traditional insurance and pharmacy benefit manager channels.

Companies like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk have launched direct-purchase programs for their popular GLP-1 obesity and diabetes medications. These drugs, which have surged in demand nationwide, have become a testing ground for alternative pricing models.

Even before TrumpRx launched, the movement toward self-pay and direct pricing was gaining momentum as pharmaceutical companies sought to:

Reduce reliance on complex insurance pricing negotiations
Offer simplified pricing to patients
Expand access to high-demand drugs
Increase transparency in drug costs

TrumpRx essentially centralizes and publicizes these direct-pay options under a government-backed umbrella.

What Drugs Are Listed on TrumpRx

At launch, TrumpRx displays pricing for 43 brand-name medications from at least 16 pharmaceutical companies that have entered agreements with the administration. Officials have indicated more drugs will be added over time.

Examples include:

AstraZeneca’s asthma drug Airsupra
EMD Serono’s fertility treatment Gonal-F
Several GLP-1 obesity medications

The site compares each drug’s list price to its discounted cash price and calculates the percentage difference, which the administration highlights as a measure of potential savings.

How Much GLP-1 Drugs Cost on TrumpRx

One of the most closely watched categories on TrumpRx is GLP-1 obesity drugs, which have exploded in popularity and sparked nationwide debate over affordability and insurance coverage.

Current cash pricing ranges include:

Wegovy injectable: approximately $199 to $349
Wegovy oral version: about $149 to $299
Zepbound injectable: about $299 to $449
Upcoming oral GLP-1 from Eli Lilly expected between $149 and $399

These prices are significantly lower than official list prices, which can exceed $1,300 per month. However, they still represent a major monthly expense for many patients.

Will TrumpRx Accept Insurance

No. At launch, TrumpRx operates strictly as a cash-payment platform. The site states:

“At this time, TrumpRx discounted pricing is only available for cash-paying patients.”

Additionally, purchases made through direct channels typically do not count toward insurance deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. This is a major factor that could reduce the long-term financial benefit for some users.

However, future insurance integration is possible. The Federal Trade Commission recently reached a settlement with pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts, which included provisions stating the company will provide covered access to TrumpRx if legal and regulatory conditions allow.

This suggests the administration may push for insurance compatibility later.

Who Can Use TrumpRx

Anyone with a valid prescription can use the platform, though some discounts may not apply to individuals covered by government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. Like traditional prescription purchases, a doctor’s prescription is required.

The administration has positioned TrumpRx as a universal tool for price transparency rather than a restricted program.

Are TrumpRx Prices Actually the Lowest

TrumpRx displays what it says are the lowest available cash prices, but that does not necessarily mean patients will spend less overall.

Drug pricing experts point to several complications:

• Insurance costs count toward deductibles and out-of-pocket limits
• Self-pay purchases usually do not
• Insurance copays often drop significantly after deductibles are met
• Formularies and rebates can lower actual insured costs

For many patients, paying cash may initially appear cheaper but end up costing more over time.

The Discount Calculation Debate

TrumpRx highlights savings by comparing list prices to discounted cash prices. For example, Wegovy’s list price of roughly $1,349 compared with a cash price as low as $199 results in a displayed discount of up to 85 percent.

However, critics say this comparison can be misleading. Patients rarely pay full list price once insurance deductibles are satisfied, and actual savings vary widely based on individual insurance plans.

The debate reflects a long-standing issue in U.S. healthcare pricing where list prices, negotiated rates, and real patient costs often differ dramatically.

Policy and Industry Impact

TrumpRx is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to challenge traditional drug pricing structures, including pharmacy benefit managers, insurance negotiations, and opaque rebate systems.

If expanded, the platform could:

• Increase pricing transparency
• Pressure insurers and PBMs to lower costs
• Encourage more pharmaceutical direct-pricing models
• Shift consumer behavior toward price comparison shopping

However, major structural cost reductions would likely require deeper reforms beyond pricing visibility.

What This Means for Patients

For some patients, TrumpRx may offer meaningful short-term savings, especially those:

• Without insurance
• With high deductibles
• Seeking GLP-1 or specialty medications
• Paying full retail price today

For others, especially those with strong insurance coverage, traditional pharmacy purchasing may remain cheaper long term.

The key takeaway is that TrumpRx introduces another pricing path rather than replacing existing ones.

What This Means for Investors and Healthcare Markets

TrumpRx signals continued disruption in the U.S. pharmaceutical pricing system. Investors should watch several emerging trends:

• Growth of direct-to-consumer drug sales
• Potential pressure on pharmacy benefit managers
• Increased pricing transparency in healthcare
• Expansion of government-driven cost initiatives
• Rising competition in high-demand drug categories like GLP-1

If the platform expands significantly, it could influence pharmaceutical distribution models, insurer strategies, and healthcare pricing dynamics across the industry.

David Clemen, Global Market News

Everyone has their own methods for dealing with life’s ups and downs. In particular, people who lack a life partner to lean on often develop specific habits to cope.

I’ve noticed these habits vary greatly, person to person, and can range from self-development practices to self-isolation tendencies.

And the truth is, there’s a lot we can learn about resilience, independence, and personal growth by examining the habits of these individuals.

Let’s explore some of the most common and divergent habits of people who lack a life partner to lean on.

1) Embracing solitude

A mainstay among those without a life partner to lean on is embracing solitude.

👀 Don’t Miss: This One Thing Is Making Kids Lonelier Than Ever

These individuals don’t shy away from spending time alone. In fact, they often actively seek it out, utilizing this time to explore personal interests, engage in self-care, and reflect on life.

Moreover, they’ve endeavored to not just cope with solitude, but to genuinely enjoy it. They realize the tranquility that comes with it, and harness this quiet time to rejuvenate their energy.

https://10817489c4af9a56bb975bc41876d7ea.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

This isn’t to say that they are all introverts or social recluses. Instead, they have come to appreciate and use solitude as a tool for personal development. To them, spending time alone is far from a predicament, it’s a cherished ambience.

2) Prioritizing self-development

If there’s one thing I’ve personally found essential as a singleton, it’s the commitment to ongoing self-development.

https://10817489c4af9a56bb975bc41876d7ea.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

For me, being without a life partner has opened up a wave of possibilities for personal growth. There’s ample time to focus on improving myself, trying new things, and stepping outside of my comfort zone.

For instance, I decided to learn a new language a few years back. I started taking classes, practicing with language apps, and even visited the country the language originated from. The whole experience enriched my life in a way I may have not prioritized if I had a partner to consider.

Many folks lacking a life partner often express similar sentiments. They use the opportunity to pursue their passion projects, deepen their knowledge in their chosen fields, or simply explore new hobbies.

This focus on self-development is something that stands out in those without a life partner. They show us the value of personal initiative and the rich potential of self-betterment.

3) Enhanced empathy

Contrary to popular belief, those who lack a life partner can display higher levels of empathy. Living independently, they often build a great understanding of others’ struggles and emotions, honed in part by their own experiences of overcoming difficult situations alone.

Research validates this observation too. An analysis conducted by the University of California suggests that single people are frequently more attentive to the needs of others compared to those in relationships.

So, those without a life partner are often found to be generous in offering emotional support to friends, family, and even strangers. This heightened empathy underscores their ability to connect deeply with people around them, despite lacking a romantic partner of their own.

4) Financial independence

Financial independence is another common trait among those without a life partner. Since they’re solely responsible for their own expenses, they naturally tend to gain more control over their finances.

This could mean following a strict budget, focusing on saving for the future, or even taking the plunge and investing. They often prioritize building their financial security, and as a result, they tend to be more conscientious about their spending and saving habits.

While this might seem challenging, financial independence can be incredibly empowering. Knowing they can financially stand on their own feet contributes to a strong sense of self-reliance and security. It underscored the importance of financial literacy, which is beneficial for everyone, regardless of relationship status.

5) Appreciating deeper connections

Without a life partner, individuals often find deeper connections in the relationships they maintain. Friendships, family relationships, and even the bond with their pets take on a more poignant significance.

According to the latest public opinion poll released by the Associated Press, about 70 percent of Americans oppose the United States taking control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Among Republicans who support U.S. President Donald Trump, about 50 percent are opposed to the United States acquiring Greenland. The Associated Press noted that, so far, very few people in the United States have publicly expressed support for the plan to take control of Greenland.

Only about 24% of American adults approve of Trump’s approach to Greenland. Among Republicans, opinions are notably more divided; roughly half disapprove of the attempt to incorporate the icy territory into the United States.

The survey indicated that his approval ratings among Republicans on this issue are substantially lower than for other critical subjects, such as the economy and immigration, where support exceeds 80%. Notably, around 70% of Republicans approve of Trump’s overall foreign policy stance.

Furthermore, younger Republicans take a particularly critical stance toward Trump’s handling of the Greenland situation. About 60% of Republicans under 45 disapprove of his leadership on this issue, compared with roughly 40% of older Republicans. The approval rating for Trump’s actions related to Greenland is markedly lower than the approval levels among younger Republicans on issues such as foreign policy, the economy, and immigration.

In her 2022 memoir, abortionist Christine Henneberg told the story of a pregnant Black woman who came to the hospital where Henneberg was a resident. The 26-year-old woman was with her two-year-old son. She was pregnant and bleeding.

The doctor, whom Henneberg calls Dr. A., asked the woman, “Is this a planned pregnancy? Do you think you’re going to keep it?” The woman said her pregnancy wasn’t planned, and she wasn’t sure if she wanted an abortion. The baby’s father, she said, wanted the child.

Because of the bleeding, Dr. A. did an ultrasound. When the young mother saw her baby on the screen, she became excited. Henneberg writes:

Dr. A inserted the probe and found the pregnancy, a seven-week fetal pole with a clear flicker at its center. The young woman asked to see the image; she pulled her son onto the table with her and pointed at the screen. “Look, baby!” She cooed. “There’s the heartbeat! You see it? You see the heart?”

The woman then asked if she might have been pregnant with twins. The father of the baby, she said, was a twin. Dr. A told her it could’ve been a twin pregnancy, but if so, the other twin had miscarried, and only this baby was still alive. The loss of the twin could have caused the bleeding. The remaining baby, however, was healthy.

Dr. A again asked if she wanted an abortion. After weighing her decision, the woman decided to have her baby. She seemed excited, and Henneberg describes her as “beaming.”

But Henneberg didn’t share her joy.

In her own words, she was “horrified” that the woman had chosen life. Henneberg says, “It was not the decision I had expected or wanted for her.” Henneberg further writes:

I wanted to shake her by the shoulders and say, “You do realize, this is not just about how you feel this moment, today. This is about your body, a 40-week pregnancy, and then the rest of your life. A third child. How will you cope? How will you afford it? Think about this.”

I thought Dr. A should have said something to try to guide her, remind her of these things.

But Dr. A. just said, “Okay then, great.”

Henneberg was angry at Dr. A. for not pressuring the woman into an abortion. That night, Henneberg describes herself “scribbling furiously” in her journal, still angry that the woman didn’t choose an abortion. She writes:

I thought about her “decision” (if that’s what you could even call it, I mused bitterly) and wondered whether and how we had failed her.

Dr. A., I decided, should have been more careful about showing her the ultrasound, because the woman seemed to have been influenced by the image of the fetal heartbeat, the idea of having possibly conceived twins…

Henneberg seemed to believe that Dr. A should have refused to show the patient her ultrasound, removing even the option of informed consent. But a woman has the right to know vital information about what’s going on in her own body. Hiding the truth from women might make it more likely they will choose abortion, but it’s a violation of their rights.

And it can set up a woman for emotional trauma when she eventually learns the truth.

Henneberg complained that, by not having an abortion, the pregnant woman had chosen the “easy” way, saying, “Everyone will be happy for you. No one can question you. No one can call you a murderer. No one can tell you you will regret it, even if, maybe, you will.”

The women having abortions, she felt, were the courageous ones, because abortion carries stigma, but they were still doing what (she thought) was best for themselves.

In retrospect, the author admits she was “neglecting to consider how I might have felt differently if she had been a white woman in her 30s, well-educated, articulate—a woman more like me.”

In this way, Henneberg acknowledges the racist underpinnings of her feelings. To be fair, she seems to at least realize how inappropriate her feelings were, saying, “My understanding of ‘choice’ was limited to the choices I’d make, choices of privilege and control.”

In America, there is a long history of coercive policies aimed at people of color surrounding pregnancy and birth. Historically, minority women have been victims of forced sterilization and abortion and/or sterilization coercion by white doctors.

Source: Christine Henneberg Boundless: An Abortion Doctor Becomes a Mother (San Francisco, California, 2022) 86, 88-90

Susan Terzo, National Right to Life

A horrible tragedy occurred yesterday in Canada when a killer, later identified as a “trans identifying woman,” shot nine people to death and injured 27 others, before turning the gun on himself. The Canadian establishment has been desperate to hide the truth about the shooter, but this was not a secret the establishment could sit on.

Advertisement

The shooting took place at the Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in tiny Tumbler Ridge, a remote rural community in British Columbia. The killer began by murdering two people at a home, then headed for the secondary school (grades 7-12), where he opened fire. Six people died on school grounds, and one died en route to the hospital.

The initial police alert described the shooter as “a female in a dress with brown hair.” (Clearly, they meant a brown-haired female, not a brown-haired dress.) Almost instantly, though, social media users (me included) posited that the shooter was probably a member of the mentally-ill cohort who claim to be the opposite of their biological sex:

I wonder if time will show this to have been a man in a dress.

Tariffs Fall and Investment Surges

Trade shapes power structures, and when two economies tighten bonds, the ripple spreads far beyond shipping lanes and customs desks. On Feb. 12, 2026, the Trump administration finalized a sweeping trade agreement with Taiwan that cuts tariffs, boosts American exports, and pours hundreds of billions into U.S. industry.

Advertisement

https://930372ad9e834f74948482b9f797a19a.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-45/html/container.html

Taiwan agreed to eliminate or sharply reduce tariffs on nearly all American goods, as duties on U.S. beef, dairy, and corn were reduced immediately to 0%. Pork belly tariffs fell from 40% to 10%, and ham fell from 32% to 10%. Taiwan also removed non-tariff barriers on motor vehicles, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals, accepting U.S. safety standards in those sectors.

The U.S. dropped tariffs on Taiwanese imports to 15% from 20%, a shift that aligns Taiwan with key competitors like South Korea and Japan. Semiconductors and advanced electronics stand at the center of that adjustment.

Taiwan is committed to buying nearly $85 billion in U.S. goods between 2026 and 2029, including $44.4 billion in liquefied natural gas and crude oil, $15.2 billion in civil aircraft and engines, and $25.2 billion in power grid equipment and generators. Rounding out the list are marine and steelmaking equipment.

A $250 Billion Manufacturing Anchor

Reaching even higher is the headline figure; Taiwanese companies pledged $250 billion in U.S. production across semiconductors, energy, AI, and advanced electronics.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation committed $100 billion within that total, with the Taiwanese government guaranteeing another $250 billion to support supply chain expansion.

U.S. Ambassador Jamieson Greer oversaw the signing under the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States. 

“President Trump’s leadership in the Asia-Pacific region continues to generate prosperous trade ties for the United States with important partners across Asia, while further advancing the economic and national security interests of the American people,” said Ambassador Greer.  “The Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with Taiwan will eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers facing U.S. exports to Taiwan, furthering opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, fishermen, workers, small businesses, and manufacturers. This Agreement also builds on our longstanding economic and trade relationship with Taiwan and will significantly enhance the resilience of our supply chains, particularly in high-technology sectors.  I want to thank my counterparts from Taiwan for their strong commitment to achieving fair and balanced trade with the United States.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick highlighted investment guarantees and the expansion of high-tech industrial clusters on American soil.

The trade deficit with Taiwan reached over $125 billion in the first eleven months of 2025, a sharp increase from $73.7 billion in 2024. AI chip imports drove much of that increase, with leaders framing the agreement as a step toward balance while strengthening supply chain resilience.

Beijing Pushes Back

Anything with Taiwan, however, comes loaded with a 1,000-pound panda bear behind it. China responded with firm opposition, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun declaring that Beijing rejects agreements between nations that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

China said on Friday it “resolutely opposes” a deal signed by Washington and Taipei to reduce tariffs on Taiwanese products and increase the self-ruled island’s investment in the United States.

“China consistently and resolutely opposes any agreement… signed between countries with which it has diplomatic relations and the Taiwan region of China,” Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, urging Washington to abide by the one-China principle.

Chinese President Xi Jinping called Taiwan the most important issue in China-U.S. relations during a recent call with President Donald Trump, pressing for prudent handling of arms sales and warning against deeper ties.

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, however, described the pact as pivotal for the island’s economic future, urging closer trade alignment with democracies such as the United States, Japan, and European partners over a deeper reliance on China.

Strategic Stakes Beyond Commerce

Over 70% of global advanced chip production depends on Taiwan, as shifting capital and facilities toward American soil reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks. Industrial clusters anchored in American states simultaneously strengthen national security and economic leverage.

Lawmakers in both capitals have raised legitimate questions about deficit levels and investment commitments, yet leaders on both sides have signaled confidence that legislative hurdles will be easily cleared.

China said on Friday it “resolutely opposes” a deal signed by Washington and Taipei to reduce tariffs on Taiwanese products and increase the self-ruled island’s investment in the United States.

“China consistently and resolutely opposes any agreement… signed between countries with which it has diplomatic relations and the Taiwan region of China,” Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said, urging Washington to abide by the one-China principle.

Chinese President Xi Jinping called Taiwan the most important issue in China-U.S. relations during a recent call with President Donald Trump, pressing for prudent handling of arms sales and warning against deeper ties.

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, however, described the pact as pivotal for the island’s economic future, urging closer trade alignment with democracies such as the United States, Japan, and European partners over a deeper reliance on China.

Strategic Stakes Beyond Commerce

Over 70% of global advanced chip production depends on Taiwan, as shifting capital and facilities toward American soil reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks. Industrial clusters anchored in American states simultaneously strengthen national security and economic leverage.

Lawmakers in both capitals have raised legitimate questions about deficit levels and investment commitments, yet leaders on both sides have signaled confidence that legislative hurdles will be easily cleared.

The framework signed in January matured into the final agreement in February, and tariff reductions have already begun.

Trade deals don’t move markets; they move alliances. When energy contracts, semiconductor fabrication plants, aircraft engines, and grid equipment bind two economies, political alignment follows.

Final Thoughts

The agreement reshapes more than tariffs; it reorders supply chains, redirects capital, and signals resolve with increasing pressure from Beijing. President Trump framed the pact as part of a broader strategy to secure manufacturing, energy independence, and technological leadership.

For deeper analysis, exclusive columns, and ad-free access to reporting that cuts through spin, join PJ Media VIP. Support independent journalism and receive 60 percent off with promo code FIGHT.

Dirty Harry writes for PJ Media, apparently.”  –  Redstater in a Blue Apocalypse

David Manney writes for PJ Media with the outlook of someone who has spent nearly sixty years watching the world with both eyes open. He leans on plain language, lived experience, and a stubborn belief that character still matters, even when no one is paying attention. A former graphic designer, marketing content specialist, marketing professional, journalist, and technical writer, he tries to sort truth from noise and share what he sees without theatrics.

He lives in the Midwest with his wife, who is smarter than he is and far more graceful about it, along with their two dogs, Watson and Mabel. Manney often jokes that he has never faked sarcasm in his life, and most days his columns prove it.

We might want to rethink DEI and a left-wing political stance as the sole qualifications for high-level law enforcement positions.

Via Fox News:

A North Carolina House Oversight Committee hearing spurred on by the recent killing of a young Ukrainian woman, Iryna Zarutska, in Charlotte, took an unexpected turn when [Republican State Representative Allen] Chesser asked Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden, “What branch of government do you operate under?”

McFadden, who is the top law enforcement officer in the county where Zarutska was killed, simply answered, “Mecklenburg County,” prompting Chesser to repeat, “What branch of government do you operate under, sheriff?”

McFadden’s next guess was “Constitution of the United States.”

Chesser remarked, “This is not where I was anticipating getting stuck. Um, are you aware of how many branches of government there are?” The sheriff quickly shot back, “No.”

At least he answered that last question correctly.

Chesser continued, “For the sake of debate, let’s say there are three branches of government: legislative, executive, judicial. Of those three, which do you fall under?”

McFadden guessed “judicial,” probably because it was the last one listed and the only one he could remember.

As for why McFadden has refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, he previously averred the following:

“We do not have a role in enforcement whatsoever, we do not have to follow the rules and the laws that are governed by our lawmakers in Raleigh.”

McFadden’s conspicuous cognitive impairment makes it unlikely that he could have secured his lofty position if not for his race. We are getting to the point where DEI is not funny anymore and needs to end before it destroys our country.

Moonbattery

3:09:56 AM by factmart

Candice Owens, she has to be the worst conservative I have seen in my 73 years on earth. To belittle Charlie Kirk wife. What does the Bible say about how to treat a widow. Charlie is in Heaven, and the Lord is not going to let him know how his so called friend is treating his wife. The Lord has wiped away every tear from his eyes. Candice you are a low life, how you have treated Charlie’s legacy and his wife, and his kids. I forgive you Candice. You should repeat of your sins and sin no more. Does anyone else feel this way?

The country still shares one screen, but not one meaning. One side will dominate the other, or separation will harden into something more permanent.

The Seattle Seahawks trampled the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LX, but the postgame chatter barely touched football. Fans and pundits argued about anthems, halftime, commercials, and what the whole spectacle “said” about America.

For better or worse, the Super Bowl serves as the premier civic liturgy of the American empire, a night when strangers share the same screens and offices share the same small talk. When that ritual becomes another front in the culture war, the country loses one more place to breathe.

Americans once used the game to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

Families fight. Politics intrudes. Resentments pile up. Holidays still force a pause. Thanksgiving and Christmas push people back to the same table, reminding them that the argument cannot become the relationship.

When even the ritual itself turns into the argument — when Thanksgiving and Christmas are no longer about gratitude or celebrating the birth of Christ but rather who can win a political debate — the family slides from conflict toward rupture. A nation works the same way. Shared ceremonies do not solve deep disagreements, but they keep disagreement from becoming total separation.

From national pastime to litmus test

Americans rarely stop living their separate lives to watch the same thing at the same time. Streaming splinters audiences. Social media isolates communities. Even big films and best-selling books now fall into ideological silos.

The Super Bowl remains one of the few national events that still compels common attention. People who hate sports tune in for the ads so they can follow the conversation at work the next day. A shared celebration, however frivolous, still binds people who otherwise share little else in common.

This year’s Super Bowl looked like a country at war with itself.

The broadcast opened with two national anthems: the familiar Francis Scott Key standard and the newer “black national anthem” that appears at more NFL events each season. The league has leaned hard into woke activism, from corporate rituals to social campaigns, and it rarely hides the moral it wants viewers to absorb. Two anthems signal two constituencies. Two constituencies begin to behave like two nations.

A cultural sorting mechanism

The halftime show sharpened that divide. The NFL chose Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican artist who performs almost entirely in Spanish, and the set centered on Hispanic identity. The stage recreated a bodega, complete with an “EBT welcome” neon sign. The performance leaned into sexual provocation, with dancers simulating sex acts and same-sex grinding played for shock and applause. The show ended with performers hoisting foreign flags, a tableau that read less like cultural flair and more like a victory lap.

A large portion of the audience did not buy what the league sold. Ratings suggested many viewers tuned out during the set. Some did so out of prudishness, others out of irritation at the message, others out of confusion. Either way, the halftime show did not function as a shared moment. It became a sorting mechanism.

Turning Point USA offered a competing halftime program featuring country artists singing about America and Jesus Christ. The stream broke records and reportedly became YouTube’s largest live broadcast. The accomplishment deserves credit. The need for it should worry anyone who wants a coherent nation. Instead of one shared celebration, Americans built parallel ceremonies, then congratulated themselves for avoiding each other.

Who is the customer here?

The commercials followed the same pattern. One spot from a mortgage lender portrayed a family of color moving into a mostly white neighborhood and encountering casual racism until they instructed the residents on diversity and inclusion. The ad did not wink. It preached.

Another strange commercial, backed by Patriots owner Robert Kraft, aimed to address rising anti-Semitism. It showed a Jewish student harassed in a school hallway as classmates mocked him and stuck a note reading “dirty Jew” to his backpack. The boy reached his locker, where a black student offered solidarity based on shared experience with hatred from whites. The ad then unveiled a “blue square” social media campaign modeled on the “black square” campaign that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020.

NFL owners did not back away from the woke script. They turned the dial higher.

Two different worlds

The next day I went to my barber, and he described the shift in real time. Small talk drives that job. For most of his life, the Monday after the Super Bowl brought lively chatter about the best plays and the funniest ads. This year, customers wanted to talk politics. They complained about the anthems, the halftime, the messaging, the moral scolding. The game itself barely came up. Friendly banter about the MVP and next season’s prospects gave way to arguments about what kind of country this still is.

That exchange captured the larger problem. Conservatives and liberals increasingly inhabit different worlds. They share geography, but they do not share premises. They do not share authorities. They do not share the same media diet, the same moral language, or the same sense of what counts as a fact. When they occupy the same room, they talk past each other. When they can avoid the room, they do.

The old American civic fracture ran along a map. The new fracture runs through families, workplaces, churches, and neighborhoods. The country did not divide into North and South. It divided into competing moral nations layered on top of the same territory. Each tribe builds its own institutions, its own entertainers, its own narratives, and, increasingly, its own rituals.

No stable regime can endure that kind of division indefinitely. One side will eventually impose cultural dominance on the other, with power used to punish dissent and enforce conformity. Or the country will choose some form of national divorce, formal or informal, with communities separating as much as law and logistics allow.

The Super Bowl did not create this crisis. It revealed it. A shared civic ritual lets people practice unity without requiring uniformity. Americans once used the game as a harmless excuse to share food, laugh at ads, and pretend for a night that they still belonged to one people. This year, the country used the game to rehearse separation.

A nation that cannot share a football game cannot share much else for long.

Auron MacIntyre, The Blaze