The Kennedy Center’s free Christmas Eve Jazz Jam did not take place in 2025 for the first time in more than two decades. The long-standing holiday tradition was canceled after the board of trustees voted to rename the venue the “Trump Kennedy Center,” adding President Donald Trump’s name alongside John F. Kennedy’s.

Jazz drummer and vibraphonist Chuck Redd, who had hosted the concert since 2006, canceled the performance after seeing the name change appear on the Kennedy Center website and then on the building itself. The decision was announced only days before Christmas, with no replacement programming and no detailed explanation, leaving families who had planned their holiday around the event without the concert they had attended for years.

The Christmas Eve Jazz Jam was a completely free public-service event held at 6 p.m. as part of the Kennedy Center’s Millennium Stage program, which was created specifically to make the performing arts accessible to everyone.

The concert typically featured seven professional jazz musicians and drew families, students, elderly residents, and visitors who could not afford ticketed Kennedy Center performances. The tradition dated back to the early 2000s, with Redd taking over hosting duties from bassist William “Keter” Betts in 2006.

Redd is an internationally recognized musician with a long and secure career. The Christmas Eve Jazz Jam was a free public-service performance, meaning its cancellation carried no meaningful financial or professional cost to him.

The cancellation removed one of the few professional-caliber holiday events in Washington that required no ticket purchase and disproportionately affected members of the public who relied on free programming for access to the arts. It did not affect political leaders, Kennedy Center board members, President Trump, or major donors, none of whom depended on Millennium Stage performances.

The Christmas Eve cancellation occurred amid a broader wave of artist withdrawals from the Kennedy Center following Trump’s second inauguration. At least 26 performances were canceled, including self-withdrawals by Issa Rae, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington.

During the same period, Trump personally hosted the Kennedy Center Honors, announced honorees publicly, and selected performers with broad popular appeal, including Sylvester Stallone, KISS, George Strait, Gloria Gaynor, and Michael Crawford.

Aside from the irreverence toward Christmas, the disrespect shown to the performers, and the decision to rob families of a long-standing free public Christmas Eve concert, there is also a serious legal issue involving statutory interpretation.

Critics of the renaming argue that federal law explicitly prohibits adding Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center. They cite three statutory provisions: 20 U.S.C. § 76q, which designates the Center as “the sole national memorial” to John F. Kennedy in Washington; 20 U.S.C. § 76i, which names the building by statute; and 20 U.S.C. § 76j(b), which bars the installation of “additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials” in public areas after 1983.

Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers argue that because Congress named the building through legislation, only Congress has the authority to alter that designation. Rep. Joyce Beatty’s lawsuit characterizes the renaming as a “flagrant violation of the rule of law.”

The statutory language, however, is more limited than critics claim. Under 20 U.S.C. § 76q (1964), Congress designated the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as “the sole national memorial to the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy within the city of Washington and its environs.” That provision establishes the Center’s purpose as a memorial to Kennedy, but it does not explicitly prohibit adding another name to the building’s designation.

Congress addressed additions directly in 1983 when it enacted 20 U.S.C. § 76j(b), titled “Restriction on additional memorials.” That amendment prohibits the designation or installation of additional memorials or plaques in the public areas of the Kennedy Center after December 2, 1983, with narrow exceptions for plaques acknowledging foreign gifts, plaques on theater chairs or boxes, and inscriptions recognizing major contributions. The restriction applies specifically to interior public areas and to physical memorials or plaques.

That distinction is critical. Trump’s name was added to the exterior building designation, not installed as an additional memorial or plaque inside the Center. The statute prohibits transforming the Kennedy Center into a memorial for someone else, but adding Trump’s name does not replace Kennedy or strip the Center of its identity as a memorial to JFK. Kennedy remains named, honored, and memorialized exactly as before.

If Congress intended to impose an absolute prohibition on modifying the building’s designation or adding any other name under any circumstances, it could have stated so plainly. Instead, when Congress wanted to restrict additions, it did so with precise language in 1983, narrowly targeting interior memorials and plaques. The absence of similarly explicit language barring exterior designation changes undermines claims of a clear statutory violation.

Democrats argue that “sole memorial” must mean Kennedy alone and that the board lacks authority to approve any renaming without congressional action. But that reading goes beyond what the statute actually says. The law designates the Center as a memorial to JFK; it does not state that no other individual’s name may ever appear alongside his, nor does it prohibit co-honoring another president in the building’s exterior designation. Claims that the renaming is an obvious violation of federal law rely more on political outrage than on statutory text, which is far more ambiguous than critics admit.

Antonio Graceffo, Gateway Pundit

Democratic Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan praised Somali migrants in the state during a visit to a market in a video posted on YouTube Thursday.

President Donald Trump announced in November that he would end “Temporary Protected Status” for Somalis in the state in response to allegations of welfare fraud and said that the influx of refugees had “destroyed our country.” Flanagan, who wore a hijab, a head covering worn by some Muslim women, during her visit to the market, held a microphone during the video posted by Somali TV of Minnesota

“Salam Alaikum. My name’s Peggy Flanagan. I am the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, and I’m really honored and humbled to be here with all of you today,” Flanagan said. “I am incredibly clear that the Somali community is part of the fabric of the state of Minnesota. I think about my friendship with Nimco. We’ve been friends for almost 25 years and when I think of being part of Minnesota and growing up here, the Somali community has always been a part of my Minnesota.”

“So I want to just encourage the community to know that we’re with you, we’ve got your back,” Flanagan continued. “I am here shopping today and just encourage other folks to show up, support our Somali businesses, support our immigrant neighbors and I know that things are scary right now, and just know that there are more people who are looking out for you, there are more people who are here to support you than you know.”

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is surging into the Minneapolis area to target illegal immigrants from Somalia after revelations involving at least $1 billion in fraud, with the Treasury Department investigating allegations that some of the proceeds from the scheme went to the radical Islamic terrorist group Al-Shabaab. Estimates of the fraud have increased to at least $9 billion, according to federal officials, noting that multiple programs were targeted.

State employees accused Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota of engaging in “systemic” retaliation against whistleblowers who warned of the fraud schemes on Nov. 30 as the Justice Department is prosecuting multiple federal cases. Walz admitted thatthe state “attracts criminals,” but demanded that Somali residents not be demonized during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I will continue to stand with the Somali community, to be with you, and to do all I can to return the friendship and community that the Somali community has shown me,” Flanagan said.

Harold Hutchison

Luke 2:1-20New International Version

The Birth of Jesus

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ² (This was the first census that took place while^[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ³ And everyone went to their own town to register.

⁴ So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. ⁵ He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. ⁶ While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, ⁷ and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

⁸ And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. ⁹ An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. ¹⁰ But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. ¹¹ Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. ¹² This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

¹³ Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

¹⁴ “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
    and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

¹⁵ When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

¹⁶ So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. ¹⁷ When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, ¹⁸ and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. ¹⁹ But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. ²⁰ The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Luke 1, Verses 1-20

President Trump has called on supporters to protest his expected arrest next week by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on bogus charges arising out of the alleged 2016 Stormy Daniels hush money arrangement. Several so-called influencers are warning supporters to stay home to avoid being entrapped by the feds into another January 6 riot.

As one of the most experienced conservative street activists who was active in our Nation’s Capital for over a decade, I want to offer my advice on whether to go out and protest (yes) and how to do it.

First, some background. I was active in the D.C. Chapter of FreeRepublic.com from 1998 into the early 2010s, but mostly through the end of 2007 when I left the area and returned a few times a year. I organized hundreds of street protests and counter-protests against President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and other corrupt Democrat politicians. I organized an annual protest of liberal media bias outside the White House Correspondents Dinner for about fifteen years. Through Free Republic, Move America Forward and the Gathering of Eagles, we organized several rallies and counter-rallies supporting our troops in the war on terror in the years after 9/11. On a few occasions, we acted as human shields against the violent left and radical Islamists, protecting The White House, the Danish Embassy, Armed Forces Recruiting stations and even the Washington Post. I also helped organize the FReeper inaugural ball in 2005 attended by nearly 1,000 guests or so.

We dealt with D.C. Police, Capitol Police, Park Police, Secret Service, various other federal law enforcement agencies and the military in demonstrations at the White House, Capitol, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, the National Mall, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Arlington Cemetery, the old Walter Reed Army Hospital, the Vice President’s Residence, aka “Cheney’s House”, and many locales in and around D.C.

We faced off against communists, anarchists, Black Bloc (pre-Antifa), Code Pink, ANSWER, radical Islamists, Democrats, RINOs, dishonest media and the Westboro Baptist Church extremists.

We did all that by being peaceful and behaving in a civilized manner at all times. We hade a code of conduct that served us well.

Briefly, it read, “No violence, no racism, no profanity, no provocations, obey the law and treat all law enforcement officers with respect.”

Krisstin Taylor, Gateway Pundit

Hunter Biden just shocked the Democrat party by essentially condemning his father’s entire four years in the White House.

During a rare interview on the ‘Shawn Ryan Show’ while promoting his new book, Hunter called out Joe Biden’s immigration policies for failing the American people and prioritizing illegals over veterans.

“We don’t want immigrants coming here illegally, DRAINING us of resources, and being prioritized above people that are actual, literal heroes. People that are still recovering from years of endless war, or anybody else in our society,” Hunter said.

Maybe this is why his family tries so hard to keep Hunter out of the public eye.

Watch for yourself:

VIDEO AT LINK……………..

Hunter Biden: “We don’t want immigrants that are coming here illegally, draining us of resources, and being prioritized above… anybody in our society.”

A stunning indictment of his father’s four years in office. pic.twitter.com/U6ZYF7Hc1D— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 23, 2025

It’s very rare that I agree with Hunter Biden on something.

But this time, he’s right.

It’s estimated that around 11 million illegal immigrants crossed the border underneath Joe Biden, thanks largely to the open-border policies under his administration.

These are illegals that contribute nothing to the U.S. while siphoning away taxpayer-funded benefits and opportunities from hardworking, law-abiding American citizens.

As Hunter Biden just proved, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize the unfairness of that.

It’s really saying something when a crackpot like Hunter Biden has a better policy on immigration than his father’s previous administration.

This reply on that clip is just hilarious, but I have to agree:

Wait. Hold up, I knew he knows how to cook other things but damn he cooked here.— Jeremy (@Jeremy_rhetor) December 23, 2025

Your thoughts?

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

The US Vice President added that Europe’s immigration policies have caused a significant backlash from the native population

LONDON, December 22. /TASS/. The erroneous economic and migration policies of European countries have led to cultural stagnation and discontent among the continent’s population, US Vice President JD Vance said.

“I think their economic policies have produced very broad-based continental stagnation. Their immigration policies have caused a significant backlash from the native population. I think that Europe doesn’t have a very good sense of itself right now, and you see that reflected in various measures of economic and cultural stagnation,” he said in an interview with the British portal UnHerd.

“We want it to be much more self-sufficient, much more self-reliant. And look, the reality is, America sprang out of European civilization. We are fundamentally descended from a lot of European ideas. That’s why we want a stronger Europe,” the US vice president said, adding that “a lot of this is something I think the Europeans have to do themselves.”

Vance paid special attention to the role of Christianity. “When I talk about America having some common culture, I think Christianity is very much at the heart of that. With the exception of [Thomas] Jefferson and a couple of others, most of our Founding Fathers were devout Christians,” he said.

Earlier, Vance repeatedly criticized European countries for obstructing the settlement in Ukraine, moving away from Christian values, encouraging uncontrolled migration and suppressing dissent. His most notable speech was at the international security conference in Munich in February, where he criticized the EU for censorship, including the blocking of social networks. He stressed that in this form, Europe is useless for the United States, as it is afraid even of its own voters. Chairman of the conference Christoph Heusgen called the conference Europe’s nightmare after Vance’s speech.

When insurance costs more than survival, coverage is just a word.

Obamacare didn’t protect families, it priced them into submission.

A system that only works for the rich or the dependent is not a safety net.

======================================================================================

BRIEFING

It’s been just over a decade since Obamacare was implemented, and for a majority of Americans, it’s done jack diddly squat for them. As a matter of fact, one American family sat down, did the Obamacare math honestly, and realized that working, paying premiums, and playing by the rules still left them staring at a literal dead end. Let’s break it down.

One woman with five kids recently made a video where she lays out her income, her family size, and her insurance options, and what she was given were literally laughable. First option is $1,100 a month through an employer plan, and the second is a staggering $1,600 a month through the ACA, with a deductible so high it turns coverage into a technicality instead of protection.

SOURCE

American family has 5 kids. She makes $2,600 per month after taxes

The cheapest option she could get for health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace is $1,700 per month with a $17,000 deductible

Barack Obama destroyed our healthcare system

“$1,600 a month for a $17,000 deductible and they will only pay 50% after I meet that deductible So I’m thinking we’re just gonna go die”

American family has 5 kids. She makes $2,600 per month after taxes

The cheapest option she could get for health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace is $1,700 per month with a $17,000 deductible

Barack Obama destroyed our healthcare system

“$1,600 a month for a… pic.twitter.com/hEbeR8B6Ye— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) December 16, 2025

This is the stark reality of Obamacare for your average American family. Honestly, to benefit at all from this program, you either have to be earning well over $300k a year or be destitute. But for those in the middle who can’t afford the monthly premium or receive the subsidies that make ACA affordable, they’re literally left to fend for themselves.

Which, speaking of those subsidies, those are close to being on their way out. The enhanced premium tax credits — which made ACA plans more affordable — are slated to expire at the end of 2025, potentially forcing millions to pay much more or lose coverage entirely.

It’s hard to imagine that after the subsidies go away that anyone besides the extremely wealthy will be able to afford Obamacare.

SOURCE

Should the enhanced ACA premium tax credits expire on December 31, the roughly 22.4 million people relying on these subsidies would be hit with steep increases in their health insurance premiums starting in 2026.

Their premiums could more than double next year, per a preview of the available plans released by the Trump administration.

Millions more would lose subsidized ACA marketplace coverage, and roughly 3.8 million people are projected to lose health insurance coverage entirely and become uninsured each year from 2026 to 2034 due to high costs, per the Congressional Budget Office.

Around 47% of American adults reported fears that they would not be able to cover the cost of necessary health care should the tax credits expire, per a West Health-Gallup poll from last month.

DEBRIEFING

So folks, this is what Obamacare really looks like once you strip away slogans and subsidies and force it to operate in the real world. A working family does the math, and the math clearly tells them there is no version of the program that actually offers them security. The premiums eat income, deductibles make coverage downright theoretical, and care is postponed not because people are irresponsible, but because the entire system prices it out of reach.

But keep in mind, this entire outcome is not accidental. Obamacare at its core only functions smoothly inside narrow income bands. Make very little, and subsidies soften the blow, but if you’re someone who makes a great deal, the costs become inconvenient but still manageable. While everyone in between has the literal life squeezed out of them.

Then the whole issue of expiring subsidies exposes this design flaw of Obamacare completely. Democrats sold those tax credits as proof the system worked, but they were never a real long-term solution. Instead, they were simply a stabilizer, propping up a structure that cannot stand on its own. And make no mistake, once they disappear, the entire grand illusion goes with them.

NOW YOU KNOW

Obamacare doesn’t fail families. It prices them out.

Grant Mercer

In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev.

They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” online!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs.

The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism!” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier.

“You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.'”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID vaccine mandates.

With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

“You’re essentially putting a giant target on every aspect of your life,” warns Brockwell, “wrapping it up in a nice bow and saying, ‘Here, if you want to control me, just untie this.'”

In the U.S., many states are passing age verification laws that require you to identify yourself and prove your age before accessing certain websites.

Proponents say this will protect kids from dangerous content.

“Unfortunately, politicians just can’t promise that it will only ever be used for that,” says Brockwell. “You always have governments with these great-sounding bills called the ‘Let’s-Stop-All-the-Bad-People-Doing-All-the-Bad-Things’ Bill. … But what they’re voting for is a system of control and oppression. … You’ll be ranked based on past activities and choices that you’ve made.”

China does that.

People with low social credit scores may be denied entry into schools or find they cannot buy a train ticket.

“It makes you super easy to target!” says Brockwell, “easy to silence if suddenly you become ‘problematic.’ Whoever controls that data has a lot of power. We’re simply handing it to them. People need to be aware that they have no control over who will get access to this tool and who will control this tool in the future.”

Tokarev points out that companies like Facebook, Google, and Chase Bank already have her data. “Shouldn’t I trust my government more?”

“Governments, unlike companies, can throw you in jail,” Brockwell replies.

“This is America,” says Tokarev. “We’re not going to become China.”

“We are skyrocketing towards that direction!” insists Brockwell. “The surveillance infrastructure we’re trying to put in place in the United States is heading directly towards where China currently is.”

What can we do about it?

“People need to be reminded that they’re empowered to actually affect that change,” says Brockwell. “They can reach out to representatives; they can push back. Protect themselves and not build this infrastructure in the first place.”

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Government Gone Wild: Exposing the Truth Behind the Headlines.”

John Stossel

The following is by David Harriman (physicist and author):

“Politics is divided like it was during the Civil War, when the slave-owners in the South hated Lincoln. But even that is surpassed by the statist’s hatred of Trump.

The hatred is most obvious in the far Left of the Democratic Party. This faction of the Party advocates communism and militant Islam. They can’t even speak without descending into incoherent screaming. Trump is fighting their anti-American ideology. Other politicians, somewhat more moderate, are threatened by Trump stopping their gravy-train. Trump is attempting to eliminate the corruption; many politicians have become rich by means of that corruption. Pelosi and AOC are the best stock investors in history. Politicians receive kickbacks from the defense and pharmaceutical industries, so they love war and pandemics.

Notice that Trump did not enter politics for money. In fact, he lost money, suffered legal prosecution on fabricated charges, and managed to survive assassination attempts.

What did he do to deserve this vitriolic hatred? He freed the energy industry and said we should not try to run the country on windmills; he said that the government should not attack free speech and political opponents; he stopped many wars and pledged that the U.S. would not engage in senseless, endless wars; he adopted a stronger policy against crime, which is out of control in many cities run by Democrats; he stopped the invasion of millions of unvetted illegal immigrants; he announced a policy that the government should not promote racism and child-sexual mutilation.

In the universities, nearly every professor hates Trump and they teach their students to hate him. “He is worse than Hitler!” they scream, with no explanation.

Many so-called “free market” intellectuals have enthusiastically joined the chorus of Trump hatred. They say: “Oh, it’s horrible, tariffs!” Oh, it’s horrible, what about due process for illegal aliens?” Notice what they are not saying: communism is horrible, militant Islam is horrible, violent crime is horrible, senseless wars that last 20 years are horrible, destroying the energy industry is horrible, government control of the media is horrible, rigging elections is horrible, destroying people’s lives with pandemics is horrible; child-sexual mutilation and child sex-trafficking is horrible.

Some say: “I am an advocate of individual rights. Trump and the Left violate individual rights. So they are both equally bad.” But notice that such people don’t treat them as equal. They scream their hatred of Trump, while giving the Left a free pass. This is the height of evasion and hypocrisy. Some of these people say: “It’s not a choice between Trump and the Left. I’m for somebody else.” Who else? Blankout. How would they get elected? Blankout. What is the plan for defeating corruption, the deep state, domestic crime and foreign enemies? Blankout.

I don’t want anybody to misinterpret my view. I am not saying that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I am saying that he is one of the best Presidents in U.S. history.” (David Harriman)

It’s the Dawn of Perpetual Scarcity and a New Monetary Era”

Silver has experienced three spectacular bull runs over the past century, each driven by distinct macroeconomic, geopolitical, and supply-demand dynamics. Yet the present cycle is fundamentally different—a convergence of global mining stagnation and surging multi-sector demand threatens to ignite a much more consequential and potentially prolonged price explosion.

The Three Major Bull Runs

1970s Bull Run (1971–1980)

$1.30 → $50.00 → +3,746 % (≈ 37×) over 9 years

1970s run: final ~1.5 years = 80–90% of gains

The first great silver bull began in 1971, triggered by the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard, runaway inflation, and geopolitical crisis. Silver meandered for years, trading below $6 until late 1978. Then, within just 18 months, momentum exploded—rallying from $6 to nearly $50 per ounce as Hunt brothers’ speculation, a weakening dollar, and global instability coalesced. Roughly 80–90% of gains occurred in that brief parabolic period, revealing how silver can trade sideways for years before breaking upward in a frantic melt-up.

2000s Bull Run (2001–2011)

$4.00 → $49.80 → +1,145 % (≈ 11.5×) over 10 years

2000s run: final ~2 years = 80–90% of gains

Silver’s next major ascent began around 2001, with the metal languishing between $4 and $8 for several years. Gradual climbs followed, especially as de-dollarization themes and the 2008 global financial crisis fueled safe-haven demand. Yet it was only in the final two years, 2009–2011, when silver shot from $9 to $49.80—again, 80–90% of total gains happened fast, as central bank interventions and monetary debasement sent investors scrambling for tangible assets.

Current Bull Run (2020–2025)

$11.60 → $52.00 → +348 % (≈ 4.5×) so far over 5 years This run is unlikely to peak because it will likely just keep going up (given supply demand fundamentals and growing monetary use.)

Silver’s recent run arguably began at its COVID panic low in March 2020, bottoming near $11.60. Over five years, it has risen to about $52, a gain of roughly 348%, but only a fraction of previous blow-off moves. Importantly, this surge so far has been steadier, not yet having delivered the classic parabolic spike characteristic of prior bull runs. WARNING, we are not very close to the time we will see the 80% to 90% gains kick in and it is better to be early than late. This is something none of us can time.

Why This Time Is Different

Stagnating Global Mining Output

Globally, silver mine production is essentially flat, hovering around 820 million ounces per year—despite rising prices and technology. Large deposits are depleting, grades are declining, and new discoveries are increasingly rare. Meanwhile the Trump regime is poking at Mexico threatening to send in troops while the Morena party is moving closer to seizing control of their valuable silver deposits.

Unlike the 1970s and 2000s, the world’s geological bounty is failing to keep pace with demand, as capex and exploration remain subdued due to resource depletion then compounded by so called “sustainable” pressures, resource nationalism, and capital constraints.

Structural Deficit: Demand Far Outstrips Supply

Current supply-demand estimates suggest annual demand for silver is now running near 1.2 billion ounces, a deficit of roughly 400 million ounces versus new mining output. Secondary recovery (recycling) and stockpile drawdowns can only bridge this gap temporarily. The resulting shortfall is historically unprecedented, and, if sustained, threatens to exhaust above-ground inventories in the next two to three years—forcing a dramatic repricing regime as buyers scramble for scarce physical metal.

Technology-Driven Industrial Demand Shock

Unlike prior cycles, silver’s demand profile today is broader, more diverse, and less cyclical. New uses dominate:

Military and defense: Smart weapons, silver zinc batteries, silver-ion batteries, communications, surveillance. Electric vehicles: Silver is critical for contacts, sensors, wiring, and battery tech. Green energy: Photovoltaic solar (where silver is irreplaceable), wind, and grid modernization. Electronics, batteries, drones, robotics, AI data centers, 5G: All are rapidly scaling operations and need ultra-conductive silver material. Nuclear: Requiring silver for neutron absorbers and specialized electronics. This secular demand wave isn’t tied to traditional jewelry, coins, or speculative investment—meaning much of the new demand is price-insensitive, non-negotiable, and likely to accelerate regardless of financial market conditions.

Silver wasn’t Monetized in the 1970s and 2000s like today

During the 1970s and 2000s silver bull runs, the metal was not widely recognized or utilized as a monetary asset by governments or global financial institutions—its narrative was largely inflation hedge and industrial demand. Today, however, silver’s monetary role is rapidly resurging: Russia is reportedly considering adding silver to its central bank reserves, sovereign wealth funds are rotating capital into silver allocations, and India has begun permitting silver as collateral for loans—unprecedented moves that elevate silver’s official financial status and encourage institutional accumulation on a global scale. This marks a profound break from previous cycles.

Parabolic Phase: Are We There Yet?

History suggests that silver bull runs spend years ranging and climbing gradually, followed by a wild, compressed parabolic phase that drives the bulk of total returns in just 1.5–2 years. If the 2020 bottom marks the beginning of the current run, we are about five years in, but the recent move to $52—while impressive—is not yet the vertical explosion seen in past cycles’ final acts.

Given the scale of current deficits, mining stagnation, rapid technological adoption, monetary use and breadth of global demand, there is strong reason to believe the most dramatic leg of this bull run still lies ahead. In fact, this cycle could break historical patterns entirely, with persistent structural shortages forcing a “higher-for-longer” price regime and periodic price spikes as physical availability dries up.

More Thoughts

Silver’s prior booms were mostly about monetary crisis and speculative fervor; today’s run has fundamentals never seen before—chronic supply collapse, relentless new industrial uses, and a looming global inventory squeeze. While the next parabolic phase may mirror history’s final melt-ups, the underlying shortage and irreversible demand expansion mean this time really is different—and potentially much more consequential.

Silver Academy