Join Us at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida! Nov. 17-19, 2023
Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!
? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)
Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.
?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:
- Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
- Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
- Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
- WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
- Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
- Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
- Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
- Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
- Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
- Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!
Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually!
Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.
Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.
NEW BOOK Now Available : "Mark Antony & Cleopatra"
"THE PLOT TO SEIZE RUSSIA - THE UNTOLD HISTORY"
The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.
Book description:
“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.
So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.
On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.
The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.
Market Talk – February 20, 2026
US/AMERICAS:
-
Dow advanced by 230.81 points (+0.47%) to 49,625.97
-
S&P 500 advanced by 47.62 points (+0.69%) to 6,909.51
-
NASDAQ advanced by 203.34 points (+0.90%) to 22,886.069
-
Russell 2000 declined by 1.31 points (-0.05%) to 2,663.78
Canada Market Closings:
-
TSX Composite advanced by 222.53 points (+0.66%) to 33,817.51
-
TSX 60 advanced by 9.97 points (+0.51%) to 1,955.94
Brazil Market Closing:
-
Bovespa advanced by 2,000.00 points (+1.06%) to 190,534.42
Trump’s Tariffs & The New Risk Ahead
QUESTION: I just saw you on Russia Today explaining the Supreme Court decision. You said this will have a psychological impact on Trump internationally. Would you elaborate?
GR
PS. I agree it is strange how you will appear on TV in Asia and Europe even in Russia but not in America.
ANSWER: President Trump said the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling was “deeply disappointing.” He also said “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court—absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
I said on Podcasts that I would have voted against the use of that statute. Justice Roberts wrote that Trump “asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.” But the chief justice wrote that the law Trump invoked to do so “cannot bear such weight”
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that under the government’s interpretation of IEEPA, the president is “unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will.” All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable.
Chief Justice Roberts further wrote: “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”
Trump particularly emphasized the tariffs would boost manufacturing and generate revenue. However, Trump promised that imposing the highest tariffs since the Great Depression would spark a renaissance in U.S. manufacturing. But factories have been in a slump for most of the last year, shedding 108,000 jobs in 2025. I have disagreed with that and pointed out that it was TAXES and REGULATION that led to every auto manufacture to leave Detroit, which because of the fiscal mismanagement defaulted on their debt in 1937. Sorry, but companies have left because of crazy progressive regulations and taxation. They they blame the Chinese for their own stupidity.
Over 60% of total tariff revenue in 2025 stemmed from tariffs imposed under IEEPA, which has never before been used to implement tariffs. This includes country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world, and a 25% tariff Trump imposed on goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.
The decision does not affect ALL of Trump’s tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws. U.S. Customs and Border Protection collected about $133.5 billion of tariff revenue under IEEPA in fiscal year 2025 and in fiscal year 2026 through December 14, representing about 60% of total tariff revenue collected during that time. Trump could seek to reimpose some tariffs using other laws. Companies that had to pay the tariffs may be able to seek a refund from the Treasury Department. Hundreds have already sued.
The Statutory Framework: Duties vs Tariffs
There is indeed a substantial difference between traditional tariffs requiring Congressional approval and various duties, fees, and restrictions the President can impose unilaterally under existing statutory authority. Trump’s first term demonstrated willingness to exploit these authorities aggressively, and a second term will likely see even more creative use of executive power to reshape trade flows without seeking Congressional authorization.
Congress has delegated broad trade authority to the President through various statutes enacted over the past century. These delegations were intended for specific circumstances—national security emergencies, unfair trade practices, international negotiations—but the statutory language is often vague enough to permit aggressive interpretation. Trump demonstrated that these authorities, when pushed to their limits, provide enormous unilateral power over trade policy.
The key distinction is this: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” However, Congress has chosen to delegate much of this authority to the President through statutes. Once delegated, the President can act without further Congressional approval unless Congress revokes the delegation—which requires passing legislation that can survive presidential veto, a high bar given partisan polarization. This is what Congress does most of the time. They delegate powers to unelected agencies. I believe this undermines the entire Constitutional framework, but that is just my personal opinion.
Section 232: National Security Tariffs
The most powerful tool is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the President to impose tariffs or other import restrictions when imports threaten to impair national security. This provision was rarely used until Trump weaponized it during his first term. I cannot explain what he did not use this statute. I think whomever advised him was trying to covertly undermine him.
The statute requires the Commerce Department to investigate whether imports threaten national security, but “national security” is undefined and interpreted broadly. The President has essentially unreviewable discretion to determine what constitutes a national security threat.
During Trump’s First-Term, he imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum under Section 232 in 2018, affecting imports from virtually all countries including allies like Canada and the European Union. The ratification was that domestic steel and aluminum production capacity is essential to defense industrial base—without it, America cannot manufacture tanks, aircraft, ships, and weapons during wartime. The legal arguments were stretched but survived judicial challenge. Courts have been extremely deferential to presidential determinations of national security, recognizing this as a core executive function.
Section 232 authority could theoretically be applied to virtually any critical industry. For example, semiconductors and electronics were targeted during first term but not fully implemented. The argument is straightforward. Modern weapons systems depend entirely on advanced semiconductors. If America cannot produce these domestically and depends on Taiwan, which is vulnerable to Chinese invasion thanks to Biden & Pelosi as well as South Korea, which is vulnerable to North Korean attack. In such cases, national security is imperiled.
This could justify 25-50% tariffs on semiconductor imports from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and potentially even allied producers like Japan and Europe to force production back to the United States. As I have articulated, nobody wants to look at the real reason manufacture left in the first place – excessive progressive taxation line Newsom in California or Mandami in NYC. The CHIPS Act provides subsidies for domestic production; Section 232 tariffs would provide the stick to complement the carrot.
Turning to the Pharmaceuticals and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, here too America imports approximately 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients, predominantly from China and India. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this vulnerability when supply chains disrupted. Section 232 could justify tariffs forcing pharmaceutical production back to America or trusted allies.
Then there is the Rare Earth Elements. Here, China controls 60-70% of global rare earth production and 90% of processing. These materials are essential for electronics, batteries, magnets in defense systems, and countless other applications. To make onw F35 you need 900 pounds of Rare Earths. Section 232 tariffs could target rare earth imports to incentivize domestic production, though this would be economically painful given the lack of current U.S. capacity.
Trump repeatedly threatened to impose Section 232 tariffs on automobile imports, arguing that domestic auto manufacturing capability is essential to defense industrial base, which is BS. They argue that vehicles, engines, manufacturing expertise is transferable to military production in time of war. So you should pay double for a Toyota or BMW to make it more profitable for over-regulated manufactures that only support further socialism. This was NOT implemented during the first term but remains available.
A 25% tariff on automobile imports would be catastrophic for foreign manufacturers and would force massive restructuring of the industry. It would also significantly increase vehicle prices for American consumers, creating political backlash. I think if Trump tried this, he would be bounced out of office.
Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and other materials essential for batteries, electronics, and defense applications could justify Section 232 actions. America imports the vast majority of these materials, creating strategic vulnerability.
As you can see, there is an advantage of Section 232 is that it provides unilateral authority with minimal procedural requirements and virtually no judicial review. Once the Commerce Department investigation concludes (a process controlled by the administration), the President can impose restrictions immediately.
Section 301: Unfair Trade Practices
Then there is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and retaliate against foreign unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, discriminatory regulations, and trade agreement violations. The USTR must investigate and determine whether foreign practices are “unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Upon such determination, the President can impose tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
Here, under Trump’s First Term, the China tariffs affected over $350 billion in annual imports. They were imposed primarily under Section 301 authority based on USTR investigation finding systematic Chinese IP theft, forced technology transfer, and unfair industrial policies. These tariffs started at 10-25% on various product categories and escalated during the trade war, ultimately affecting nearly all Chinese imports. The Section 301 authority provided legal basis without requiring Congressional approval.
The Biden administration maintained most Trump-era China tariffs and even increased some. A second Trump term could expand these to 60% or higher as Trump proposed during the 2024 campaign on all Chinese imports, effectively attempting to decouple the economies. That would increase geopolitical tensions.
Section 301 investigations could target EU digital services taxes affecting American tech companies, agricultural subsidies harming American farmers, or regulatory barriers like GDPR compliance costs. Retaliatory tariffs on European automobiles, luxury goods, wine, cheese, and other products could be justified under Section 301.
Then there is the Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing advantages partly result from regulatory arbitrage and IP protections weaker than U.S. standards. Section 301 could justify tariffs on Indian pharmaceutical imports or generic drugs. This could put a lot of people at health risk.
Vietnam and Southeast Asia countries have become transshipment points for Chinese goods attempting to evade tariffs. Section 301 authority could be used to impose tariffs on countries facilitating Chinese circumvention.
The Section 301 process requires investigation and findings but remains under executive control. The USTR can initiate investigations at presidential direction and reach conclusions supporting administration policy objectives.
There are a lot of other means available:
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Countervailing Duties and Anti-Dumping
Reciprocal Tariffs and “Mirror Tariffs”
Import Licensing and Quota Systems
Currency Manipulation Tariffs
Border Adjustment Mechanisms
The proliferation of presidential trade authorities creates flexibility to implement protectionist policies without Congressional approval:
- Section 232 for national security-related industries
- Section 301 for unfair trade practices
- IEEPA for emergency situations or coercive diplomacy
- CVD/AD for industry-specific protection
- Quotas and licensing for quantitative restrictions
- Currency-based measures for exchange rate issues
A comprehensive Trump trade strategy could layer these authorities, using different legal bases for different objectives while maintaining that each action is legally justified under existing statute. This approach is legally defensible (though challengeable) while politically controversial.
The fundamental question is whether Congress will tolerate continued expansion of executive trade authority or will attempt to reassert legislative control. Given partisan polarization and dysfunction, reassertion seems unlikely unless trade actions become so economically painful that bipartisan opposition emerges.
The Psychological Impact
I am more concern that this will create the image that the US debt will rise sharply. The computer is already showing that bonds are entering a bear market. Trump can scream all he wants at the Federal Reserve, it is the free markets that set the long-term rates. You can see that using our datavase back to the inception of US debt, we are entering crash mode. If things heat up with Iran, this will impact China who get most of their energy from Iran and this too can undermine confidence in the invincibility of the USA.
Trump possesses extensive authority to impose duties, fees, and trade restrictions beyond traditional tariffs through Section 232 national security provisions, Section 301 unfair trade practice retaliation, IEEPA emergency powers, countervailing and anti-dumping duty processes, quota systems, and various other mechanisms. These authorities allow imposition of trade restrictions affecting hundreds of billions in imports without Congressional approval, fundamentally reshaping global trade flows through executive action. The legal basis for each mechanism varies in strength, but judicial deference to presidential authority in trade and national security matters makes successful challenges difficult.
The economic consequences would be significant make no mistake and could be political suicide for the Midterms. This would result in higher consumer prices, supply chain disruption, foreign retaliation, all as our computer is pointing to a sharp global recession into 2028. The strategic rationale is bringing back critical industries, reducing dependence on adversaries, and using trade policy as leverage for non-trade objectives like immigration control, may be noble goals. But there is NOBODY in the Trump Administration will to even look at the regulatory and taxation issues that forced many industries offshore in the first place. I even warned back in 1985 that UNLESS the CFTC and SEC were merged, the only way to provide professional funds management was to move offshore.
Trump has reacted claiming he will just impose a 10% tariff on everything. He was wrong to behind with listening to stupid legal advice that had to be deliberate when there were so many other rational paths to achieve the same thing. This represents a very dangerous economic nationalism that only confirms the sharp global decline into 2028. What is indisputable is that the legal authority exists, precedent has been established, and political will to use these tools aggressively has been demonstrated. The constraints are economic and political rather than legal. Trump is endangering his legacy.
His idea of bringing back American jobs may be noble, but he is listening to old-school economic that has failed and pays no attention to the progressive regulations and this constant taxing the rich and corporations and expecting them to just pay with no impact. Communism collapsed for this very same reason. It is just our turn.
Supreme Court Overrule’s Trump’s Tariffs
Download the Decision: Trump Tariffs 2-20-26 24-1287_4gcj
The Supreme Court has ruled as I expected. I have said on Podcasts that the power over tariffs lies with Congress, not the president. I also suggested that I did not expect the Supreme Court to overrule the statue as unconstitutional. To me, the plain language was very clear: IEEPA authorizes the President to:
“investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel,
nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”
§1702(a)(1)(B).
Nowhere does it authorize the power of tariffs. IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs plain and simple. I believe those in the Administration knew this would be the outcome. The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed. The Order states:
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in case No. 25–250 is affirmed. The
judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the
case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We also had a renegade anti-Trump judge in the mix. The Government moved to transfer the Learning Resources case to the Court of International Trade (CIT). It argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1), which gives the CIT “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against” the Government “that arises out of any law of the United States providing for . . . tariffs” or their“administration and enforcement.” The District Court denied that motion illegally seizing jurisdiction since it was anti-Trump and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. 784 F. Supp. 3d 209 (DC 2025). That judge clearly had NO JURISDICTION whatsoever to make such a ruling. This is a continuing problem in our legal system. This judge should be penalized if not dismissed for an equally unconstitutional ruling our ot personal animosity.
Tariffs have helped the United States collect nearly $99 billion so far this fiscal year, which started on Oct. 1, 2025, according to the Daily Treasury Statement published on Jan. 7. To me, the law allows presidents to regulate imports during times of emergency, but it was questionable whether that regulation included tariffs, and, in particular, Trump’s large-scale tariffs.
The Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes. He classified them as “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
Multiple federal courts had ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded what was allowed under the law. Days after oral argument, Trump indicated in a Nov. 11 post on Truth Social that a negative decision by the Supreme Court could implicate trillions of dollars.
“The ‘unwind’ in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars.”
He added that the situation “would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country – Possibly non-sustainable!”
I looked at the tariffs and the only grey area was that Trump was imposing a tariff ON TOP OF what Congress authorized, he was not actually altering the Congressional tariff. The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
Can Trump still impose tariffs? The answer to that question is Yes!.
Business Bankruptcies on the Rise in the EU
The latest Eurostat release on business registrations and bankruptcies in Q4 2025 is perhaps one of the most revealing datasets on the real state of the European economy, and it confirms precisely the type of slow deterioration in confidence that I have warned about for years regarding the EU’s policy direction.
On the surface, bureaucrats will point to the 0.5% quarterly increase in business registrations across the EU as a sign of resilience. Yet at the very same time, bankruptcy declarations rose by 2.5% compared to the third quarter of 2025.
Looking deeper into the sector data makes the situation even more concerning. Registrations increased most in information and communication (+6.4%) and industry (+4.9%), while sectors tied directly to consumer demand, such as trade and construction, showed declines. Meanwhile, bankruptcies surged in accommodation and food services (+8.6%), transport (+5.6%), and even information and communication (+7.9%).
When bankruptcies rise across 6 out of 8 sectors, that reflects declining economic confidence and tightening margins across the entire economy. It is far easier to start a business than it is to maintain one. Bureaucrats choose to look at business starts rather than bankruptcies.
The sharp rise in bankruptcies in hospitality and services is particularly telling given Europe’s inflation in energy, labor costs, and regulatory compliance. Small and mid-sized businesses cannot absorb these costs the way multinational corporations can. The result is a slow liquidation cycle beneath the surface of headline GDP numbers. Entrepreneurs are the first to react to declining confidence in future policy stability. When bankruptcies rise faster than new firm formation, capital becomes less confident in long-term profitability.
The sector divergence also reflects the deeper structural transformation underway in Europe. Digital and information sectors are still attracting registrations, while traditional consumer and service sectors face insolvency pressure. That is consistent with an economy being reshaped by regulation, energy policy, and declining industrial competitiveness.
Rising bankruptcies do not immediately show up in political narratives, but they erode the tax base, increase unemployment risk, and force governments into further intervention. That intervention historically leads to more regulation and taxation, which only accelerates the liquidation cycle.
The ECM has long warned that the 2026 period would mark rising volatility driven by declining confidence in government. Rising bankruptcies alongside only marginal business creation are not a healthy expansion phase. It is the early-stage warning that the private sector is under pressure while policymakers continue to insist that the system is stable.
The US Trade Deficit – A Cause for Concern?
The latest data showing the US trade deficit widening sharply to about $70.3 billion should not be interpreted the way mainstream economists always frame it. They immediately jump to the conclusion that a rising trade deficit is a sign of economic weakness, when in reality it often reflects the opposite and represents strong domestic demand. According to the latest Commerce Department figures cited in financial reports, the gap widened as imports surged while exports lagged, driven in part by capital goods and technology demand.
A trade deficit is not occurring in isolation. If the United States imports more than it exports, the excess dollars do not vanish, rather, they return as capital investment into US assets, equities, real estate, and Treasuries. That capital inflow is precisely why the dollar can remain strong even while the trade deficit widens. America has been running trade deficits since the late 20th century, yet it remains the world’s primary capital destination.
Imports rose sharply, particularly in industrial supplies, technology equipment, and capital goods linked to AI infrastructure expansion. America is attracting global capital into productive, growing sectors. Historically, trade deficits expand during periods of investment booms because domestic demand outpaces supply.
Even with aggressive tariff policies, imports continued rising, and the goods trade deficit reached record levels of around $1.24 trillion in 2025. Trade balances are driven more by capital flows and currency strength than by tariff policy alone. Global capital still viewing the United States as the safest destination amid geopolitical uncertainty in Europe and elsewhere. Capital always moves to the strongest legal and financial system, not the one with the best trade balance. This is why nations like Germany or Japan may run surpluses while still seeing capital volatility.
Countries that run chronic trade deficits are only in danger when capital stops flowing in. The key factor is CONFIDENCE. As long as global capital continues to view the United States as the primary safe haven during periods of geopolitical and economic instability, the trade deficit becomes a reflection of strength in capital attraction rather than weakness.
Canada to Provide Express Entry to Trained Foreign Military Personnel
?REPORT: Immigration Canada is introducing a new express entry pathway for highly TRAINED FOREIGN MILITARY PERSONNEL.
So our Government is going to give people who don't want to assimilate into Canadian culture high-powered weapons. pic.twitter.com/iw6IRps4V6
— Wiretap Media (@WiretapMediaCa) February 18, 2026
I have warned many times that immigration policy is increasingly being shaped by political ideology rather than long-term social cohesion and economic stability. The report that Canada is considering an express entry pathway for highly trained foreign military personnel raises very serious questions that go far beyond labor shortages or skills-based immigration. When governments begin fast-tracking individuals with military training into civilian society under expedited frameworks, this is no longer just an economic policy — it becomes a national security and social stability issue.
Historically, successful immigration systems were built around assimilation, economic contribution, and cultural integration. Governments are struggling to build their militaries amid recruitment shortages. Their solution is to import “skilled” fighters as we move closer to global conflict. Military personnel will be included among other high-skilled occupations since the demand far exceeds the available domestic supply.
The larger concern is assimilation and demographic shifts. I have repeatedly stated that social stability depends on shared legal, cultural, and institutional norms. When immigration policy accelerates without equal emphasis on integration, fragmentation follows. Europe has already demonstrated this lesson in multiple countries where rapid demographic policy shifts created long-term social divisions and rising political polarization. Canada is not immune to those same cyclical forces simply because it has historically maintained a more structured immigration system.
There is also the geopolitical layer that cannot be ignored. We are entering a period of rising global volatility into the 2026–2032 window, according to the cyclical models. During such phases, governments increasingly prioritize security, institutional resilience, and strategic labor pools. Policies targeting military-trained migrants may be framed as skills-based immigration, but they also reflect a broader shift toward state planning in response to global uncertainty.
Look at Russia. Putin turned to Kim Jong-un in a desperate plea to recruit more men. Impoverished nations are willing to import anything, including humans. Canada’s announcement alludes to the government’s importance of rapidly building the armed forces. Canada was so focused on forcing their own men and women to take the COVID vaccines a few years back that they pushed away contenders. What could go wrong if a nation opens its borders to trained mercenaries who may have an allegiance to a foreign government? Ancient Rome too relied on non-Roman recruits, but that was merely one aspect of the collapse.
I have explained in my writings on the Fall of Rome and How Empires Die that empires always turn to external manpower when domestic demographics weaken, and the population no longer supports the state financially or militarily. Hiring outsiders, expanding bureaucracy, and increasing control are all late-cycle responses to declining confidence in the system itself.
International World Order is Crumbling
If we are honest, the current international world order is crumbling and it has demonstrated its inability to effectively resolve crises when financial gain is at stake. The EU is desperate to become relevant again as a world power being overshadowed by Russia, China, and the USA. This is leading to some starting to rethink strategic balances and rapid evolution in geo-economic relations. How wars are going to be fought is also changing before our eyes. Traditional threats are becoming increasingly hybrid in nature, and this is causing tremendous uncertainty among intelligence agencies. The Biden Administration assumed that Ukraine could easily defeat Russia and US would quickly establish bases there. That policy failed. Their sanctioning Russia removing it from SWIFT, was a monumental mistake that has divided the world economy creating BRICS.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has reached a strategic impasse between Western military support and Russia’s strategy of industrial exhaustion. The US won World War II because we had the manufacturing base to turn out weapons including planes and tanks. Today, Russia is able to replenish assets and China’s manufacturing base is in the position that the US was during World War II. China could replenish lost ships, planes, and tanks faster than the USA or Europe for that matter.
The EU and NATO have called the shots and have refused to allow Ukraine to seek peace every time. According to our sources, despite signing the Minsk Agreement that was to allow the Donbas to vote, the West has negotiated that in bad faith and instructed Zelensky not to make any territorial concessions. The nature of the war is rapidly evolving towards nuclear confrontation and the increasing use of autonomous weapon systems. NATO and the EU do not care about Ukraine or its people. This has always been about the conquest of Russia itself. Even assuming the claims that Russia is weak are true and NATO can walz in with no casualties, then it is time to push the button.
Meanwhile, The New York Times writes Vladimir Putin remains confident of his superiority on the front lines. The claims are that he is banking on a protracted war and is prepared to continue fighting for at least another two years to establish complete control over the entire territory of the Donbas region. There is NO WAY Putin can back down. If he did, he would be overthrown in a coup and then you will get a Russian Neocons who will be just as eager to push the button to wipe out NATO.
PRIVATE BLOG – US vs Iran – The Wildcard Nobody Considers
PRIVATE BLOG – US vs Iran – The Wildcard Nobody Considers
Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.
Market Talk – February 19, 2026
US/AMERICAS:
-
Dow declined by 267.50 points (-0.54%) to 49,395.16
-
S&P 500 declined by 19.42 points (-0.28%) to 6,861.89
-
NASDAQ declined by 70.905 points (-0.31%) to 22,682.729
-
Russell 2000 advanced by 6.48 points (+0.24%) to 2,665.09
Canada Market Closings:
-
TSX Composite advanced by 205.25 points (+0.61%) to 33,594.98
-
TSX 60 advanced by 7.92 points (+0.41%) to 1,945.97
Brazil Market Closing:
-
Bovespa advanced by 2,519.30 points (+1.35%) to 188,535.61
Macron Suffers from De Gaulle Syndrome Threat to World Peace
Macron just said “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” He expect the EU to clash with Trump because they are in dire straights and when a country is in the death spiral, they will become increasingly authoritarian. The two worst offenders are France and Spain. Macron has been covertly telling French institutions to sell dollars and bring the money home pushing the euro higher which then reduced their trade surplus.
Last April 2025, in response to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, Macron called for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States, stating “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States”
Macron has been pushing “targeting digital services and financing mechanisms of the US economy.” We are seeing that in trying to come up with a European credit card and banning both Visa and Mastercard.
At Davos 2026, Macron noted that European savings are “overinvested in bonds and sometimes in equities – but outside Europe,” suggesting he wants Europeans to invest more domestically. They call Macron the Petite Napoleon. Despite his approval rating at 11%, probably lower than any world leader in history, he is carrying on the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle who destroy the gold standard because of his hated of the United States. He withdrew France from NATO which is why they have independent nukes. De Gaulle ordered all US troops and NATO instalation out of France which prompted the US to ask if that included the dead America buried there to defend France.
At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, Macron said Europe must redesign its security architecture independently and confirmed Paris is holding strategic nuclear talks with allies, referring to a more “holistic” approach to nuclear deterrence among European allies.
In an address to the nation in March 2025, Macron announced plans to negotiate with the allies the possibility of placing European countries under the protection of France’s nuclear deterrence forces. Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Denmark have expressed readiness to discuss the issue. This is why they call him the Petit Napoleon. He is once again trying to make France the dominant power of Europe and it has been him, according to sources, who pushes to invade Russia to gain the assets to rise above the United States as a rival.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany does NOT want to develop its own nuclear weapons, but is interested in incorporating French and British atomic bombs in a deterrence arrangement reminiscent of NATO’s U.S.-based nuclear umbrella.
Wolfgang Ischinger at the Munich Security Conference noted that France has air-based nuclear-capable cruise missiles that can be deployed from Rafale aircraft, and “perhaps in the future, such systems could be stationed not only in France, as has been the case so far, but also in Poland or Germany, on a rotating or even permanent basis. Yes, one could even consider replicating the US model of nuclear sharing, whereby these weapons could be launched from suitable partner aircrafts.”
Macron’s proposal are definitely an offer to build an independent nuclear deterrent within the EU framework. Any arrangement whereby Paris would transfer sovereignty over the use of its own nuclear bombs to an EU institution or another state is a no-go in terms of domestic politics. Macron wants to replace the US and retain control of all nukes, not hand them over to the EU.
So yes—Macron has offered extended nuclear protection to Europe, and discussions about potentially stationing French nuclear-capable systems in Germany (similar to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement) are part of the conversation, though final decision-making would remain with France.
Behind the curtain, it has been Macron who is trying to replace the USA and lead all of Europe as the modern version of Napoleon. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has emphasized that European nations cannot defend themselves against Russia without the support of the United States, suggesting that they would need to significantly increase their defense spending in the absence of U.S. assistance. He warned that losing U.S. support would undermine Europe’s security and freedom. Rutte said bluntly during an appearance at the European Parliament: “If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,”
This is why reliable sources see through Macron seeking to seize power and take Europe into a third World War in hopes to leading Europe and fulfilling the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle. It was De Gaulle who was redeeming dollars for gold believing that if france had the larges gold reserves that the franc would replace the dollar.
Charles De Gaulle was an extreme nationalist far worse than they acuse Trump today. He objected in February 1965 to what he called the “Exorbitant Privilege” of the US dollar’s dominant role and began converting France’s dollar reserves into gold, which put pressure on Bretton Woods. In 1967, I was there in Montreal with my Family at the World’s Fair. My father had met De Gaulle bing with Patton who liberated France. My father was a colonel with Patton and told me how De Gaulle demanded that he lead the victory parade ahead of the Americans as he liberated France. In Montreal, he encouraged Quebec to separate from Canada because they were the English. He was still anti-American and British all because they defeated Napoleon. He refused to allow Britain to join the European Community. Britain joined ONLY after De Gaulle died. Macron seems to be suffering from De Gaulle syndrome.