Authored by James K. Glassman via RealClearEnergy,

There’s a lot of crowing in certain quarters about the 2% decline in U.S. electric vehicle sales in 2025 compared to the year before. Francis Menton, the lawyer who writes the Manhattan Contrarian blog, for instance, claims vindication for his prediction in February 2023 that electric vehicles would not “sweep the country and become the dominant form of transportation.”

The reasoning behind his forecast: “It is always wise to bet against central planning of the economy.” In this case, central planning amounted to state CO2 emissions goals, CAFE mileage requirements and federal and state tax subsidies. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act ended the $7,500 tax credit for EV purchases, and President Trump on Dec. 3 issued an order to roll back CAFE standards “to levels at which combustion vehicles can comply.”

Like Menton, I don’t like central planning. Nor do I support mileage standards or subsidies. Americans have proven in the past that the best route to prosperity and health is free competition without government meddling. Unfortunately, that is not what we have anymore.

Our own government is denying Americans the opportunity to buy the cars of their choice by imposing huge tariffs on low-priced electric vehicles, which are pouring into the rest of the world.

EV sales in the U.S. are languishing for many reasons, including a lack of charging stations, but the biggest problem is cost. Our EVs are absurdly expensive. Competition from China, India and perhaps even Mexico and would help bring down prices – and make U.S. EV makers more efficient.

In the rest of the world EV sales are booming,  up 21% through November compared to last year. In all, sales of cars and trucks powered by electricity will reach 20 million by year-end. In 2020, global sales were just 3 million.

One of the biggest changes is the advent of inexpensive Chinese-built EVs, which carry a special 100% U.S. tariff, initially imposed by Joe Biden in 2024 and extended under Donald Trump. These EVs are effectively barred from the U.S. market, the world’s second-largest (after China itself). Nevertheless, China sells 62% of the world’s EVs and 71% of global EV batteries.

The European Union also has high tariffs on Chinese EVs (43%), but the UK does not. As a result, the British are rushing to buy electrics like those offered by BYD in its more than 100 retail outlets across the country. BYD, now the world’s largest EV maker, is selling 10 times as many cars in the UK as it did last year. Total EV sales in the UK have jumped 25% this year, and 22.7% of vehicles registered in the country in 2025 are  fully electric, compared with a little less than 10% in the U.S.

BYD is building EVs 25% more cheaply than Western competitors. The company has a broad lineup, but what’s happening in the UK and around the world is that the EV is no longer a rich person’s novelty. The small BYD Dolphin Surf has list price of 18,650 British pounds, or $25,129. The company’s Seagull starts at under $8,000 in China. Meanwhile, Mexico is promising to build a line of economy EVs that will debut next year and cost $4,400 to $7,400 U.S. dollars.

Electric cars and trucks have far fewer moving parts than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, and they are cheaper to build and operate. “The battery, motor, and associated electronics require little to no regular maintenance,” says the U.S. Department of Energy. And EVs have instantaneous torque, that is, maximum power from the starting line, so even a large vehicles like GM’s Hummer EV can go from zero to 60 in just three seconds. They are fun to drive.

Nations concerned about climate change have been subsidizing EVs, but the economics of have changed, and subsidies are no longer necessary to get people to buy electric. We see the same phenomenon in electricity generation at utility plants. Because of technological innovation, solar and wind, with battery back-up, have become the cheapest and fastest way to add power to the grid – without subsidies. This is not about climate-change ideology.

My own conclusion is that, because of economics and the driving pleasure they provide, EVs are the future. But I could be wrong. To find out, let’s drop the subsidies and the tariffs and leave the choice of cars and trucks to consumers themselves.

James K. Glassman served as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the George W. Bush Administration. He was also formerly a fellow in ecnoomics and technology at the American Enterprise Institute. Long ago, he was the car columnist for The Washingtonian magazine. 

In the Trump administration’s latest display of creativity when it comes to unloading unwanted immigrants, the United States has made a deal with the rulers of the tiny Pacific island nation of Palau, which will take 75 rejected migrants off Uncle Sam’s hands in exchange for $100,000 per head. The deportees in question will be a diverse group, but they’ll likely share one thing in common — none of them are from Palau, or ever heard of it.  

Palau will serve as a small relief valve for situations where a migrant’s home country refuses to take them back. “Palau and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding allowing up to 75 third country nationals, who have never been charged with a crime, to live and work in Palau, helping address local labor shortages in needed occupations,” said Palauan President Surangel Whipps in a statement. 

Located in the Pacific region of Micronesia, Palau comprises some 350 tiny coral and volcanic islands, with a population of only 18,000. It was administered by the US government from World War II to 1994, when it became independent. However, it has maintained close relations with America via an arrangement called “free association,” which lets Palauans work, live or study in the United States — but we’re guessing that privilege won’t be extended to the 75 deportees. Palau also uses the US dollar as its currency, and its mail is delivered by the USPS.

Most Americans who previously heard of Palau probably did so when it was the setting of Season 10 of the reality-competition show “Survivor”

The cash-for-unwanted-migrants deal was opposed by Palau’s legislature. “We strongly advise against proceeding further on this matter,” said the leaders of both houses in a joint letter. “We cannot afford to overpromise or commit to something we cannot fulfill.”  Palau’s advisory Council of Chiefs firmly objected too, similarly concerned that the island chain already has enough challenges on its hands without having to assimilate 75 deportees from who-knows-where speaking who-knows-what languages: 

“Our position has not been an easy one to reach because the request comes to us from our number one ally, the U.S. We are certain, however, that our best friend understands our precarious and fragile situation as a tiny island nation seeking to exist in this complex world.”

Palau’s president plunged ahead anyway, after trying to reassure skeptics by saying, “These are not criminals. Their only offense was entering the United States illegally and working without proper permits.” Beyond raking in $7.5 million from the United States for “public service and infrastructure needs” associated with handling the newcomers, Palau will also get a $6 million injection “to prevent collapse of the civil service pension plan,” plus another $2 million for law enforcement initiatives.  

Israeli President Isaac Herzog with Palau’s then-UN Ambassador Ilana Seid. Palau is routinely among a tiny group of states that join the US in voting against anti-Israel resolutions

Palau is a regular beneficiary of US wealth transfers, and a hefty 12% of Palau’s GDP comes from US and other foreign aid. Not coincidentally, Palau is one of four tiny, inconsequential Pacific states that routinely join the US in voting against anti-Israel resolutions at the UN; the others are Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Nauru. 

Palau joins a small handful of third-world nations who’ve either agreed to take third-country deportees from the United States, or are deliberating that pitch — among them, Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda. Unlike Palau, the tiny African kingdom of Eswatini has accepted violent illegal immigrants, whom a senior US Homeland Security official described as “so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back.” 

The Trump administration’s “safe third-country” agreements create a novel and amusing deterrent for illegal immigrants and bogus asylum-seekers — a veritable roulette wheel that could have them waking up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and playing their own version of “Survivor.” 

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Chinese billionaires and elites are increasingly using the United States’ permissive surrogacy system to have large numbers of children—sometimes dozens, or more—according to allegations made in Chinese media.

Increasing numbers of wealthy Chinese couples are hiring the services of American surrogate mothers to give birth to their babies to circumvent China’s one child policy. In the photo, hundreds of Chinese babies accompanied by their parents prepare to take part in a baby swimming contest. STR/Getty Images

The surrogate children become U.S. citizens through birthright citizenship. 

According to Chinese media, Chinese gaming company Duoyi Network released a statement on social media disputing a report from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) saying that Xu Bo, Duoyi’s founder and chairman, fathered potentially more than 100 children in the United States via surrogacy. The statement said that Xu “only had 12 children in the United States via surrogacy.”

Xu’s company later issued a statement on social media acknowledging that Xu had more than 100 children born via surrogacy in the United States.

WSJ cited court documents saying that in 2023, Xu petitioned a Los Angeles family court for parental rights over four unborn children. During the proceedings, the judge determined that Xu was already the father—or in the process of becoming the father—of at least eight children through surrogacy.

Xu, who was in China at the time, appeared at a closed-door hearing by video. Through an interpreter, he reportedly told the court he hoped to have more than 20 U.S.-born children and expressed a preference for sons, saying boys were better suited to inherit a family business, according to WSJ’s account of the hearing.

Xu said the children were being raised by nannies in the United States while awaiting travel documentation to China. He told the court he had not yet met the children due to his work commitments. 

Amy Pellman, the judge overseeing the case, reportedly ruled that surrogacy is intended to help people build families—not to facilitate large-scale reproduction beyond the scope of ordinary child-rearing. In a rare move, she denied Xu’s parental rights petition.

The Epoch Times cannot independently verify the details of the court case because such family court proceedings take place behind closed doors and are not published.

Xu was a former senior executive at China’s online gaming giant NetEase. His personal fortune has been estimated by Chinese media at roughly 28 billion yuan (about US$3.9 billion).

Claims About Scale of Surrogacy

The case has drawn renewed attention in China following social media posts by Tang Jing, described in Chinese media as Xu’s former girlfriend. In a post published on Weibo in November, Tang alleged she had helped raise 13 of Xu’s children in Japan, including two daughters she said were born naturally to the couple and 11 children born through surrogacy using donated sperm.

Tang alleged that Xu had “no fewer than 300 children.” 

Although Xu’s company rejected the figure of 300 children in a statement posted online, Xu has publicly referred to himself as “China’s No. 1 Dad.”

Verified social media accounts linked to Xu show repeated statements about his desire to build what he called a large “family dynasty.” In posts dating back several years, Xu wrote that “having more children can solve all problems” and said he hoped to have “50 high-quality sons.” 

Others Linked to US Surrogacy

Xu’s case is not isolated. According to Chinese state-controlled media reports, other wealthy Chinese individuals have also reportedly used surrogacy services in the United States to produce large families.

According to state-controlled The Time Weekly, one former executive of XJ International Holdings paid large sums to obtain eggs from American models and musicians and used surrogacy to have 10 daughters. The supposed goal was to groom the children for future marriages into powerful or influential families around the world. Online discussion of the case briefly surfaced in China in 2021 before being quickly censored. Chinese media said that the executive’s father declined to comment on the matter, while the company’s staff disputed the claim and said it was a mere “rumor.”

Some senior Chinese officials have also been linked to overseas surrogacy. In 2023, the Financial Times, citing six anonymous sources familiar with the matter, reported that former Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang had an extramarital relationship with a Chinese state-owned Phoenix Television host and that they had a son born in the United States via surrogacy. Qin was later removed from office amid unrelated political turmoil.

The U.S. surrogacy industry has developed into a full-service ecosystem involving agencies, law firms, fertility clinics, and childcare providers. Some foreign clients are able to complete the process by only providing genetic material and never entering the United States.

A single surrogacy arrangement could cost anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000, according to American Surrogacy.

Most states do not prohibit foreign nationals from using surrogacy services, and many court proceedings related to parental rights are sealed. There is also no comprehensive mechanism for sharing surrogacy-related data across states, creating regulatory blind spots.

Lin Yan contributed to this report. 

New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has named retired EMS chief Lillian Bonsignore to run the FDNY, and the pick has generated some legitimate skepticism from those who believe that she wasn’t picked for her qualifications. The appointment makes Bonsignore only the second woman to serve as fire commissioner and the first openly gay person to hold the position. But critics zeroed in on a far more consequential fact: she has never served as a firefighter.

New FDNY Captain (center) via FDNY

While it’s true that Bonsignore spent 31 years with the FDNY, all of it was on the emergency medical services side. She joined as an EMT in 1991 at Lincoln Hospital in the South Bronx and climbed through the ranks, eventually running EMS operations during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 to 2022. She retired in 2022 and will now return to oversee 11,000 firefighters, 4,500 EMTs, and more than 2,000 civilian employees.

“I am honored, so honored, and humbled to stand before you as the new fire commissioner,” she told reporters. “I know the job. I know what the firefighters need, and I can translate that to this administration who’s willing to listen. I know what EMS needs, I’ve been EMS for 30 plus years.”

But even Bonsignore isn’t oblivious to the identity politics at play. She also highlighted the symbolic value of her appointment for the LGBTQ community. 

“There are some young LGBTQ members that maybe don’t see this as a possibility for them, and I want them to know that there’s nothing that can stop them from finding success,” she said. 

That remark drew swift criticism from those who view the appointment as driven by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) priorities rather than actual firefighting credentials for someone picked to lead one of the world’s largest fire departments.

Mamdani presented Bonsignore’s appointment as a component of his larger plan for public safety. He insists that reducing response times, enhancing hospital coordination, increasing e-bike charging stations to prevent lithium-ion battery fires, and addressing EMT pay parity are among Bonsignore’s top priorities.

“I am dedicated to the fostering of a culture of support, innovation, and continuous improvement within the department,” Bonsignore said. “My goal is to ensure that every member has the resources and environment they need to perform their roles safely and effectively.”

Despite Mamdani’s claim that the appointment of Bonsignore is part of his safety agenda, Elon Musk blasted the appointment.

“People will die because of this,” Musk wrote Friday. “Proven experience matters when lives are at stake.”

He is not wrong, and the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this year proved how a city’s obsession with DEI and politics can cripple a Fire Department’s readiness when it matters most. 

Instead of making sure the department was adequately staffed, trained, and equipped, LAFD leadership and Mayor Bass’s administration had used their political capital on image, ideology, and diversity box-checking while residents faced “life-threatening” wind and fire conditions. 

Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, the first openly gay and female leader of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), spent her tenure more focused on DEI initiatives than readiness or preparedness. In fact, on her watch, the LAFD spent millions to create a DEI bureau that developed programs to recruit more women and LGBTQ+ firefighters.

The result was an ill-prepared force that could not fully mobilize when the January fires hit, even though internal documents showed the department had the capacity to send hundreds of firefighters and additional engines into high‑risk corridors. In fact, former fire chiefs argued that long‑standing wildfire tactics could have significantly reduced the damage.

Los Angeles offered a cautionary tale to all of us, and New York, under Zohran Mamdani’s leadership, clearly didn’t learn the lesson. When DEI takes precedence over experience and competence, public safety suffers. Los Angeles paid a colossal price to learn that lesson.

The troubling question now is whether New York City is heading down the same path. Hopefully, it won’t take a disaster like the Palisades fire to answer that question.

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said any attempt to reopen the GENIUS Act would cross a “red line,” accusing banks of using political pressure to block competition from stablecoins and fintech platforms.

In a Sunday post on X, Armstrong said he was “impressed” banks could lobby Congress so openly without backlash, adding that Coinbase would continue pushing back on efforts to revise the law.

“We won’t let anyone reopen GENIUS,” he wrote.

“My prediction is the banks will actually flip and be lobbying FOR the ability to pay interest and yield on stablecoins in a few years, once they realize how big the opportunity is for them. So it’s 100% wasted effort on their part (in addition to being unethical),” Armstrong added.

The GENIUS Act, passed after months of negotiations, bars stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly but allows platforms and third parties to offer rewards.

Coinbase CEO warning against reopening the GENIUS Act. Source: Brian Armstrong

Bank lobbying targets stablecoin “rewards”

Armstrong’s comments came in response to a post by Max Avery, a board member and business development executive at Digital Ascension Group, who outlined why parts of the banking sector are pushing lawmakers to revisit the legislation.

Avery argued that proposed amendments would go beyond banning direct interest payments by stablecoin issuers and instead restrict “rewards” more broadly, cutting off indirect yield-sharing mechanisms offered by platforms and third parties.

Avery pointed out that while banks currently earn around 4% on reserves parked at the Federal Reserve, consumers often receive close to zero on traditional savings accounts. Stablecoin platforms, he said, threaten that model by offering to share some of that yield with users.

“They’re calling it a ‘safety concern.’ They’re worried about ‘community bank deposits,’” he wrote, adding that independent research “shows zero evidence of disproportionate deposit outflows from community banks.”

US lawmakers propose tax relief for stablecoin payments

Last week, US lawmakers unveiled a discussion draft aimed at reducing the tax burden on everyday crypto users by exempting small stablecoin transactions from capital gains taxes. The proposal, introduced by Representatives Max Miller and Steven Horsford, would allow payments of up to $200 in regulated, dollar-pegged stablecoins to avoid gain or loss recognition.

Beyond payments, the bill targets taxation issues around staking and mining by allowing taxpayers to defer income recognition on rewards for up to five years.