The World Economic Forum (WEF) quietly launched an independent review earlier this month into its CEO, Børge Brende, over his past interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, Bloomberg reports.

Files released by the Department of Justice show Epstein and Brende had three dinners in 2018 and 2019, and exchanged various text messages. One dinner occurred in September 2018, more than a decade after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and guilty plea in Florida for procuring a child for prostitution, and another on June 13, 2019, shortly before Epstein’s final arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Like many powerful figures, Brende has claimed that he was unaware of Epstein’s criminal history at the time of their meetings, and is said to have ordered the probe into his communications with Epstein.

“I was completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities,” Brende said in a statement to Bloomberg. “Had I known about his background, I would have declined the initial invitation and any subsequent dinner invitations or other communications.”

“I recognize that I could have conducted a more thorough investigation into Epstein’s history, and I regret not doing so,” he added.

Klaus Schwab, who founded the WEF in 1971, has maintained that he is “certain” that he never met with Epstein, a press representative told Bloomberg.

Beyond Brende’s direct contacts, the released files highlight Epstein’s broader efforts to leverage the prestige of the WEF’s annual Davos meeting. Despite reportedly claiming to “hate” the Forum in private, Epstein positioned himself as a self-described “Davos concierge” to facilitate access for his associates.

For instance, in late 2009, months after his release from Florida incarceration, Epstein corresponded with Boris Nikolic, an immunologist and regular Davos attendee, offering to arrange one-on-one meetings. “I can organize a 1:1 meeting with most people there. One ‘virtual currency’ I have is access ;),” Epstein wrote while sharing a participant list, according to Bloomberg.

In 2011, Nikolic turned to Epstein for help securing time with Bill Gates, lamenting the difficulty of reaching the billionaire. Epstein suggested pitching Gates on attending a dinner, listing potential attendees, and signed off as “your truly, the davos concierge.”

UK broadcaster Channel 4 News reported that the Justice Department has so far released 3.5 million files, amounting to more than 300 GB, representing roughly only 2 percent of the total data volume that investigators referenced as recently as last year. Internal emails indicating that federal investigators expected to handle between 20 and 40 terabytes of data seized from Epstein’s properties, the report said.

Earlier estimates from 2020 put the total volume of files at up to 50 terabytes. More recently, in 2025, officials referred to approximately 14.6 terabytes of archived data under review.

The release of additional Epstein-related documents by the Department of Justice continues to draw attention to a range of high-profile individuals from business and politics, whose names appear in the files.

Thomas J. Pritzker, the longtime executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation, announced his immediate retirement on Monday and confirmed he will not seek re-election to the company’s board.

In a statement to the board and released publicly, Pritzker expressed regret over his past association with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Pritzker described maintaining contact as “terrible judgment” and acknowledged there was no excuse for not distancing himself sooner.

“I condemn the actions and the harm caused by Epstein and Maxwell, and I feel deep sorrow for the pain they inflicted on their victims,” he added.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

An analysis released by Google this month showed that the U.S. defense industrial base—a network of public and private entities used to develop or maintain military weapons systems—has sustained cyberattacks from groups and criminal organizations from China, Russia, and North Korea in recent months.

The report, released on Feb. 10 by Google Threat Intelligence, found that the Chinese regime and associated groups continue “to represent by volume the most active threat to entities in the defense industrial base,” which it said can pose “significant risk to the defense and aerospace sector.”

Google’s report added that it “has observed more China-nexus cyber espionage missions directly targeting defense and aerospace industry than from any other state-sponsored actors over the last two years,” as such groups have “used a broad range of tactics in operations.”

“But the hallmark of many operations has been their exploitation of edge devices to gain initial access,” it said, referring to hardware components positioned at the edge of a network.

“We have also observed China-nexus threat groups leverage ORB networks for reconnaissance against defense industrial targets, which complicates detection and attribution.”

Late last year, Canadian and U.S. officials warned that Chinese state-backed hacking groups have targeted U.S. government entities and private companies, gaining long-term access to their systems.

In July 2025, Microsoft also warned it had observed two China-based hacking groups, Linen Typhoon and Violet Typhoon, using vulnerabilities in SharePoint, Microsoft’s collaboration software.

As for Russia, Google said in its report that groups associated with Moscow have focused on defense companies that support technologies used in the Russia–Ukraine war, namely companies linked to drones.

“As next-generation capabilities are being operationalized in this environment, Russia-nexus threat actors and hacktivists are seeking to compromise defense contractors alongside military assets and systems, with a focus on organizations involved with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS),” the tech giant said.

“This includes targeting defense companies directly, using themes mimicking their products and systems in intrusions against military organizations and personnel.”

State-sponsored hackers, meanwhile, have leveraged Google’s own AI tool, Gemini, during cyberattacks, it found.

One Chinese-linked organization known as “UNC2970” has frequently targeted defense companies and impersonated corporate recruiters in hacking campaigns, Google said.

They’ve used Gemini to conduct open-source intelligence to “profile high-value targets to support campaign planning and reconnaissance,” including searches for relevant information on defense and cybersecurity companies, it said.

The threat posed by North Korea has grown since 2019 as officials in the regime have attempted to pose as IT workers to apply for jobs at defense-related organizations, Google said.

Last July, the Department of Justice announced it had disrupted an operation that included searches of 29 locations in more than a dozen states suspected of being connected to laptops used, in part, to obtain remote jobs at more than 100 American companies.

In one instance, North Korea-linked actors stole sensitive data from a California defense company that was involved in AI development, according to Google.

In a separate incident, a Maryland-based individual was sentenced to 15 months in prison for facilitating a North Korean-linked scheme and coordinating with an alleged regime IT worker. The person, Minh Phuong Ngoc Vong, was hired by a Virginia-based company to perform software development for a defense contractor, it added.

A Kansas woman has been sentenced to federal prison after admitting she fabricated claims that astronaut Anne McClain accessed her bank account from orbit, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Summer Heather Worden, 51, of Sedgwick County, Kansas, pleaded guilty on November 14, 2025, to making false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements to law enforcement, according to KBTX.

Alfred H. Bennett sentenced her to three months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release, and ordered her to pay $210,000 in restitution.

Worden had alleged in July 2019 that her estranged spouse guessed her password and illegally viewed her account while stationed aboard the International Space Station. Court evidence later established the accusation was unfounded. Records showed Worden opened the account in April 2018 and that both women used it until January 2019, when she changed the login information. Investigators determined she had shared access to her banking details, including credentials, as early as 2015.

KBTX writes that even after an internal review cleared McClain, Worden continued promoting the allegations in the media, hired a consultant to amplify them, and publicly disclosed her former spouse’s personal information.

“This case demonstrates the serious consequences of making false accusations to law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

The case was investigated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard D. Hanes and Brandon Fyffe prosecuted it. Worden remains free on bond and is expected to report voluntarily to a facility designated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Authored by Emily Arthun via RealClearEnergy,

When Winter Storm Fern swept across much of the United States in mid-January 2026—bringing snow, ice, and sustained sub-zero temperatures from Texas to New England—millions of Americans braced for power outages. In some areas, those fears were realized. Tennessee alone reported more than 245,000 customer outages at peak conditions. At the same time, natural gas prices spiked dramatically, exceeding $30 per MMBtu at certain constrained delivery points within the PJM Interconnection.

Yet despite the severity and duration of the storm, the national electric grid largely held. Hospitals remained open. Emergency services stayed online. Most homes stayed warm. That outcome was not accidental. It was the result of dependable, dispatchable generation—chief among it, coal.

During the coldest days of the storm, coal-fired generation across the Lower 48 surged, rising from roughly 70 gigawatt-hours per day to approximately 130. That additional generation represented a massive increase in available power at precisely the moment when electric heating demand spiked and system margins tightened. In practical terms, coal generation helped keep power flowing to tens of millions of households nationwide, sustaining heat and essential services during the most extreme conditions of Winter Storm Fern.

Coal plants responded exactly as they are designed to do: steadily, predictably, and at scale. In the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region, coal supplied as much as 40% of electricity during peak hours. In PJM, coal accounted for roughly one-quarter of total generation. These were not marginal contributions—they were foundational to grid stability.

The contrast with weather-dependent resources was unmistakable. Wind generation declined as turbines iced over or were curtailed for safety. Solar output fell sharply as panels were covered by snow and daylight hours shortened. Hydropower faced limitations from frozen waterways and constrained inflows. Each of these resources plays a role in the broader energy mix, but Winter Storm Fern underscored their limitations during prolonged, widespread cold.

Coal’s advantage in these moments is straightforward: on-site fuel. Stockpiled coal insulated power plants from supply chain disruptions at precisely the moment when other fuels faced constraints. This is not a theoretical benefit. It is a practical one that has been demonstrated repeatedly during extreme weather events.

That lesson should sound familiar. After Winter Storm Uri in 2021, coal was often blamed for grid failures. Subsequent analyses showed the most significant disruptions stemmed from widespread natural gas system freeze-offs—not coal plant performance. In the years since, coal facilities invested in winterization, fuel access, and operational readiness. During Winter Storm Fern, those preparations paid off.

Federal policymakers recognized this reality in real time. The U.S. Department of Energy issued emergency orders under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, temporarily allowing certain coal units to operate at higher output to maintain grid stability. Similar actions in 2025 prevented the premature retirement of coal plants in Colorado, Indiana, Washington, and Michigan—preserving more than 17 gigawatts of firm coal capacity that otherwise faced near-term shutdown.

These decisions were not ideological. They were driven by reliability.

Warnings from grid authorities reinforce the point. The Department of Energy and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation have both cautioned that continued coal retirements—without equivalent replacement by firm, dispatchable resources—increase the risk of outages, particularly during extreme winter conditions. At the same time, electricity demand is rising rapidly due to data centers, electrification, and industrial growth. The margin for error is shrinking.

Coal is not static. Modern coal plants operate with advanced emissions controls, improved efficiency, and increasingly sophisticated monitoring. Mining practices have evolved, and research into carbon management and advanced coal technologies continues. Coal also remains essential for steelmaking and other industrial uses, making domestic production a matter of economic and strategic importance.

Affordability matters as much as reliability. Regions that retired coal prematurely have often experienced higher electricity prices and greater exposure to fuel volatility. Coal’s stable fuel costs and on-site inventory provide a measure of price certainty that consumers increasingly lack—especially during weather emergencies, when energy costs hit household budgets the hardest.

Winter Storm Fern delivered a clear message. When the grid was under maximum stress, coal did not merely contribute—it carried a substantial share of the load. A resilient energy strategy does not eliminate reliable resources before dependable replacements are ready. It builds a diversified generation portfolio that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, and emerging technologies, each performing the role it does best.

America’s energy future depends on reliability first. During one of the harshest winter tests in recent years, coal proved once again that it remains an essential part of keeping the lights on—and the heat running.

Emily Arthun is current CEO of the American Coal Council, she brings over twenty years of experience across the coal and hard-rock mining sectors  Prior to her role at ACC, she worked with the Women’s Mining Coalition, supporting advocacy for domestic mining. Her industry experience includes Stillwater Mining Company and Cloud Peak Energy.  She serves on the Washington Coal Club and Women’s Mining Coalition boards.

Stephen Colbert threw a tantrum Monday night after CBS lawyers pulled the plug on his planned interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, citing concerns about the FCC’s equal time mandate. The late-night host, who has built his late-night career on partisan snark, was not happy about it.

Colbert told his audience that Talarico was “supposed to be here,” but CBS lawyers informed the production team “in no uncertain terms…that we could not have him on the broadcast.” The network also instructed Colbert not to mention the situation on air, an instruction he promptly ignored with theatrical defiance.

“Because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this,” Colbert announced before launching into his grievance session.

The FCC’s equal time rule requires broadcast networks to provide equal airtime to opposing political candidates. According to the Philadelphia Enquirer, the FCC hasn’t applied the rule to late-night television since 2006, when it determined that then–California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno counted as a “bona fide news interview.”

But FCC chair Brendan Carr sent a notice last month suggesting talk shows should no longer qualify for this exemption. Carr argued some programs were “motivated by partisan purposes”—a claim that seems difficult to dispute given Colbert’s nightly content.

Colbert fired back at the Trump-appointed FCC chair with predictable venom. “FCC you…because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself,” he said, before pivoting to his standard Trump material.

COLBERT on Thin-Skinned Trump’s fascist @jamestalarico ban: “Because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this… They’re trying to control what we watch, say, read — The most dangerous kind of cancel culture is the kind that comes from the top.” pic.twitter.com/R2RxNJtXO8

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) February 17, 2026

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV. He’s like a toddler with too much screen time…So it’s no surprise…that two of the people most affected by this threat are me and my friend Jimmy Kimmel,” Colbert declared.

This accusation falls apart under scrutiny. Colbert has continued to have elected Democrats and far-left celebrities on his show without issue. In fact, he had Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on The Late Show last month. During the interview, he blasted President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis as “pure evil” while calling Vice President JD Vance a “sycophant” and a “suck-up.”

Shapiro’s interview didn’t trigger equal time requirements because the equal time rule applies only to a “legally qualified candidate for any public office.”

Shapiro had announced his reelection bid in Philadelphia last month, but he wasn’t officially a candidate at the time of the appearance. He only became one when Pennsylvania’s formal filing period opened Tuesday. 

But Colbert’s tantrum also ignored an obvious solution. Colbert could have simply invited the Republican U.S. Senate candidates in Texas onto the show to comply with equal-time requirements. But that would require actually giving airtime to conservatives, something Colbert apparently finds unthinkable. Instead, he chose faux martyrdom.

Carr responded to the controversy by proposing another solution: that if Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel did not want to comply with broadcast regulations, “then they can go to a cable channel or podcast or a streaming service.” 

The suggestion seems reasonable given the proliferation of digital platforms, but Colbert treated it as an outrage.

“Great idea, man whose job is to regulate broadcast TV, suggest everyone just leave broadcast TV,” Colbert shot back.

The interview was ultimately posted to The Late Show’s YouTube page, where equal time rules do not apply. Colbert criticized CBS for what he characterized as premature compliance with an FCC notice that has not yet officially eliminated the talk show exception.

“Now, as I said, at this point, he’s [Carr] just released a letter that says he’s thinking about doing away with the exception for late night. He hasn’t done away with it yet, but my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had,” Colbert said.

When the audience booed CBS’s decision, Colbert delivered a sarcastic jab at his own employer. “I want to assure you, this decision is for purely financial reasons,” he quipped, an obvious reference to the fact that his show was cancelled because the network was losing money on the show.

The controversy reveals an awkward reality for partisan late-night hosts. Broadcast television operates under different regulatory standards than cable or streaming platforms precisely because it uses public airwaves. Equal time rules exist for a reason: to prevent networks from weaponizing access to those airwaves for political advantage.

That means Colbert’s complaint essentially amounts to a demand for special treatment so that he can promote Democratic candidates without offering Republicans the same opportunity for an interview.

CBS’s legal team appears to have calculated that preemptive compliance carries less risk than gambling on regulatory exemptions that may soon disappear. There’s no guarantee that Carr’s proposed rule change will survive legal challenges, but networks clearly view the threat as credible enough to alter programming decisions.

Colbert, an old hand at playing the victim card, couldn’t help but frame the situation as censorship and authoritarianism. Yet, the only thing that prevented the interview from getting aired was himself and his refusal to give equal time to the Republican candidates in that election.