Another massive defeat for China’s interests in the Western Hemisphere, and another ‘win’ for Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine”…

The Supreme Court of Panama has just issued a final decision to void the contract renewal for Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison’s subsidiary to operate two Panama Canal ports, in a much anticipated landmark case driven by claims of unconstitutionality and financial irregularities. The top court has found irregularities in the 25-year extension of the concession granted in 2021.

Huge: China just lost Panama

*PANAMA TOP COURT RULES CK HUTCHISON CONTRACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 30, 2026

The contested position that CK Hutchison occupied conferred de facto leverage over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints linking the two oceans, provoking the scrutiny and ire of Washington.

This was legally challenged last year, with the question of whether CK Hutchison violated the terms of its concessions – including the renewal granted in 2021 – allegedly harming taxpayers and breaching the country’s constitution.

Crucially the lawsuit came directly at the behest of the Trump administration amid immense pressure put on Panama City, and was subsequently filed by Panama’s government following an official audit claiming CK Hutchison’s management shortchanged Panama by roughly $1.3 billion. And in the meantime:

CK Hutchison Holdings announced a deal last year to sell its majority stake in the Panamanian ports and others around the world to an international consortium that included BlackRock Inc. But the [$22.8 billion] deal appeared to stall over objections by the Chinese government.

Trump had publicly praised that later stalled transaction in March. This after the White House’s eyeing of Panama began nearly a year ago with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s January 31, 2025 visit – his first foreign trip as new Secretary of State. This served to put control of the country’s ports squarely at top of the US agenda for Latin America policy.

President Trump has long made clear his intention to reassert American influence and control over the Panama Canal, given the strategic artery was built by the United States in the early 20th century and formally transferred to Panama in 1999. He has made statements expressing wanting it back, essentially.

We had previewed just last week:

As for another country which could increasingly be in Trump crosshairs for either a pressure campaign (or worse) under the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is Panama, already subject of the mid-December 1989 US military invasion which deposed on-again-off-again Washington ally (and long-running CIA asset) and military dictator Manuel Noriega. The historic Operation Just Cause mission saw over 27,000 US troops invade, ostensibly to go after Noriega for drug trafficking and to protect the Panama Canal.

A mission to ‘protect’ the Panama Canal could once again be used as rationale for American intervention in 2026.

And now: “It’s not just a huge win for Panama’s taxpayers, it’s a big win for America and certainly for President Trump,” a senior Trump administration official told Axios Thursday in anticipation of the court ruling going Washington’s way.

Source: CGTN

* * *

Below is a rush machine translation from the official Supreme Court statement:

Republic of Panama
Judicial Branch

STATEMENT

The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Panama hereby informs the general public that during its ordinary session held today, January 29, 2026, after extensive deliberation and discussion of Filing No. 119313-2025 and Filing No. 17547-2025 — both consisting of constitutional challenges against Law No. 5 of January 16, 1997, its addenda, and the extension agreement — and in fulfillment of its duty as guardian of the Political Constitution, it decided to declare them UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The challenged laws and acts are related to the Concession Contract between the State and Panama Ports Company, S.A., for the development, construction, operation, administration, and management of port terminals for containers, Ro-Ro cargo, passengers, bulk cargo, and general cargo at the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal.

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Few have had as profound an effect on modern scientific understanding as Sir Isaac Newton.

A drawing by Isaac Newton of his telescope contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society on November 24, 2009 in London. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.

While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.

Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.

Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.

A Devout Christian

Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.

However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity. 

Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.

Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.

A statue of Isaac Newton stands in Trinity College on March 13, 2012 in Cambridge, England.Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.

A Divine Order

Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.

“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. … He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present … by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”

So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.

After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.

In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.

The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.

People attend an auction at Sotheby’s auction house in London on July 8, 2004. Graeme Robertson/Getty Images

Saving the Lost Papers

One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.

The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.

Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.

By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.

In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.

“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”

In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”

Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.

A signature of Isaac Newton contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society in London on Nov. 24, 2009. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.

Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan

“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry. 

Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.

While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.

There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest “safe” starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By “safe,” Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year’s rate is up 20 basis points from last year’s 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar’s 3.9% rate isn’t for anyone at any point in their retirement: It’s an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year’s inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let’s say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year’s withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

We project your portfolio can support a $12.95 withdrawal for a handsome ZeroHedge mug – find yours at the ZeroHedge Store

Morningstar’s 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. “Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it,” Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: “sequence of return” risk. It’s the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement — how long you expect to live — is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it’s just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the “base case,” the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial “safe” withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio’s average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
Constant Percentage Method: If you’re wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year’s withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn’t withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar’s calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm’s expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar’s 3.9% base case: 

US Large Growth: 8.58%
US Large Value: 8.74%
US Small Growth: 10.23%
US Small Value: 12.69%
Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
Foreign Bond: 4.68%
Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
Inflation: 2.46%

We’d also note that your spending patterns aren’t likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one “Go-Go,” as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes “Slow-Go,” where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach “No-Go,” where they’re much more prone to staying close to home — if not confined there — and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar’s methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

It all started a little after 7pm ET when, refuting a previous report that he would announce the next Fed Chair next week, Trump said that he would unveil his pick for Powell’s replacement on Friday morning.

That’s also when the Polymarket odds of Kevin Warsh exploded higher (after a curious reversal we observed an hour earlier, when Warsh overtook Rick Reider, indicating that once again someone knew something ahead of time), following a report from a journalist that “Trump met 2day with his two finalists for Fed Reserve chair — and is leaning toward KEVIN WARSH to replace Jerome Powell, I’m told. Nothing is official I’m told. But 1 source close to Trump says Warsh basically has the wink & the nod.“

🚨SCOOP: Trump met 2day with his two finalists for Fed Reserve chair — and is leaning toward KEVIN WARSH to replace Jerome Powell, I’m told.

Nothing is official I’m told. But 1 source close to Trump says Warsh basically has the wink & the nod.

KEVIN HASSETT is out. RICK…

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) January 29, 2026

That’s when Warsh went from slight lead, to full-on favorite at Polymarket.

And less than an hour later Warsh is at 83%, on a journalist tweet that “Trump is leaning toward KEVIN WARSH to replace Jerome Powell, I’m told.” https://t.co/ymwoiXHD9F pic.twitter.com/dOf7WXjBFl

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 30, 2026

And as many were wondering if this was just a trial balloon, one which sent futures, bitcoin and gold lower, and dollar and yields higher, a flashing red Bloomberg headline confirmed this was not a drill:

*TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SAID TO BE PREPARING WARSH FED NOMINATION

The report, predictably, said just what one would expect:

The Trump administration is preparing for the president to nominate Kevin Warsh to be the next Federal Reserve chair, according to people familiar with the matter. President Donald Trump said Thursday he plans to announce his pick to lead the US central bank on Friday morning.

Echoing what we already learned earlier, the report went on to note that “Warsh, a former Fed governor and one of the four finalists on Trump’s shortlist to be the next central bank leader, visited the White House on Thursday, one person said.”

Kevin Warsh, obviously

The president teased his impending announcement without giving the name away Thursday evening, saying the pick won’t be too surprising and will be someone known to everyone in the financial world. 

“A lot of people think this is somebody that could’ve been there a few years ago,” Trump said. It wasn’t clear however if Trump knew that his nominee would spark a crash in the one asset class that makes up the bulk of his net worth, namely bitcoin, which had a catastrophic day earlier, and which plunged even more on the Bloomberg confirmation.

It wasn’t just bitcoin: futures also fell, the dollar and treasury yields pushed higher (i.e., making housing not more affordable), and gold crashed again, on bets Warsh – best known as one of the most hawkish former Fed officials, often arguing for tighter monetary policy and a smaller Fed balance sheet, and who changed his tune only recently in hopes to ingratiate himself with Trump

It is unclear if Trump (or rather his advisors) knew any of this, which is why there is still the possibility that once Trump sees the impact of this particular trial balloon, will change his mind as even Bloomberg’s sources cautioned that the selection is not final until Trump makes a formal announcement.

In the end, nobody knows what will come out of Trump’s mouth until some time tomorrow. We would not be surprised at all if it is, again, a huge surprise. If not, we already know how this will end…

The “LOW ENERGY KEVIN” posts are probably already sitting in the drafts😅

Trump is hiring a Hawk expecting a Dove, we’ve seen this movie before… pic.twitter.com/W23U6ZOt5J

— Karol Kozicki (@k2__investment) January 30, 2026

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”