Federal agents stand behind police tape as demonstrators gather near the site of where state and local authorities say a man was shot by federal agents earlier in the morning in Minneapolis on Jan. 24,…

Authorities in India are warning that Nipah virus has “pandemic potential” following new outbreaks and quarantines. and renewed concern about human-to-human transmission. Nipah is a rare but extremely lethal bat-borne virus first identified in the late 1990s. It has no approved treatment, no licensed vaccine, and a fatality rate that has ranged from 40 to 75 percent in past outbreaks. Perhaps not coincidentally, Moderna has a Nipah vaccine already in development and recently reported to demonstrate a “safe” immune response. The vaccine, known as mRNA-1215, entered human trials under the auspices of the U.S. National Institutes of Health in 2022. It is an mRNA-based vaccine, using the same platform Moderna employed for COVID. mRNA? Wasn’t that outlawed by the U.S. government last year? Sort of. In 2025, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it was winding down mRNA vaccine development under BARDA, the agency responsible for funding new pandemic countermeasures. The policy explicitly halted new mRNA vaccine projects going forward. What it did not do was cancel or prohibit projects that were already underway. The Nipah vaccine falls into that latter category. Because it was launched before the BARDA cutoff and is being run through NIH clinical research channels, it was effectively grandfathered in. That means it can continue through trials and, if regulators choose, could still be deployed. Which raises an uncomfortable but obvious question: When officials warn that a virus has “pandemic potential,” and a ready-made mRNA vaccine already exists — one that survived a federal mRNA funding shutdown — is this about preparedness or about timing? The post Nipah Has “Pandemic Potential.” There’s Already an mRNA Vaccine. appeared first on Redacted.

A U.S. citizen was shot and killed by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis this weekend, and once again the usual partisan narratives are insufficient to explain this unnecessary loss of life. A 37-year-old ICU nurse named Alex Pretti was killed during an immigration enforcement operation. Federal officials say he “approached agents with a handgun and resisted attempts to disarm him,” claims that video evidence and bystanders contradict. Trump administration spokespeople condemned Pretti for bringing a gun to a protest. That was his right according to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It is also ironic that the same party that championed Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a Black Lives Matter protest would condemn this person for the same action. Democrats have found themselves in the unusual position of defending legal firearm possession. This is also interesting given their condemnation of Kyle Rittenhouse. The media is also offering an excuse to the firearm. They say that the Sig Sauer P320 9mm has a propensity to fire accidentally and that the agents may have fired as a result of hearing the unintended discharge. That explanation shifts responsibility away from the agents while failing to address the core questions: whether force was justified, whether agents were properly trained, and what rights protesters retain when federal law enforcement is involved. Even conservative voices and gun rights groups have condemned the federal actions and official explanation. The National Rifle Association blasted comments by a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor suggesting armed civilians who approach law enforcement could be “likely justified” targets, calling that sentiment “dangerous and wrong” and urging officials to await a full investigation rather than demonize law-abiding citizens. The Wall Street Journal reports that President Trump will review this shooting and is willing to withdraw ICE from Minnesota perhaps sooner than planned. The post Minneapolis Shooting Exposes the Limits of Partisan Narratives appeared first on Redacted.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Politics Ashes of American Flags America250 feels primed to flop. Does it feel like a jubilee year to you? The United States will hit its quarter-millennium in July, and the powers that be are trying to make “America250” something people can get excited about. The U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission’s website touts such stimulations as a national volunteer program and last June’s somewhat overhyped military parade. There was a tacky light show on the sides of the Washington Monument. The White House YouTube has AI-generated videos recounting episodes in the War of Independence from the “first person” and a significantly less nauseous series of lectures produced in partnership with Hillsdale College.  Two hundred fifty years is a pretty long time, and, in certain fundamental respects, the future seems bright. America continues to be a singular engine of material dynamism. The generation of wealth and new technologies is foremost an American phenomenon, as it has been for a century, give or take. The U.S. has a geographic situation that is the envy of the world: a continent-spanning territory, the largest population in the hemisphere, a still relatively homogenous culture (despite some pretty impressive efforts!), small, pliant neighbors, an embarrassment of natural resources. China, Russia, India—none is so fortunate. (Not to mention Europe.) The direct consequences of our most recent quarter-century of foreign adventurism have mostly been other people’s problems; we have been insulated from the worst of everything, thanks to the world’s two largest oceans and the Federal Reserve. Even poor Americans enjoy a high standard of living. We will call this the American Enterprise Institute Theory of Things Actually Being Basically Fine—or, for the sake of brevity, the Why Are You Upset Theory. Yet people are in fact upset—the number of people who think the country is on the wrong track, who have been in the comfortable majority for over 15 years, is creeping up again after a big dip around last January’s inauguration. No wonder the America 250 program seems a bit muted, especially when compared to the pomps of the 1976 Bicentenary. The long-running Gallup confidence in institutions poll, conducted every other year, tells an interesting tale. In 1975, 78 percent of the country had at least some confidence in Congress; 40 percent reported having a “quite a lot” or “a great deal.” Today, the respective numbers are 36 percent and 10 percent. In 1975, 81 percent of Americans reported at least some confidence in the presidency (this was two years after Watergate!), with 52 percent reporting quite a lot/a great deal. Today, 47 percent and 30 percent. The riposte to the Why Are You Upset Theory seems to be cultural or political, not material—people are disaffected from the polity, and their disaffection has largely accompanied the polity’s departure from its traditional forms. This is not fresh news, but it is worth considering whether anything can be done to reverse the trends of the past 50 years. While it appears that the long withdrawal from the sandbox may soon be completed and the current management has little appetite for long-term foreign occupations, the legal and political consequences of the War on Terror are still with us: FISA, mass state surveillance, and an utter absence of any kind of check on executive war powers. No amount of patriotic AI slop on the White House YouTube channel can disguise the facts that the American polity has in fact fundamentally changed, that many of the changes are recent and radical, and that the current management isn’t interested in giving up its toys. The Congress does not seem interested in reasserting itself. (Madison was wrong; he assumed that everybody liked wielding power as much as he did. Make an AI video about that.) Nor is it particularly clear that—despite everyone being alienated from and ticked off about the government—a majority of the population is exactly clamoring for a return to constitutional norms. Most conservatives traditionally have an affinity for American constitutional traditions—for a republic, not an empire, as someone once said. But the neoconservatives and their fellow travelers won—“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality”—and that seems unlikely to change any time soon. We’re well off and unlikely to face any kind of serious threat to our security or welfare in the foreseeable future; we are also bereft, apparently irreversibly, of the traditions of republican self-government that in large part defined the nation, and have not replaced them with any sort of imperial norms or traditions. No wonder people aren’t in much of a flag-waving mood; they don’t know what they’re celebrating. What even is America at its quarter-millennium? The post Ashes of American Flags appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs The ‘Art’ of Trump’s ‘Concept’ Deal in Greenland Markets calmed, allies reassured, sovereignty intact—great success! President Donald Trump had barely finished his speech Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos when speculation erupted over whether his administration was laying the groundwork for a potential Greenland deal—one that, if realized, would mark a dramatic escalation of U.S. involvement in the Arctic. Speaking with the CNN journalist Kaitlin Collins, who caught up with Trump as he traversed the hallways of Davos, the 47th president of the United States proudly announced he had reached a “framework” deal on Greenland on Wednesday, though he hesitated to provide concrete details.  “It’s a long-term deal,” Trump told Collins. “It’s the ultimate long-term deal. It’s infinite. There is no time limit. It’s a deal that’s forever.” Though Trump had spent much of the lead-up to Davos beating his chest and sharing wild memes on Truth Social that suggested his administration would gain full ownership of Greenland, the president dodged questions about whether the U.S. would gain full ownership of the island.  “It’s a little bit complex but we’ll explain it down the line,” Trump told CNBC in the moments following the speech in which he told world leaders that the U.S. would settle for nothing less than complete ownership of the island.  A statement issued by the NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed that Rutte had a “very productive meeting” with Trump during which the pair “discussed the critical significance of security in the Arctic region to all Allies, including the United States.”  Hart said that discussions regarding Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, will focus on ensuring Arctic security so that “Russia and China never gain a foothold—economically or militarily—in Greenland.” As Trump addressed the media following Wednesday’s speech, his social media team released a statement announcing that all of the tariffs Trump had threatened to impose on foreign nations beginning February 1 would be immediately rescinded in light of a “very productive meeting” with Rutte that produced a “future deal with respect to Greenland.” Trump, who several times mixed up the nations of Greenland and Iceland during his nearly hour-long speech in Switzerland on Wednesday, said his desire to build a Golden Dome that will protect the U.S. from ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles was part of discussions regarding the future of Greenland and the Arctic region.  Three senior officials, who spoke with the New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said Wednesday’s “framework” deal would give the U.S. sovereignty over small, targeted parcels of Greenlandic land where the United States could build military bases. The deal, which was described as “indefinite” by Trump, will also grant the U.S. mineral rights and is designed to block Russian and Chinese attempts to gain influence in the region.  But speaking on Thursday, a day after Trump’s first whirlwind day at Davos, Rutte made clear that the pair had sidestepped the topic of sovereignty, instead focusing on increased U.S. military presence in the region. The concept deal would likely mirror that of a 1950s agreement between the United Kingdom and Cyprus that ended British colonial rule while allowing Britain to retain military bases on the island. In response to statements by Trump and Rutte, Denmark’s Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen made clear that NATO had no right to negotiate sovereignty of Greenland.  “We have a clear red line,” Poulsen wrote in a message on social media. “We will not cede sovereignty over parts of the kingdom.”  The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stressed U.S. sovereignty of Greenland was out of the question and that any conversation about the future of Greenland would focus solely on security, not territorial control. “It is only Denmark and Greenland themselves that can make decisions,” Frederiksen stated in a Thursday press conference. “We can negotiate all political aspects—security, investment, the economy—but we cannot negotiate our sovereignty.” News of the potential deal was a relief for markets worldwide after traders on both sides of the Atlantic suffered the worst day since October on Tuesday in anticipation of Trump’s threat of new tariffs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average spiked over 1 percent immediately after details of the deal were leaked Wednesday and the tech-heavy Nasdaq followed suit, closing up over 1.2 percent on the day as Nvidia regained nearly all the ground it lost during Tuesday’s chaotic session. Though the prospect of a deal sans the full acquisition of Greenland could be perceived as deflating for some of Trump’s most ardent fanbase, the buoyant reaction from markets and world leaders signaled relief for many who worried Trump might use military force in a bid to acquire the world’s largest island. Hours before the framework deal was announced, Trump had sought to dispel such concerns when he flatly told world leaders at Davos that he had no intention to “use force” to acquire Greenland.  Trump’s decision to moderate his calls for full ownership of Greenland would likely be welcomed by skeptical Americans who, when polled, have overwhelmingly expressed little interest in acquiring what international relations experts nonetheless view as a pivotal land mass for future trade and potential conflict. Per CNN’s Harry Enten, figures show that Greenland is likely Trump’s worst polling issue.  The Greenland situation illustrates a wide gap between Trump’s maximalist rhetoric and the quieter mechanics of great-power bargaining. Although talk of “ownership” animates supporters and unsettles allies, the substance points toward a familiar outcome: enhanced U.S. military access without a formal transfer of sovereignty. In Greenland, the real deal is not about flags or borders, but about positioning for a future defined by Arctic competition which very well may become a lasting legacy for Trump 2.0. The post The ‘Art’ of Trump’s ‘Concept’ Deal in Greenland appeared first on The American Conservative.