A newly disclosed internal policy within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is prompting national concern after reports revealed that agency guidance may allow officers to enter private homes without a judicial warrant in certain deportation cases.
According to reporting by CBS News and other major outlets, the directive originates from a May 2025 internal memo that authorizes ICE agents to rely on administrative warrants — documents issued internally by the agency — when entering the homes of individuals who already have final orders of removal. Unlike judicial warrants, administrative warrants are not signed by a judge.
The disclosure has sparked alarm among civil liberties organizations, legal experts, and immigrant advocacy groups, who argue that the practice directly conflicts with longstanding Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Administrative warrants vs. judicial warrants
Under U.S. constitutional law, forced entry into a private residence generally requires a judicial warrant signed by a judge, unless limited emergency exceptions apply, such as imminent danger or exigent circumstances.
Administrative warrants, by contrast, are internal agency documents. Historically, they have been used to authorize arrests in public spaces or in contexts where consent is given — not forced entry into private homes.
Legal scholars note that no court precedent has established that administrative warrants alone provide lawful authority to enter a residence without consent.
A disputed policy, not settled law
Importantly, the memo does not represent a change in statute, court ruling, or constitutional interpretation. It is an internal agency directive — not a publicly enacted law.
Multiple legal experts have stated that the policy would likely face serious constitutional challenges if tested in court, particularly under Fourth Amendment standards that have consistently protected the home as a space of heightened privacy.
Civil liberties groups argue that the policy creates a dangerous gray zone: one where federal agents may act beyond established constitutional authority while individuals lack immediate access to legal recourse in real-time encounters.
Fear in communities — and institutional consequences
Reports indicate that the policy has already fueled fear within immigrant communities, particularly in Minnesota, where state leaders have raised concerns about cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration enforcement.
The controversy highlights a growing tension between federal enforcement agencies and state and local governments over immigration policy, civil liberties, and constitutional limits of authority.
The deeper issue
This moment is not only about immigration enforcement — it is about constitutional boundaries.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent precisely this kind of state power: unchecked entry into private homes without judicial oversight. Any erosion of that boundary, regardless of the population targeted, reshapes the relationship between the government and the public.
History repeatedly shows that expansions of state power justified against one group rarely remain limited to that group.
Where this stands now
The policy exists as an internal ICE directive It is legally disputed It has not been affirmed by courts It is not codified law It is actively contested by civil liberties organizations Legal challenges are likely
ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good in the face at point-blank range, killing the mother of 3 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 7, 2025. (Combo photo by X)
Press TV
The FBI agent involved in the probe of the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent has resigned amid pressure.
Good was killed earlier this month by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Tracee Mergen resigned as supervisor in the FBI’s Minneapolis field office after the law enforcement agency’s leadership in Washington mounted pressure on her to discontinue a civil rights probe into the conduct of Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who had shot Good in the face at point-blank range, killing the unarmed mother of three.
Cindy Burnham, a spokeswoman for the FBI office in Minneapolis, declined to comment on Mergen’s resignation.
Mergen’s resignation is the latest development to have emerged from the mishandling of Good’s case by the US Justice Department.
After the January 7 shooting, US President Donald Trump defended the excessive brutality used by federal agents, saying they were just “doing their job.”
Good was accused by the Trump administration of trying to run Ross over with her vehicle.
Several Trump administration officials have branded Good as a “domestic terrorist.”
However, a video analysis by The New York Times showed Good had no intention of running Ross over, and she was just trying to flee from the armed agents approaching her.
Since the killing, protesters have held rallies against ICE on an almost daily basis.
Thousands of protesters braved the bitter cold on Friday, marching through the streets of Minneapolis, demanding that ICE agents leave the city.
Local leaders have slammed ICE’s presence in the area, with Minneapolis’ Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey telling the agency to “get the f‑‑‑ out of Minneapolis.”
Eyewitnesses to a recent fatal shooting in the US city of Minneapolis and the family of the victim have challenged the federal account of the incident, saying the government is spreading “lies” about what happened.
On Saturday, US law enforcement officers killed 37-year-old American citizen Alex Pretti, a registered nurse working in the intensive care unit at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, which serves veterans.
It was the second fatal shooting this month involving federal agents in Minneapolis during the aggressive immigration crackdown by the administration of US President Donald Trump.
After the incident, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an image of a firearm, which Trump claimed was “the gunman’s gun” in a social media post.
The victim had two magazines of ammunition and no ID, the DHS further alleged. Border Patrol officers attempted to disarm the armed man who had approached them, and an agent fired defensive shots when he “violently resisted.”
Meanwhile, Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino claimed that the victim was trying “to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Other US officials labeled Pretti a “domestic terrorist,” without providing any evidence.
Pretti’s parents, however, denounced the Trump administration’s “sickening lies” about their son and rejected its account of how the shooting unfolded.
They said in a statement that videos showed their son was not holding a gun when he was tackled by federal agents. Instead, they added, Alex was holding his phone with one hand and using the other to shield a woman who was being pepper-sprayed.
“Alex is clearly not holding a gun when attacked by Trump’s murdering and cowardly ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) thugs. He has his phone in his right hand, and his empty left hand is raised above his head while trying to protect the woman ICE just pushed down, all while being pepper-sprayed,” the statement read.
🔴LIVE: Minneapolis once again becomes scene of violent clashes after a nurse killed by federal agents https://t.co/goCsHlphTG
Pretti’s father told The Associated Press that his son had participated in protests following the killing of Renee Good, a mother of three, by a federal officer in Minneapolis on January 7.
He also described his son as someone who “cared about people deeply, and he was very upset with what was happening in Minneapolis and throughout the United States with ICE, as millions of other people are upset.”
Minnesota Senator Tina Smith condemned federal agents after the killing of the Minneapolis nurse.
All Americans should be outraged at this unaccountable, violent federal force that is operating with impunity in our city.
If it can happen here, it can happen in your community.
An unnamed witness to Saturday’s shooting said Pretti was shot after trying to help a woman who had been pepper-sprayed, noting that he did not resist or reach for a gun.
“I have read the statement from DHS about what happened, and it is wrong. The man did not approach the agents with a gun. He approached them with a camera,” the witness emphasized.
“I didn’t see him touch any of them–he wasn’t even turned toward them. It didn’t look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up. I didn’t see him with a gun.”
Dmitri Drekonja, who worked with Pretti, said, “to those of us who know him, it’s galling and enraging” to hear the way officials are portraying Pretti.
“I don’t understand how you can put a label on someone like that without talking to anyone who knew him. … They seem to be dropping that out there out of absolutely nothing,” Drekonja added.
Following Alexander’s untimely death on June 10, 323 BC, his generals squabbled over who should replace him. By 275 BC, the former Persian empire was divided into three distinct kingdoms:
The Antigonid empire (Macedon), founded by Alexander’s designated successor to General Alexander Antigonus. Following their 168 BC defeat at the he Battle of Pydna, after which Macedom came under the control of the Roman Republic.
The Ptolemic Empire (Egypt) controlled Egypt until it came under Roman control in 30 BC.
The Selucid empire – named after Selucus I, one of Alexander’s generals who married a Persian wife. The Selucid monarchs, who portrayed themselves as gods, created Persian-style satrapies but used Greek as their official language.
By 57 BC, the Selucid empire had been carved up by the Roman and Parthian empire. Most of the paved roads built by the Romans in the Middle East followed the original Persian roads. The Parthians (who ruled from 250BC to 224 AD) worshiped the Persian god Ahuramazda.
In 224 AD the Sasanian empire replaced the Parthian empire, using Farsi (modern Persian) as their official language. The Sasanians saw themselves as the restorers of the Aecheminid empire destroyed by Alexander. They established Zororastrianism and the worship of Ahuramazda as the sole religion, persecuting members of other faiths. In 651 AD the Sasanian empire fell to Islamic invaders.
Modern Iranian leaders tried to revive Persian glory in the late 19th and early 20th century, in opposition to Muslim clerics who challenged their authority to rule. Lavish spending by the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to celebrate historic Persian glory was a major source of popular discontent. He made a lot of false claims about the heavily promoted Cyrus cylinder, eg that it abolished slavery and guaranteed a minimum wage.
Following the break up of the Persian empire, there was also heavy Aecheminid influence on the Mauryan empire in India founded by king Chundragupta Maurya Magadha in India. The Mauryan empire used Aramaic in official inscriptions and built numerous Persian-style palaces.
Regenerative agriculture rebuilds soil without reliance on heavy chemical inputs. This approach improves water retention, nutrient density, and long-term farm productivity
In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to support farmers transitioning to soil-building practices
The program uses existing conservation funds, public-private partnerships, and a unified application process to reduce administrative burden and make regenerative practices more accessible
You can support regenerative agriculture through your daily food choices by prioritizing food from regenerative farmers, choosing pasture-raised meat and dairy, and avoiding ultraprocessed foods
The food system you depend on today operates very differently from the one that fed previous generations. Not long ago, food was grown in ways that supported the surrounding ecosystem rather than depleting it, producing food that reflected the health of the land itself. That relationship began to change in the mid-20th century, when the Green Revolution accelerated the adoption of industrial, chemical-dependent farming methods.1
As agricultural practices shifted, the relationship between soil health and human health began to deteriorate. Food quality followed the same downward path as soil structure, microbial diversity, and water retention, resulting in products that fill your stomach while failing to support your health, as well as increased rates of chronic diseases.2,3
Growing concern about the long-term consequences of this model has finally brought soil health back into focus as a public priority under the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Strategy released in September 2025. Building from this, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has launched the Regenerative Pilot Program, which reflects a long-overdue effort to align farming practices with soil restoration, farmer viability, and the quality of the food that reaches your table.
What Is Regenerative Agriculture?
Regenerative agriculture is a return to what “organic” was originally all about. This approach focuses on rebuilding soil biology, addressing a wide range of problems tied to modern food production. In practical terms, regenerative agriculture helps:
• Rebuild topsoil instead of stripping it away — Topsoil is the thin living layer that supports nearly all food production, yet decades of tilling, monocropping, and chemical-heavy practices of industrial farming have steadily depleted it.5
Regenerative farming restores this layer by keeping soil covered with living plants, rotating crops, and integrating animals in ways that stimulate microbial activity. As organic matter returns, soil structure improves, erosion slows, and carbon is stored underground where it supports fertility.
• Protect water sources and reduce overall water demand — Industrial agriculture consumes most available freshwater while polluting rivers, lakes, and aquifers with fertilizer runoff and waste.6 Regenerative systems change how water moves through the land by improving soil structure and increasing organic matter, allowing soil to absorb and retain far more moisture.7
For every 1% increase in soil organic matter, an acre of land holds tens of thousands of additional gallons of water.8 Healthier soils also filter contaminants before they reach waterways, protecting drinking water supplies.
• Produce more nutrient-dense food and better long-term health — Depleted soils produce crops with lower mineral and antioxidant content, while regenerative systems rebuild soil microbiomes that regulate nutrient uptake and plant health.9
Animals raised on regenerative farms also benefit from these conditions, as diverse forage and healthy soils support stronger immune function, healthier fat profiles, and lower reliance on antibiotics.10 The result is food with higher nutritional value, linking soil restoration directly to long-term health rather than treating nutrition as a downstream issue.11
• Reduce food safety risks at the source — A high amount of foodborne illness originates from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where animals are crowded, stressed, and routinely given antibiotics. These conditions promote pathogen spread and antibiotic resistance.12
Regenerative livestock systems rely on pasture-based grazing, lower stocking densities, and natural diets that support stronger immune function. Meat and dairy from these systems show lower contamination rates and reduced antibiotic resistance, directly affecting food safety.
• Lower chemical use, which reduces pollution and allows ecosystems to recover — Industrial agriculture contributes heavily to air, soil, and water pollution through fertilizer runoff, pesticide drift, waste lagoons, and ammonia emissions. These pollutants harm nearby communities and degrade ecosystems that support pollinators and wildlife.13,14
Regenerative agriculture minimizes chemical inputs and relies on biological processes, allowing land to regain its capacity to support diverse plant and animal life. As ecosystems recover, pollution declines and landscapes become more resilient to environmental stress.15
• Strengthen farmers and stabilize local economies — Regenerative systems reduce dependence on costly inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and purchased feed, lowering long-term operating costs.16 Financially resilient farms support stronger local food systems, more stable employment, and rural economies that circulate value locally instead of exporting it to input suppliers.
USDA Announces $700 Million Regenerative Pilot Program
In December 2025, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins joined U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz to announce a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program, which aims to help American farmers adopt regenerative practices.17
• Soil health is the foundation for national health and farm viability — Secretary Rollins emphasized that protecting topsoil and improving land stewardship directly support farmer productivity and long-term food security.
“Today’s announcement encourages these priorities while supporting farmers who choose to transition to regenerative agriculture. The Regenerative Pilot Program also puts Farmers First and reduces barriers to entry for conservation programs,” she stated.
“This is another initiative driven by President Trump’s mission to Make America Healthy Again. Alongside Secretary Kennedy, we have made great strides to ensure the safe, nutritious, and affordable food our great farmers produce make it to dinner tables across this great country.”18
• The announcement aligned federal health agencies around food system accountability — Secretary Kennedy reinforced that soil restoration sits at the center of the MAHA strategy, noting that public health outcomes begin with the condition of farmland.
[…]
• The timing reflects both urgency and opportunity — More than 350,000 children have received diabetes diagnoses in recent months, and over 75% of Americans between ages 17 and 24 cannot qualify for military service due to obesity, poor physical fitness, or mental health challenges.20
These figures point to a health crisis that extends beyond individual choices or medical interventions, reaching back to the nutritional quality of food and the agricultural systems that produce it.
• The program revives a conservation mandate born from ecological failure rather than ideology — The institutional roots of this effort trace back to the 1930s, when Congress created the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in response to the Dust Bowl, a prolonged ecological disaster marked by severe drought, widespread soil erosion, and massive agricultural collapse across the Great Plains that displaced farming families and crippled rural economies.
NRCS was established to help farmers conserve soil and water resources, a mission that has contributed to substantial productivity gains over time. Between 1948 and 2021, total U.S. farm production increased by nearly 190% while overall farm inputs, such as land, labor, and water, declined slightly.
• Despite this progress, significant problems persist — USDA data show that significant erosion concerns remain, with a quarter of cropland affected by water-driven erosion and additional acreage impacted by wind erosion. This underscores the need for approaches that are easier to implement and better aligned with how farms operate.
However, many farmers face heavy administrative burdens when attempting to adopt regenerative practices.
The Regenerative Pilot Program is designed to address those challenges directly by simplifying participation and expanding access to producers at different stages of experience, from those just beginning with practices like cover crops to operations with years of conservation work already in place.
How the Program Is Designed to Work
Administered by NRCS, the initiative introduces an outcome-based conservation model that allows producers to plan and carry out whole-farm regenerative practices through a single application. Rather than applying separately for individual practices, farmers can bundle multiple soil- and land-building strategies into one plan, simplifying participation and reducing administrative burden.21
• Funding is drawn entirely from existing conservation programs to avoid new bureaucracy — The USDA allocated $400 million through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million through the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) for the first year. By relying on established authorities and familiar program structures, the agency preserved continuity while introducing a more integrated planning framework.
• An advisory council will oversee implementation and data integrity — To guide implementation, NRCS is establishing a Chief’s Regenerative Agriculture Advisory Council composed of farmers, industry representatives, and consumer-focused stakeholders.
The council will meet quarterly to review progress, advise on data and reporting, and help ensure the program remains practical and responsive to on-the-ground realities, with its recommendations shaping future conservation delivery.
• Public-private partnerships expand resources without increasing federal spending — The USDA is inviting private-sector partners to co-invest in conservation outcomes through existing authorities. Federal dollars will be matched with private funding, increasing total support for regenerative practices while aligning on-farm improvements with broader supply-chain demand.
• Applications are submitted through local NRCS offices — Farmers and ranchers interested in participating are encouraged to apply through their local NRCS Service Centers based on their state’s ranking schedules for fiscal year 2026.
Applications for both EQIP and CSP funding are submitted through the new unified regenerative application process, with additional information available through NRCS for those seeking technical or financial assistance.
Taken together, the Regenerative Pilot Program is designed to make conservation work the way farming actually works. By consolidating funding, oversight, and application pathways into a single whole-farm framework, the program aims to lower barriers to participation while rewarding practices that improve land function over time.
How to Show Your Support Through Your Food Choices
While the Regenerative Pilot Program helps address gaps in policy and funding, regenerative farming can gain more traction when farmers can see that these methods are economically viable. That outcome is shaped well beyond federal programs — it’s driven by everyday choices made throughout the food system.
When your decisions consistently favor regenerative practices, you reinforce farming systems that protect land, support farmers, and improve the quality of the food supply over time. Here are practical ways to do that:
1. Buy directly from regenerative farmers whenever possible — Look for farmers who use cover crops, rotational grazing, composting, and no-till methods, and take the time to ask how they farm rather than relying on an “organic” label alone. Local farmers markets, regenerative CSAs, and platforms like Regenerative Farmers of America make it easier to find producers applying these methods.22
2. Choose meat and dairy from pasture-raised animals — Labels like “100% grass fed” or “pasture-raised” can be a useful starting point, but transparency matters more than branding. Direct relationships with farmers provide the clearest window into how livestock are managed.
3. Minimize purchases from brands tied to industrial commodity agriculture — Most ultraprocessed foods, synthetic meat alternatives, and industrial dairy rely on supply chains rooted in soil-depleting monocultures. Brands that cannot trace or explain how their ingredients are grown are often disconnected from the land entirely. When possible, favor smaller producers with clear sourcing standards and commitments to regenerative ingredients.
4. Share credible information within your community — Most people have never seen what healthy soil looks like. Demonstrations using rainfall simulators, side-by-side field comparisons, and soil profile cuts show what degraded versus regenerated land actually means. Share visual content, case studies, or educational materials, and organize or attend farm tours, talks, or webinars that show regeneration in action.
5. Engage locally and politically to shift public support — Food choices matter, but so do civic actions. Supporting local food programs, encouraging schools and retailers to source regeneratively produced food, and backing policies that reward soil-building practices all contribute to long-term change. These efforts help shift incentives away from chemical dependency and toward land stewardship.
The White House has signaled a specific, actionable policy goal through its official communication with an AI-generated image depicting the acquisition of Greenland as a clear piece of strategic messaging. It is designed to normalize a radical geopolitical concept within the domestic political narrative. The detail is in the AI image mentioning the word territory, meaning the proposed status might not statehood, but another specific administrative category. If the goal is to designate Greenland as an unincorporated US territory, this model mirrors the status of Puerto Rico which would be a deliberate choice to follow a path that provides maximum federal control with minimum political integration.
The strategic rationale is rooted in great power competition and Arctic dominance. Control of Greenland grants the US a permanent, sovereign Arctic platform. It enables resource denial to adversaries. It expands northern missile defense and surveillance networks. The territory model is seen as the fastest legal mechanism to achieve these defensive and resource aims. For more context curious readers can read my prior articles:
Since mid-January there has been speculation in the press of how much Greenland could cost to acquire, and the amounts seem to be around $700 billion. Donald Trump has not explicitly stated he wanted to make Greenland an “unincorporated territory” using that specific legal term in public comments before today’s AI image. Although Trump has consistently emphasized the need for US “ownership” and “title” of the island, believing anything less as “unacceptable”. With his public statements and actions have centered on the desire to “buy,” “acquire,” “take control of,” or “get” Greenland, which he views as a national security necessity.
A bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Randy Fine in January 2026 titled the “Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act,” which would authorize the President to acquire Greenland as a territory of the United States with the goal of ultimately admitting it as a state. Indicating the intention among some of his allies to pursue statehood eventually. While the President has not explicitly used the term “unincorporated territory,” the “Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act” directly mentions making it a state, a process that usually involves a period as a territory, to transition from unincorporated territory to incorporated territory and finally a state, but it remains uncertain still which category will come to pass.
Some Trump advisers have indicated they do not want to make it a state but rather explore options like a “Compact of Free Association” or other forms of association, though the President’s personal stance has remained focused on outright acquisition In his public addresses, he has told the people of Greenland, “if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America” and pledged to “make you rich,” implying full integration and the benefits associated with joining the US.
This represents a doctrinal shift in US territorial policy, moving from a posture of status quo to one of active expansion. The target date of 2026 is likely aspirational but sets a timeline and it creates a perception for action and a metric for success. Even if physical acquisition is not achieved, the act of promotion advances several goals, but things are moving fast. It forces allies and adversaries to recalculate US intentions in the Arctic. It also tests the resilience of the international norm against territorial acquisition by coercion or purchase.
The broader implication is the potential revitalization of a colonial practice. Treating sovereign land as a transferable commodity, against the will of its inhabitants, marks a sharp departure from post-WWII norms, and would be akin to Puerto Rico’s predicament all over again. The territorial expansion of the United States was fundamentally a project of purchasing land from other states, most decisively through the Louisiana Purchase from France and the Alaska Purchase from Russia, which together added the vast core of the continent and a critical northern frontier.
This pattern was complemented by the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico and, most significantly, by treating sovereign Native American nations not as military conquests but as entities from which land could be acquired through treaties, effectively purchases, before subsequent seizure or broken agreements. While war and annexation played roles, the foundational mechanism for peaceful, legally-sanctioned growth and the avoidance of direct, prolonged conflict with major European powers was the strategic use of the federal treasury to buy sovereignty over continental space.
In a recent statement, Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, announced the country’s intention to join BRICS as a full member in the coming years. With over 230 million people and the largest GDP on the continent, the African nation has been working to boost its economy and increase its role in the new multilateral order.
Tuggar has emphasized Nigeria’s strategic importance and economic potential since 2023 as reasons for joining, framing it as part of a broader effort to increase African representation in global decision-making. He links BRICS engagement to Nigeria’s broader ambitions, including seeking a permanent UN Security Council seat and G20 membership, leveraging the bloc for financial reform and investment
Since January 2025, Nigeria has been one of the eight partner countries in the group, which already includes three other nations from the continent as full members: South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia. If this materializes, BRICS will include the three largest economies in Africa, thereby enhancing the African voice in South-South cooperation.
With over 230 million residents, Nigeria is the most populous country on the continent and ranks sixth worldwide, with projections of reaching 377 million by 2050, according to United Nations data. Additionally, it is Africa’s largest oil producer, averaging over 1.5 million barrels per day, and has a GDP of $477 billion, the highest in the region.
Abuja has been pursuing greater South-South cooperation, aiming to turn its wealth into a positive force and become a significant voice. This differs from its interactions with Western powers from the Global North. Africa is increasingly seeking global partners that see the continent as independent, not as dependent.
Recently, United States President Donald Trump accused the current Nigerian government of allowing the persecution of Christians in the country, without presenting evidence. Nigeria is a nation with great religious diversity, where 51% of the population is Muslim, 43% Christian, and 6% practices local religions. The speech indicates that Washington is already aware of one factor capable of destabilizing the country, which currently has a social pact that reasonably reassures the internal situation.
It raises the question of whether, if accession to BRICS is announced, Nigeria will become the target of more concrete US actions. This is, at least initially, doubtful because Nigeria is not yet a priority for the US in case of a potential intervention. The country is not situated along any of the logistical routes they are targeting. Additionally, Washington is currently very focused on Iran, due to the Strait of Hormuz, and also on Venezuela, where it aims to facilitate a government transition without igniting a civil war and taking control of the country’s vast oil wealth.
Nigeria’s energy influence can strengthen BRICS’ ability to shape global markets and help reduce reliance on the dollar in international trade. For example, the energy trade between Brazil and Nigeria shows that Brazil imports oil and natural gas from Nigeria, which should be traded in national currencies, as Russia and China have been doing.
This movement follows a trend already established by economies in the Global South. Relying less on dollar reserves and promoting trade through a basket of national currencies is viewed very positively. De-dollarization is not just a political move but an economic response to the disparities in the international financial system. The US is attempting to slow this process, but stopping it completely is impossible.
Nigeria is on track to become one of the world’s ten largest economies by 2050 because it has significant investments in training engineers, doctors, and other professionals. These efforts are vital for the country’s development and well-being, benefiting not only its population but also helping it export goods and services worldwide.
Given this, BRICS needs to have Nigeria as a full member, not only for what the country can offer, but also for what BRICS can offer Nigeria. Confronted with a situation marked by ongoing Western influence and social and economic vulnerabilities stemming from a dependent development model, Nigeria needs alliances that can help break this cycle, and BRICS very much offers this alternative.
Finally, the African country has experienced a series of political instabilities in recent decades, including tensions between terrorist insurgent groups and the government. Even so, Nigeria has gradually achieved its ambitions and sought to resolve internal problems.
Nigeria aims to increase its presence in more influential spaces where it can also shape the rules. Being a BRICS partner is very important for Nigeria and would elevate the country above the other African countries that are permanent BRICS members. For this reason, Nigeria is eager to become a full member of BRICS to accelerate its economic growth and development.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens to a presentation by Trump Administration officials about post-genocide Gaza following a signing ceremony for the “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum on January 22, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The plan appears to be to finish Israel’s bulldozing of Gaza to make real estate opportunities for investors.
White House Adviser Jared Kushner revealed a neocolonial plan to transform Gaza into a home for luxury tourist resorts and data centers at the World Economic Forum on Thursday.
The plan has been widely condemned by human rights advocates, who say it is an an attempt to erase Palestinians by building a capitalist dystopia on the ruins of Israel’s genocide.
At the signing ceremony for President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” Kushner shared a set of slides depicting a colonialist fantasy of the Gaza Strip under a hypothetical “demilitarization” of Hamas — despite the group’s repeated refusal to disarm, saying it would leave them defenseless against further attacks by Israel or otherwise.
The slides show computer-generated photos of high rise buildings along the coast and rows of residential buildings elsewhere.
The presentation includes a blueprint of Gaza divided into sections, which Kushner says is the U.S.’s plan for “catastrophic success” in the event of demilitarization of Hamas. The blueprint, labelled as the “Master Plan,” shows the entirety of the coast — where Palestinians have long fished for sustenance — dedicated to “coastal tourism,” with a sea port and an airport. There are large swaths dedicated to “parks, agriculture, and sports facilities.”
Tellingly, numerous parts of the map located next to residential areas are dedicated to industry and “data centers.” Ruinous technology like AI, reports have said, are slated to be a major part of the White House’s plan for Gaza, with other slides in the pitch deck reported by The Wall Street Journal showing a transformation of the Strip into a “smart city” with “tech driven governance.”
Nowhere is there a designation for cultural sites, nor does the map seem to be built around keeping or restoring any parts of Gaza that retain Palestinian heritage or life. The plan appears to be to finish Israel’s razing of the territory, clear the rubble in which thousands of Palestinians’ bodies are thought to be trapped, and replace it with real estate opportunities for investors.
“Gaza, as President Trump has been saying, has amazing potential,” said Kushner.
At the signing ceremony, Trump said that Gaza, home to millions of Palestinians, is “a great location” that should be viewed as a “big real estate site,” and expressed his interest in the region as a “real estate person at heart.”
“I said, look at this location on the sea, look at this beautiful piece of property — what it could be for so many people, it’ll be so great, people that are living so poorly are gonna be living so well,” Trump said.
Kushner touted the White House’s goal of applying “free market economy principles” to the razing and redevelopment of Gaza. He also expressed a desire to replace the humanitarian aid system for Palestinians in the region using those principles.
Palestinians have strongly condemned the plan.
“This is a plan to erase Gaza’s indigenous character, turn what remains of her people into a cheap labor force to manage their ‘industrial zones’ and create an exclusive coastline for ‘tourism,’” wrote Palestinian American writer Susan Abulhawa. “Palestinians will be pushed behind walls and gates, retrained in ‘technical schools’ to serve Israel’s supremacists ideology. The indigenous traditions and social fabric of this land will be obliterated utterly.”
“If the goal is truly peace, then the path is simple: end the occupation and help restore the rights that have been taken from Palestinians since 1948,” said Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer from Gaza. “We, the Palestinian people, are the ones who must determine our own future. Peace cannot be imposed while our land is occupied, our lives controlled, and our voices ignored.”
The Pentagon’s 2026 National Defense Strategy downgrades China as the “top threat”, prioritizes US homeland defense, and reduces focus on Europe and DPRK.
The United States Department of War has released its long-delayed 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS), signaling a major shift in Washington’s military priorities by no longer treating China as the “primary threat” to US national security.
The document, published late Friday, places the defense of the US homeland and the Western Hemisphere at the center of Pentagon planning, a sharp departure from strategies issued under both former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump’s first term, which identified China as the foremost strategic challenge.
According to the strategy, past US administrations “ignored American interests,” allowing strategic vulnerabilities to emerge in areas such as the Panama Canal, Greenland, and the broader Western Hemisphere. The document explicitly calls for abandoning what it describes as “grandiose strategies” in favor of policies rooted in the “practical interests” of the US public.
Reduced emphasis on China, conciliatory tone in the Pacific
While China remains a key concern, the 2026 NDS no longer characterizes Beijing as an “acute” or “existential” threat. Instead, it refers to China as a “settled force” in the Indo-Pacific that must be deterred from dominating the US or its allies.
The document adopts a notably conciliatory tone, stressing that Washington does not seek to “strangle or humiliate” China. It argues that a “decent peace” is achievable under terms favorable to the US and acceptable to Beijing, emphasizing diplomacy, stable relations, and expanded military-to-military communication channels to avoid escalation.
Although the Pentagon continues to advocate a “strong denial defense” in the Pacific, the strategy does not specify what military assets will be deployed. Notably, Taiwan is not mentioned by name, marking a significant shift from the 2022 National Defense Strategy, which explicitly framed Taiwan as a central security concern.
Europe’s declining importance, new DPRK strategy
In contrast to the National Security Strategy released last month, the defense document avoids describing Europe as being in “civilizational decline”, but it nonetheless downplays the continent’s strategic importance.
“Although Europe remains important, it has a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power,” the strategy states, adding that while US engagement will continue, Washington will prioritize defending the homeland and its immediate sphere of influence.
The strategy also outlines a reduced US military role in deterring the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, shifting primary responsibility to South Korea, which currently hosts around 28,500 US troops.
“South Korea is capable of taking primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical but more limited US support,” the document states.
The strategy notably omits any reference to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, reinforcing speculation that Washington is moving toward managing the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities rather than seeking their elimination.
“This shift in the balance of responsibility is consistent with America’s interest in updating US force posture on the Korean Peninsula,” the strategy explains, noting that Washington seeks to make its forces more flexible and better positioned to respond to a wider range of contingencies across the region.
Burden-sharing and regional rebalancing in the Pacific
Across the broader Pacific region, the Pentagon is urging allies to assume greater responsibility for their own defense, linking continued US cooperation to increased military spending by allies, with benchmarks as high as 5% of GDP. The strategy emphasizes economic and maritime security over regime-change policies, describing the Indo-Pacific as the world’s most dynamic economic region and underscoring the need to protect trade routes and strategic access points.
Japan and South Korea are identified as central to this regional balancing approach, with the US seeking to “incentivize and enable” allies to play a more assertive role in collective defense.
Meanwhile, South Korea has raised its defense spending to 7.5% of GDP and continues to field upwards of 500,000 regular troops with approximately 3.1 million reservists. On its part, Japan is moving to decisively break with decades of post-war pacifism, accelerating a historic military buildup and adopting a more assertive security posture.
Tokyo is on track to reach defense spending equivalent to 2% of GDP by March 2026, abandoning the long-standing 1% cap, as part of a five-year rearmament plan totaling 43 trillion yen. The shift is accompanied by the development of “counterstrike” capabilities, marking a transition from an exclusively defense-oriented doctrine toward deterrence by punishment and the fielding of overtly offensive weapons. While Japanese officials frame the change as strategic maturity and greater alliance responsibility, critics have denounced it as a revival of Japanese militarism.
The release of the 2026 NDS comes after months of internal delays. US media reported that a draft reached War Secretary Pete Hegseth as early as September, but disagreements within the administration over how to characterize China’s threat, particularly amid ongoing trade negotiations, stalled its publication.
Despite references to Russia, Iran, and DPRK as sources of risk, the strategy treats these threats as secondary, reinforcing the Pentagon’s pivot toward homeland defense and regional retrenchment rather than expansive global confrontation.
The threat of US sanctions, tariffs, and asset seizures has encouraged central banks to diversify away from greenback-based holdings
India has drastically reduced its investment in US Treasuries, as New Delhi and some of the world’s largest nations move away from dollar-based investments to protect against Washington’s policy of economic coercion, Bloombergreported on 23 January.
India’s holdings of long-term US sovereign debt have dropped to $174 billion, down 26 percent from a 2023 peak, according to recently released US government data.
According to the Reserve Bank of India, US Treasuries now account for just 30 percent of India’s foreign-exchange assets, down from 40 percent a year ago.
At the same time, India has expanded its holdings of gold, mirroring the actions of China and other nations.
According to Win Thin, chief economist at Bank of Nassau 1982 Ltd., India may further reduce its holdings of US Treasuries to mitigate sanctions risks.
China has also reduced its holdings of US Treasuries in recent months, with holdings falling $11.8 billion in October to $688.7 billion, the lowest level since 2008.
Fear of US sanctions has grown since 2022, when the US froze Russia’s foreign exchange reserves following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Though the US and India have long been allies, President Donald Trump threatened New Delhi with sanctions and tariffs last summer in response to its purchases of Russian oil, in defiance of US wishes.
In September, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that the central bank was taking a “very considered decision” to diversify its reserves.
“The speed at which relations between the US and India deteriorated last year would have taken many by surprise and jolted policymakers to reduce their vulnerabilities,” Shilan Shah of Capital Economics told Bloomberg.
Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European countries opposed to the US taking control of Greenland has also amplified fears of outsized reliance on US dollar investments.
At the same time, both India and China have increased purchases of gold.
China’s central bank has increased its gold purchases for the 14 straight months amid its own tariff disputes with Washington.
Bullion held by the People’s Bank of China rose by 30,000 troy ounces in December, bringing total purchases since November 2024 to around 1.35 million ounces, or 42 tons.
The People’s Bank of China will likely continue to increase its gold reserves in the future to strengthen its “ability to withstand external risks,” explained Xi Junyang, a professor at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.
However, other countries more closely aligned with the US have chosen to expand their purchases of US Treasuries amid Trump’s threats, with purchases hitting an all-time high in January, Reuters reported on 15 January.
Foreigners bought $85.6 billion in Treasuries in November, as opposed to selling $60.1 billion of the asset in the previous month.
Foreign investors also bought $92.2 billion in US stocks in November, compared with purchases of $60.3 billion in October.
Data also showed a net overall capital inflow of $212 billion into the US in November, following outflows of $22.5 billion in October.
(Photo credit: Ken Kobayashi)
The Most Revolutionary Act 