Author

admin

Browsing

(TheNewswire)

Vancouver, British Columbia, February 26, 2026 TheNewswire – FinEx Metals Ltd. (TSX-V: FINX) (‘FinEx’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it proposes to undertake a non-brokered private placement (the ‘Offering’) to raise gross proceeds of up to $1,500,000 through the sale of up to 12,500,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) of the Company at a price of $0.12 per Unit.  Each Unit will comprise of one common share and one-half of a share purchase warrant, with each whole warrant exercisable into one further common share at a price of $0.18 for a term of 24 months.  All securities issued will be subject to a statutory hold period of four months and one day.

The proceeds from the Offering will be used for exploration activities on the Company’s 100% owned projects in Finland and for general working capital.

Finder’s fees may be paid in connection with the Offering in accordance with the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange (the ‘TSXV’). The Offering is subject to the approval of the TSXV.

Directors and officers of the Company may acquire securities under the Offering, which will be considered a ‘related party transaction’ as defined under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (‘MI 61 101’). Such participation is expected to be exempt from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements of MI 61-101.  

The offered securities have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘Securities Act’) or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold to, or for the account or benefit of, any person in the United States or any ‘U.S person’, as such term is defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act, absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements.  Offers and sales in the United States will be limited to institutional accredited investors and qualified institutional buyers.  This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

About FinEx Metals Ltd.

FinEx Metals Ltd. (TSX-V: FINX) is a gold, nickel and PGE-focused mineral exploration company advancing a portfolio of 100%-owned, royalty-free projects in northern Finland, strategically located in the Central Lapland Greenstone Belt and Eastern Lapland Greenstone Belt. FinEx’s projects are near existing mining operations and benefit from strong infrastructure, a stable jurisdiction, and a proven exploration model, supporting multiple targets with clear discovery potential in one of Europe’s most prospective and underexplored regions. For more information, please visit the Company’s website at www.finexmetals.net.

 

FinEx Metals is part of the NewQuest Capital Group, a discovery-driven investment group that builds value through the incubation and financing of mineral projects and companies. Further information about NewQuest can be found on the company website at www.nqcapitalgroup.com.

  

On Behalf of the Board of Directors

Tero Kosonen

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

+1 (604) 681-9100

tero@finexmetals.net

For further information, please contact:

Brennan Zerb

Investor Relations Manager

+1 (778) 867-5016

bzerb@nqcapitalgroup.com

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Service Provider (as the term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

Forward-Looking Statements:

This news release includes certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (together, ‘forward-looking statements’). All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding the offering, the use of proceeds from the Offering, other future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events may vary from those anticipated in such statements. Important risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company’s plans or expectations include failure to obtain TSXV acceptance of the Offering, inability to use of proceeds from the Offering as expected, failure to raise sufficient funds on the proposed terms or at all, and risks associated with mineral exploration, including the risk that actual results and timing of exploration and development will be different from those expected by management. The forward-looking statements in this news release were developed based on the assumptions and expectations of management, including that TSXV acceptance for the Offering will be obtained, the Company will be able to use the proceeds from the Offering as anticipated, required fundraising will be completed, as well as the other assumptions disclosed in this news release and that the risks described above will not materialize. The Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by applicable securities legislation.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements, except as otherwise required by law.

  

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

A Senate Democrat is demanding that the Trump administration refund billions in tariff revenue to Americans following last week’s Supreme Court decision, according to a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump charging that he was concerned over the White House’s ‘lack of action’ to issue refunds to families and small businesses impacted by tariffs.

His appeal to the president comes after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision last week that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law undergirding his sweeping duties, ‘does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.’

‘The invalidation of these IEEPA tariffs is a chance to make American families and small businesses whole — not to retain unlawfully collected funds or enable additional corporate profit,’ Gallego wrote.

Gallego’s letter comes as Congress wrestles with its next move on tariffs and as Trump has vowed to sidestep lawmakers in his quest to continue levying duties on other countries.

Some Republicans want to see Trump’s tariffs considered through budget reconciliation — the same party-line move used to pass his ‘big, beautiful bill’ last year — to meet the deliberative parameters established in the court’s decision.

Others think Trump doesn’t need to come to Congress. The president already moved to reinstate 10% tariffs that are set to last for 150 days and will require lawmakers to weigh in on continuing them.

Several congressional Democrats want to see the administration tender full refunds from the billions raked in under Trump’s tariffs — 25 Senate Democrats back a newly introduced bill led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to refund all duties with interest.

And Gallego specifically wants guardrails to ensure that money ends up in the hands of families and small businesses.

‘Absent action from this administration, over $100 billion in tariff revenue collected under those unlawful tariffs will not make it into the hands of American families and small businesses but instead will remain either in government coffers or in corporate accounts,’ Gallego wrote.

Since the start of the current fiscal year in October, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are estimated to have generated roughly $155 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.

He also raised concerns about large corporations taking advantage of the ‘chaotic and expansive nature of the IEEPA tariffs’ to crank up prices on products in response to the duties.

Gallego included several requests of the administration in his letter to be met no later than March 4, including whether the administration will issue tariff refunds, who will be eligible, how much revenue has been collected as of Feb. 20 and whether corporations will be required to disclose tariff costs passed on to consumers, among several others.

He also warned that corporations, armed with the financial firepower to hire ‘high-priced lawyers and lobbyists,’ would have a leg up on Americans without the same means.

‘Without your administration providing a structured process to determine how refunds should be distributed, American families and small businesses will once again be left behind,’ Gallego wrote.

Related Article

Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties
Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Oman’s foreign minister met Thursday in Geneva with President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, as efforts intensify to reach a new agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

The minister, Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, said the talks focused on Tehran’s proposals and perspectives, as well as questions and responses from the U.S. negotiating team regarding key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program and the guarantees required for a potential agreement.

‘His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarified that the efforts are continuing intensively and in a constructive spirit, under the negotiators’ unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas and solutions, while preparing the supportive conditions for progress and reaching a fair agreement with sustainable guarantees,’ the ministry said in a post on X.

The closely watched meeting comes amid heightened regional tensions and a visible U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, including the repositioning of naval assets and additional air defense capabilities.

The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and multiple guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Arabian Sea, as well as additional destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean and Red Seas.

Several combat ships are also positioned in the Persian Gulf near Iran’s southern coastline.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that while Trump prefers a diplomatic solution, Washington views Iran as a ‘grave threat’ and remains deeply concerned about both its nuclear ambitions and expanding missile arsenal.

He said the talks in Geneva would be ‘largely focused on the nuclear program’ but warned that Tehran’s refusal to discuss its ballistic missiles poses a major obstacle.

‘Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, in Qatar, in Bahrain,’ he explained. ‘I want everybody to understand that, and beyond just the nuclear program, they possess these conventional weapons that are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans, if they so choose to do so. These things have to be addressed.’

Related Article

Trump says Iran has 15 days to reach a deal or face
Trump says Iran has 15 days to reach a deal or face ‘unfortunate’ outcome

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump has drawn his line. Now the clock is running.

After publicly giving Iran roughly 10 days to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement, Trump used his State of the Union address to make clear the deadline is backed by force. 

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ he told lawmakers Tuesday night.

The president first outlined the short timeline Feb. 19, saying the world would know within ‘probably 10 days’ whether Tehran was prepared to strike what he called a meaningful deal. 

‘I would think that would be enough time — 10, 15 days, pretty much maximum,’ Trump said, warning that absent an agreement, ‘it’s going to be unfortunate for them.’

On Tuesday, he reinforced the pressure from the House chamber, telling Congress negotiations are underway, but Iran has not met his core condition. 

‘We are in negotiations with them,’ Trump said. ‘They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.”

He also pointed back to the 2025 U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, describing Operation Midnight Hammer as having ‘obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program.’ 

After that operation, he said, Tehran was warned ‘to make no future attempts to rebuild its weapons program,’ adding that Iran is now ‘starting it all over again.’

The combination of a defined diplomatic window and a public reminder of U.S. military action marks a sharper phase in the standoff, as talks in Geneva unfold under mounting pressure.

Trump has not detailed what specific action would follow if Iran refuses his terms. But he told reporters in mid-February that if a meaningful agreement does not materialize, ‘bad things will happen,’ and acknowledged he is considering further steps.

With the State of the Union complete and the president’s timeline already in motion, the coming days are likely to determine whether the administration secures a nuclear concession — or shifts toward a more confrontational path in the Middle East.

The diplomatic ultimatum is underscored by the largest assembly of U.S. naval power in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

The world’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, arrived at Souda Bay, Crete, Monday. The Ford joined the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been conducting 24-hour flight operations in the Arabian Sea since late January.

Between the two strike groups, the U.S. now commands a fleet of 14 major warships, including nine Arleigh Burke-class destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Meanwhile 12 U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighters touched down at Ovda Airbase in southern Israel. 

As national security analyst Joe Funderburke noted in the Small Wars Journal, ‘The F-22 is not a simple show-of-force aircraft. It is designed to suppress enemy air defenses and protect penetrating strike platforms like the B-2 Spirit bomber, the same combination used to devastate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz nine months ago.’

The president’s reminder of Operation Midnight Hammer — which utilized B-2 bombers to drop 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ munitions — serves as the tactical blueprint for what follows the current deadline. 

While the 2025 operation was a ‘surgical’ surprise strike, the current buildup suggests a far broader mission set, potentially due to Iran’s threat of an aggressive response. 

Iran’s response to Operation Midnight Hammer was measured and the U.S. had warning. This time, Iran has vowed a more forceful response and says any U.S. troops operating in the Middle East could be open targets. 

Amid his sharper diplomatic timeline, Trump also asserted that Iranian authorities had killed some 32,000 protesters in weeks of demonstrations that began in early January — a number far above independent estimates and Tehran’s own death toll. 

‘Just over the last couple of months with the protests, they’ve killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters — 32,000 protesters in their own country,’ the president said. ‘They shot them and hung them.’ 

Administration officials have signaled that any agreement would require Iran to halt all uranium enrichment and provide verifiable guarantees that its program cannot be reconstituted — terms Iran repeatedly has objected to.

Both Washington and Iran appear to believe the other is bluffing. 

Trump has framed the timeline as a final opportunity for diplomacy backed by overwhelming force. Iranian leaders, meanwhile, have publicly dismissed U.S. threats and warned that any strike would trigger retaliation against American forces and regional allies.

Still, U.S. negotiators will meet with Iranian envoys once again in Geneva Thursday.

Related Article

Trump gives Iran 10-day ultimatum, but experts signal talks may be buying time for strike
Trump gives Iran 10-day ultimatum, but experts signal talks may be buying time for strike

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Republican and Independent voters reacted favorably when President Donald Trump brought up how his administration has cracked down on drug cartels and fentanyl, but Democrats appeared less motivated by Trump’s aggressive foreign policy stance. 

‘For years, large swaths of territory in our region, including large parts of Mexico, really large parts of Mexico, have been controlled by murderous drug cartels. That’s why I designated these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and I declared illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction,’ Trump said to applause as he turned to look at Republicans. 

Per a panel assembled by polling group Maslansky & Partners of 29 Democrats, 30 Independents, and 40 Republicans, which tracked their real-time reactions during Trump’s SOTU address, Democrats appeared to go slightly below baseline when Trump began touting his aggressive stance towards cartels in Central and South America, specifically his administration’s bombing campaign against them which has included attacks in the open ocean off the South American coastline and in the eastern Pacific.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Independents showed a much stronger favorable reaction to the president’s remarks about the actions his administration has taken against drug cartels and illegal fentanyl. 

During his address, Trump also highlighted the U.S.’s help in capturing drug kingpin ‘El Mencho’ earlier this month in Mexico. Ruben ‘Nemesio’ Oseguera Cervantes, known as ‘El Mencho,’ the leader of the CJNG, was killed Sunday in a Mexican military operation in Tapalpa, Mexico, authorities said. Though the operation was carried out by Mexican forces, the United States laid the groundwork, making El Mencho’s fall possible.

On President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he signed an executive order directing the State Department to designate several cartels and international criminal groups ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs), a designation unlocking military-grade surveillance and ‘material support’ prosecutions. Though lesser known than MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, CJNG was one of the groups designated an FTO by the administration.

Shortly after Trump’s executive order, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a policy memorandum to all Department of Justice employees, announcing a ‘fundamental change in mindset and approach’ to cartels and transnational criminal organizations to a policy of ‘total elimination.’

The Trump administration has engaged in an aggressive bombing campaign against cartel boats throughout both 2025 and 2026. The U.S. has also conducted non-lethal maritime drug interdiction efforts as well.

In early 2026, Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro was captured by U.S. forces and extradited to New York on drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges, with Trump accusing him at the time of being a ‘kingpin of a vast criminal network.’

The recent violence and capture of El Mencho this month has led American tourists to be trapped in Mexico. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the State Department has been taking ‘hundreds of calls a day’ providing Americans with travel support and advice.

‘We are unaware of any reports of any Americans being hurt, kidnapped, or killed, and the Mexican drug cartels know not to lay a finger on a single American or they will pay severe consequences under this president – and they already are,’ Leavitt told Fox News. 

Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

Related Article

Trump gets high marks from Republicans when ticking off economic accomplishments
Trump gets high marks from Republicans when ticking off economic accomplishments

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee late Thursday morning, as lawmakers continue to investigate the federal government’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s case.

The deposition is expected to begin at 11 a.m. ET in Chappaqua, N.Y., Fox News Digital was told. The Clintons have owned a home in the affluent New York City suburb since 1999 and have primarily lived there since former President Bill Clinton left office.

And while closed-door depositions normally just require a committee staff presence in most cases, a source familiar with planning told Fox News Digital that House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will be there in person.

At least 10 House Republicans on the committee will also attend, the source said.

Hillary Clinton will be deposed on Thursday, while Bill Clinton’s deposition is scheduled for Friday. Both interviews will be closed to the press, but they will be transcribed and videotaped.

Comer told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that the former first couple’s testimony ‘is critical to understanding Epstein and [Ghislaine Maxwell’s] sex trafficking network and the ways they sought to curry favor and influence to shield themselves from scrutiny.’

‘Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. Our goal for this investigation is straightforward: We seek to deliver transparency and accountability for the American people and survivors,’ Comer said.

The Clintons’ testimony comes after months of back-and-forth with the committee on the circumstances and conditions of the interviews.

They are two of several people and entities whom Comer subpoenaed for information on Epstein back in August.

Their attorneys initially pushed back on the subpoenas, calling them legally invalid and a violation of the separation of powers, but House Republicans responded by pressing forward with resolutions to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress.

The lawyers finally agreed to Comer’s terms just days before a full House vote was expected to move forward.

But not all members of the committee are satisfied with how the situation is playing out.

‘I don’t know why the heck we didn’t bring them here. If you or I got in trouble, guess what? We’d be here, or we’d be in chains, and they’d be dragging us in. Having them up in Chappaqua to me is an insult to the public,’ Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told reporters on Wednesday. ‘I realize they got to cut a deal, but it’s not a deal I would have cut.’

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters, ‘We have a good group going up to New York.’

‘I think that anyone that has information about Jeffrey Epstein or spent any time with him, I think it’s important to ask questions. I mean, personally, I think one of the things that we’ve been hearing a lot about lately is whether Jeffrey Epstein had any sort of foreign ties, whether there were any sort of…wealth of foreign governments,’ Garcia said.

But both sides have largely accused the other of politicizing the probe. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to create a narrative that persecutes figures on the left while attempting to clear President Donald Trump, and Republicans are arguing that Democrats are using the investigation to purposefully target the sitting commander-in-chief.

Neither Clinton has been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, nor has Trump.

But both Trump and Clinton have appeared numerous times in the Epstein files released so far and are known to have had relationships with the late pedophile before his federal investigations.

Related Article

Reporter
Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A Senate Democrat is demanding that the Trump administration refund billions in tariff revenue to Americans following last week’s Supreme Court decision, according to a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump charging that he was concerned over the White House’s ‘lack of action’ to issue refunds to families and small businesses impacted by tariffs.

His appeal to the president comes after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision last week that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law undergirding his sweeping duties, ‘does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.’

‘The invalidation of these IEEPA tariffs is a chance to make American families and small businesses whole — not to retain unlawfully collected funds or enable additional corporate profit,’ Gallego wrote.

Gallego’s letter comes as Congress wrestles with its next move on tariffs and as Trump has vowed to sidestep lawmakers in his quest to continue levying duties on other countries.

Some Republicans want to see Trump’s tariffs considered through budget reconciliation — the same party-line move used to pass his ‘big, beautiful bill’ last year — to meet the deliberative parameters established in the court’s decision.

Others think Trump doesn’t need to come to Congress. The president already moved to reinstate 10% tariffs that are set to last for 150 days and will require lawmakers to weigh in on continuing them.

Several congressional Democrats want to see the administration tender full refunds from the billions raked in under Trump’s tariffs — 25 Senate Democrats back a newly introduced bill led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to refund all duties with interest.

And Gallego specifically wants guardrails to ensure that money ends up in the hands of families and small businesses.

‘Absent action from this administration, over $100 billion in tariff revenue collected under those unlawful tariffs will not make it into the hands of American families and small businesses but instead will remain either in government coffers or in corporate accounts,’ Gallego wrote.

Since the start of the current fiscal year in October, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are estimated to have generated roughly $155 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.

He also raised concerns about large corporations taking advantage of the ‘chaotic and expansive nature of the IEEPA tariffs’ to crank up prices on products in response to the duties.

Gallego included several requests of the administration in his letter to be met no later than March 4, including whether the administration will issue tariff refunds, who will be eligible, how much revenue has been collected as of Feb. 20 and whether corporations will be required to disclose tariff costs passed on to consumers, among several others.

He also warned that corporations, armed with the financial firepower to hire ‘high-priced lawyers and lobbyists,’ would have a leg up on Americans without the same means.

‘Without your administration providing a structured process to determine how refunds should be distributed, American families and small businesses will once again be left behind,’ Gallego wrote.

Related Article

Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties
Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

January saw Americans grow markedly more pessimistic about the economy. The Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell almost ten points in one month, reaching its lowest level since 2014. Consumers reported worsening views of current market conditions, as well as a sharp reduction in expectations regarding job prospects and income for the upcoming months. 

Upon initial review, this pessimism appears hard to square with recent headlines. Employers seem to be adding jobs; measured output has not fallen; consumers in the aggregate are still spending more in nominal terms than they were last year. This has led commentators to label this drop in confidence merely a perception problem. 

Market participants, however, do not react to abstract aggregates. They are responding to what they are directly experiencing: rising prices, tighter budgets, and uncertainty about future opportunities and job prospects. This is not the result of some vague uneasiness. Rather, it captures concrete concerns that broad economic averages often smooth over. 

Yes, the index regarding current conditions fell, and fell sharply. According to the Conference Board, the share of respondents who said jobs are “plentiful” fell to 23.9 percent, while the share saying jobs are “hard to get” rose to 20.8 percent. These data do not come from individuals attempting to judge macroeconomic trends. Rather, they were evaluations of lived labor-market constraints. Even if employment totals remain positive in the aggregate, such a tallying cannot capture changes in perceived difficulty in finding or changing jobs. People do not consult nationwide aggregates when considering whether it is easy or difficult to find jobs. Almost no one searches for “a US job,” but for specific jobs in specific locations requiring specific skill sets.

A teacher searches for openings in a particular district. A laid-off marketing analyst seeks firms hiring in his specialty. The welder wants fabrication work within driving distance. No individual experiences the labor market in aggregates, but through concrete localized opportunities. An economy can add jobs on paper while many struggle to find positions suited to their skills and geography. This reality does not make their pessimism purely emotional. 

Perhaps the more striking deterioration was in expectations. Consumers’ outlook for income, business conditions, and employment over the coming six months deteriorated to levels typically associated with an impending recession. More specifically, the Expectations Index dropped to 65.1, well below the 80 that often signals an upcoming downturn. Only about 15 percent of respondents expect business conditions to improve. These expectations will obviously shape household decisions about major purchases, savings, and career moves. 

Moreover, the decline was not contained to certain socio-economic demographics. Reuters reports that sentiments fell across income and age groups, including higher-income households that typically are a little more optimistic than other groups during moderate economic stress. This hints that the collapse is not merely the result of lower-income hardship but a more generalized perception that economic conditions are less favorable. 

This is further illustrated by the qualitative responses in the survey. Consumers cited high prices — namely, necessities like groceries and gasoline — as persistent concerns. As noted by Peter Earle, consumer goods like coffee, eggs, and chicken are still priced well above pre-COVID levels. Even a three-percent reduction in gasoline prices in the last year is outweighed by the 21 percent increase since 2019. 

Mentions in survey responses of trade policy, tariffs, and political uncertainty rose as well, as did labor-market insecurity and health-related costs. Manufacturing employment continues to fall in this tariff era, shedding roughly 70,000 jobs after tariffs were raised from about 2.4 percent to around 10 percent. Even if these jobs are offset by job gains in some other sector elsewhere, displaced workers still have reason to be less confident about their own prospects. 

These concerns reflect specific and notable pressures on households’ budgets and long-term planning. 

Here enters one of the major issues of the aggregates. Measures like GDP, average wages, and employment totals merely summarize overall activity, obviously. What they fail to capture are economic realities like distribution and sustainability — and whether growth positively impacts a household’s ability to plan for the future. Nominal consumption can rise as real purchasing power stagnates; employment can grow as job mobility declines. Aggregate output can increase while economic freedom and flexibility decrease. When we understand this, then divergences between consumer confidence and aggregate economic indicators become more intelligible. 

Even assuming aggregate statistics are well-suited to measure motion in an economy (a point not necessarily granted, but simply set aside for the sake of this article), they cannot measure coordination or economic viability. They tell us how much supposed economic activity is occurring, but not whether such activity reflects consumer preferences, actual economic realities, or even economic resilience. Consumer confidence, while also an aggregate of sorts, seeks to provide a general judgment about opportunity, security, and constraint. When assessments of conditions and expectations simultaneously deteriorate, that hints at a more fundamental issue than mood swings by consumers. 

To be clear, consumer confidence is not a comprehensive measure of economic health. Survey responses reflect personal experience and expectations, which can be incomplete or mistaken, but still have relevant impact because individuals act upon those attitudes. But the primary trap here is the treatment of low confidence as simply irrational pessimism. When consumers consistently report anxiety about the job market, income, and future conditions, they are not necessarily misunderstanding the economy. Instead, they may be pointing to specific structural pressures aggregates cannot detect. Rising costs, reduced labor mobility, and policy uncertainty all weigh heavily on confidence while remaining somewhat invisible to headline economic data. 

So, we return to the central question: when consumer confidence collapses amid positive economic aggregates, which one is lying? Perhaps neither, but they are both needed if we wish to understand the state of the economy. Aggregate statistics are intended to measure total activity. So be it. But total activity is not the end-all, be-all of economic health. Consumer confidence seeks to reveal whether such activity is translating into security, flexibility, and confidence about the future. 

If economic growth increasingly takes the form of superficial statistical expansion rather than authentic improvements in economic coordination, then falling confidence is not a puzzle, nor something to ignore. It is, instead, a warning that the economy is possibly wasting resources in the name of increasing numbers. This, of course, completely inverts the entire purpose of the economy — the proper coordination of scarce resources in accordance with people’s needs.

Free-market capitalism still delivers the goods. But its political coalition is fracturing — and that should worry anyone who cares about prosperity and freedom.

Recent Gallup polling on Americans’ views of capitalism and socialism shows that just 54 percent now view capitalism favorably, the lowest Gallup has recorded. Views of socialism remain much lower at 39 percent, but the direction matters. Support for capitalism has fallen notably over time, especially among independents and younger Americans.

The partisan breakdown is even more revealing. Republicans remain strongly pro-capitalist, though support has softened slightly. Independents now only narrowly favor capitalism. And among Democrats, fewer than half view capitalism positively, while nearly two-thirds view socialism favorably. As earlier Gallup polling on capitalism and socialism shows, this pattern has been developing for years.

Here’s the hard truth: those of us who defend free-market capitalism are unlikely to persuade most Democrats anytime soon. The data confirm it. Democrats often like the outcomes of capitalism — jobs, innovation, higher living standards — but reject the label, associating it with inequality or corporate power.

That alone wouldn’t be alarming. Political disagreement is normal. What is alarming is where capitalism is losing ground next.

A System of Liberty, Not Privilege

True capitalism is grounded in private property, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law. It treats individuals as decision-makers in their own lives — not subjects of top-down control. It decentralizes power, rewards value creation, and invites experimentation, allowing people to say “yes” to opportunity without asking permission from bureaucrats or politicians.

This idea is old — and proven. Adam Smith’s explanation of voluntary exchange captured it 250 years ago in The Wealth of Nations: “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker that we get our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In a system of voluntary exchange, people seeking to serve themselves must first serve others. Prices convey information, profits signal value creation, and losses expose waste — the core of the price mechanism in a free-market economy.

The process isn’t perfect, but it’s far superior to the alternatives. As Milton Friedman argued in his critique of big government, markets work because they respect people’s ability to decide, adapt, and improve through cooperation — not central command.

The Real Warning in the Gallup Data

The most troubling signal in the Gallup polling isn’t Democratic skepticism. It’s the erosion among independents and younger Americans — groups that historically decide elections and shape long-term political trends.

Independents still lean pro-capitalist, but their support has fallen. Younger Americans overwhelmingly support small business and free enterprise, yet are increasingly ambivalent toward “capitalism” as a system. That suggests confusion, not rejection.

Even more concerning is what’s happening on the right.

A growing faction of Republicans — often labeled “national conservatives” or “populists” — is openly abandoning free-market principles in favor of state-directed outcomes. They argue for industrial policy, trade protectionism, expanded subsidies, and heavier regulation, all justified as necessary to achieve cultural, national, or political goals.

This matters because it breaks the traditional coalition that defended markets across parties.

When Both Sides Drift Toward Bigger Government

Gallup’s data show Americans are overwhelmingly positive toward small business (95 percent) and free enterprise (81 percent), while holding deeply negative views of big business. That gap tells us people still believe in markets — but not in a system that feels rigged and political.

The left responds by calling for more government control. Some on the right now respond by calling for different forms of government control. The mechanism is the same.

Whether it’s progressive redistribution or nationalist industrial policy, the solution offered is top-down power — politicians picking outcomes, overriding prices, and directing capital. History shows this doesn’t fix capitalism’s problems; it replaces markets with politics.

As the fallacy of corporate subsidies makes clear, once the government starts steering the economy, competition weakens, insiders win, and ordinary people lose. Bigger government doesn’t become more precise — it becomes more entrenched — regardless of which party is in charge.

Capitalism’s Problem Is Not About Performance

The Gallup results don’t show a rejection of capitalism’s benefits. They show a rejection of cronyism mislabeled as capitalism. Americans like choice, competition, small businesses, innovation, and opportunity — all products of free-market capitalism.

What they don’t like are bailouts, favoritism, barriers to entry, and rules that protect the powerful — outcomes caused by policy distortions, not markets. Policies such as occupational licensing that create barriers to opportunity or housing restrictions raise costs and block entry, especially for younger Americans. When those failures are blamed on “capitalism,” skepticism grows.

This is why the fight matters most outside the Democratic base. If independents, young people, and market-friendly conservatives drift toward bigger government — just with different slogans — the long-run prospects for freedom dim.

The Moral Case — and the Evidence

Beyond efficiency, capitalism rests on a moral foundation. Markets respect individuals’ dignity to pursue their own conception of the good life. They reward service, not status. They generate progress through experimentation and feedback. And they decentralize power, protecting against tyranny.

The evidence is overwhelming. In 1820, more than 90 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is under 10 percent, as shown by data on extreme poverty over time. Life expectancy has doubled. Child mortality has collapsed. Access to goods and services, once considered luxuries, has become common.

What drove this transformation? Not redistribution or industrial planning. It was the spread of market institutions: open trade, secure property rights, sound money, and the freedom to invest and innovate. The comparisons are instructive — East v. West Germany, North v. South Korea, Venezuela v. Chile. Where markets are embraced, prosperity follows. Where they’re suppressed, poverty and repression prevail.

Reclaiming Capitalism

The polling tells us the challenge ahead is not convincing Democrats who already favor more government. It is rebuilding confidence among the persuadable middle and preventing the right from abandoning markets in favor of control.

The path forward isn’t to redefine capitalism, but to reclaim it: restore sound money, limit government favoritism, secure property rights, open competition, and remove barriers that trap workers and families. And we must explain — not just defend — why free-market capitalism remains the best path to prosperity.

Public skepticism is rising, yet the moral and empirical case for capitalism has never been stronger.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Thursday that his country could ‘completely destroy’ South Korea if it feels threatened, escalating rhetoric while ruling out renewed talks.

Speaking at North Korea’s week-long Ninth Congress of the ruling Workers’ Party in Pyongyang, Kim labeled South Korea the ‘most hostile enemy’ and said ‘the conciliatory attitude that South Korea’s current government advocates on the surface is clumsily deceptive and crude,’ according to state media Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

Kim said North Korea ‘can initiate arbitrary action’ if South Korea engages in ‘obnoxious behavior’ directed at his country, dismissing recent efforts by Seoul to improve relations.

‘South Korea’s complete collapse cannot be ruled out,’ Kim said, according to KCNA.

During the congress, Kim outlined sweeping five-year policy goals centered on expanding North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The country is believed to possess around 50 warheads and enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more, according to an estimate last year from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The North Korean leader said the country’s ‘international status has risen extraordinarily.’

‘It is our party’s firm will to further expand and strengthen our national nuclear power, and thoroughly exercise its status as a nuclear state,’ Kim said, according to KCNA. ‘We will focus on projects to increase the number of nuclear weapons and expand nuclear operational means.’

Kim laid out plans for North Korea to develop more advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of underwater launches, along with artificial intelligence-driven weapons systems and unmanned drones, KCNA reported.

Kim, who met with President Donald Trump three times during Trump’s first term, signaled he may be open to future negotiations with Washington but placed responsibility squarely on the United States.

‘Whether it’s peaceful coexistence or permanent confrontation, we are ready for either, and the choice is not ours to make,’ he said.

Kim said that if the U.S ‘withdraws its policy of confrontation’ with North Korea and acknowledges the country’s ‘current status,’ there would be ‘no reason why we cannot get along well with the U.S.’

Following the congress, Kim’s teenage daughter attended a military parade in Pyongyang on Wednesday, according to KCNA. Ju Ae, believed to be 13 or 14, was photographed standing beside her father and senior military leaders.

Her appearance comes after South Korean media reported that Kim recently gave her a leadership role in the regime’s powerful ‘Missile Administration,’ which oversees Pyongyang’s nuclear forces.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey, along with Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Article

Trump says he
Trump says he’d be willing to extend Asia trip to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS