Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Economy

Tariffs, AI, and the Golden Age of Executive Power

No Comments

One year ago, Donald Trump took office, swearing an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Americans were promised a new golden age, one in which the nation would flourish, in Trump’s words: “We will be the envy of every nation and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer.” One year into this so-called golden age, a familiar pattern has emerged. 

Internationally, the administration has erected tariffs in the name of reviving manufacturing. Domestically, it has implemented sweeping national policies to govern emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. These are two sides of the same coin: executive power extending into domains traditionally disciplined by Congress and the states. These developments raise a central question: is the pursuit of national renewal reinforcing the constitutional and economic foundations of the republic, or quietly eroding them? 

Tariffs and Manufacturing

On April 2, or “Liberation Day,” tariffs captured much of 2025 as the administration sought to upend decades-long trading practices under the promise of bringing manufacturing back to the United States. In a return to an old-school mercantilist instinct, broad tariffs were imposed on imports to leverage the size of the U.S. economy against trading partners and supposedly spark domestic production, especially in nostalgic sectors such as steel and autos. 

According to FRED, both domestic auto production and employment in manufacturing continue to decrease. At the same time, prices have risen sharply over the past year. From March to September of last year, the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Metals and Metal Products rose roughly by 10 points, from 132 to 143. In autos, Fitch Ratings places the 60-plus-day auto-loan delinquency rate at a record high, with new car prices averaging more than $50,000 for the first time. 

Taken together, tariffs have taxed consumers while failing to deliver the promised production gains — manufacturing, in effect, a kind of policy-made madness. In addition, affordability is now casting a long shadow over the economy, especially when tariffs are applied to goods the United States has little or no capacity to produce at scale, such as bananas and coffee, revealing the bluntness of broad-based tariff policy and a poor understanding of America’s own production capacities.

The idea that tariffs can serve as a magic wand to revive industry rests on a false premise of government action in the economy. Governments do not trade and create prosperity. Firms and individuals do, as they truck, barter, and exchange their way toward a better future.

Artificial Intelligence National Policy

On December 11, 2025, Donald Trump set into motion a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. This Executive Order is designed to preempt state law: “My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant state laws. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.”

“Defending the Constitution” must mean something different in Washington, because the Tenth Amendment speaks exactly against this sort of power concentration. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

Consolidating rules under one roof in this manner reflects poorly on the constitutional design in which each state has room to craft laws for its own people. How else can competing ideas be tried and tested if all states operate under a single federal banner? In other words, these blanket rules reduce the space for experimentation and creative destruction while concentrating power in firms such as: Microsoft, Alphabet, and OpenAI, companies that can retain large legal teams to navigate such federal laws.

Moreover, the “minimally burdensome national standard” comes equipped with an AI Litigation Task Force designed to pressure states into conformity with the new federal framework. “The Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section two of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce.” In an effort to combat bureaucracy at the state level, the response is a new federal bureaucracy to police the states under a single policy.

An Executive Unchecked

Like Order 66, Executive Orders 14257 on tariffs and 14179 on AI policy reflect the modern temptation to treat governance as command rather than consent. When the executive frames trade deficits or emerging technologies as emergencies that demand immediate action, policy is issued from the center and enforced through agencies and litigation rather than deliberated through Congress and tested through federalism. The result is not merely bad policy in tariffs or AI; it is a constitutional shift. Each precedent for unilateral action becomes a template for the next, producing regulatory whiplash; one president governs by decree, the next reverses by Autopen, and eroding the stability that firms, households, and states require to plan. Over time, the republic begins to function less like a system of separated powers and more like an administrative chain of command. It is therefore no wonder that trust in government, according to Pew Research, has sunk to historic lows: “Just 17 percent of Americans now say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just about always’ (2 percent) or ‘most of the time’ (15 percent).”

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, anticipated this entire problem. In Federalist No. 10, he warned that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm,” which is precisely why a free society cannot rely on the character or self-restraint of any single officeholder. The constitutional design assumes that emergencies will be invoked, passions will flare, and interests will press for advantage. The remedy is not to hope for better rulers, but to preserve the institutions that force restraint and distribute power. When emergency governance becomes routine, the public is asked to substitute trust in process with trust in personalities. A republic cannot remain stable on those terms.

A practical way to begin breaking this executive ratchet is to restore Congress as a genuine counterweight, and that requires rebuilding its federalist character. The Senate was originally intended to represent state governments as political units, not simply to mirror national party coalitions. The Seventeenth Amendment’s shift in 1912 to direct election, instead of election by state governments, altered senators’ incentives entirely. Direct election may be democratic, however it weakens the Senate’s original function as an institutional representative of state governments, thereby weakening federalism as a check on executive power. Instead of being accountable primarily to state legislatures and state institutional interests, they increasingly respond to national party lines and Washington’s internal logic. Repealing that amendment, so senators are once again anchored to state interests, would strengthen oversight of the executive, improve the representation of states within Congress, and rebalance authority between the states and the federal government. In one swift motion, both the federal government and the executive branch would be restrained while providing an incentive for people to care about state government affairs. 

If America wants a genuine golden age, it will not be issued by Executive Order, it will be rebuilt by restoring the limits that make self-government possible.

by
Read More
In Economy

How Money Laundering Became a Catch-All Excuse to Bully and Surveil

No Comments

At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville in July of 2024, then-candidate Donald Trump made a campaign promise to end the war against the use and development of cryptocurrencies. This war was coined “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” and led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission Gary Gensler, and the Biden Administration. Despite Trump’s obvious relatively relaxed stance on “crypto”, the Biden-era “Chokepoint 2.0” lingers on: the CEO of Bitcoin “mixer” Samourai Wallet sentenced to five years in prison by the Southern District of New York on November 6. (So-called “mixers” allow users of cryptocurrencies to obtain a level of privacy not normally possible on public blockchains). 

While the charge that ultimately stuck against Samourai Wallet CEO Keonne Rodriguez was conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business, repeated accusations of money laundering were used to build the case against him. 

In a similar case in August 2024, a jury found Ethereum developer Roman Storm guilty of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. In this case also, Storm was also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, because the privacy tool that he developed was alleged to have been used by nefarious actors. In the end, the jury’s lack of unanimous agreement meant the money laundering charge did not stick. 

In the respective cases against both Rodriguez and Storm, prosecutors decided that money laundering (or conspiracy to launder) was a charge worth stacking against them to make the overall activities they were involved with appear to be of greater severity. And in both cases again, the charge that they were ultimately found guilty of (unlicensed money transmitting) doesn’t pass any reasonable smell test given that both Samourai Wallet and Tornado Cash were “non-custodial.” Neither service ever took custody of the coins to begin with, so they could not have “transmitted” funds, legally or otherwise. This was also the conclusion of lawyers at the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). 

Why Anti–Money Laundering Now Touches Everything

Money laundering is a topic that often comes up in financial matters of all kinds. Over recent years, especially since the birth and growth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, anti-money laundering (AML) efforts have expanded substantially by governments, central and commercial banks, and by intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In fact, under the present climate, law-abiding individuals can hardly interact with a financial institution of any kind anywhere in the world without having to answer questions about source of funds, take repeated selfies from various angles, and upload photos of government-issued documents, and more — even when dealing with small amounts of money. 

As a result of AML, financial institutions across the internet find that they hold treasure troves of sensitive user data that serves as a high value target for hackers to be exploited and sold on Darknet marketplaces. 

In short, regulators have built a giant industry that imposes high costs onto private sector actors and taxpayers without much discussion of costs versus benefits. As such, the subject matter of AML efforts demands a revisit. 

Blind Spots and Perverse Incentives

The term ‘money laundering’ was coined after the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, yet it was not formalized into law with any federal offense until the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986. 

These days, law enforcement and regulatory agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Financial Action Task Force (FATF) typically use the term alongside other terms that imply an obvious victim needing protection: ‘terrorist financing’, ‘human trafficking’. This is meant to provoke a strong reaction against money laundering as a practice. One problem with the association of money laundering with these other terms that obviously justify a strong response to prevent them is that money laundering does not, in itself, always have a clear victim. As such (at least from a classically liberal point of view), it is not clear that money laundering’s illegality is justified — at least not in every case. 

To understand this, consider that the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 emphasizes that money laundering involves the transacting with and concealing of criminally derived property. While this may seem reasonable on the face of it, it should be stressed that nearly everyone can think of something that is illegal that (from their own moral code) should not be. 

So, for example, libertarians typically criticize America’s Drug War, arguing that recreational drug use is generally a victimless crime. If someone sells a small amount of marijuana for a $50 banknote, then pretends that it was derived from the sale of ice cream, that could be considered money laundering – even though there is no victim. Both buyer and seller are happy. Whether law enforcement would typically charge someone of money laundering in a minor case like this or whether it would hold up in court is besides the point. Money laundering can – at least in some cases – be a victimless crime and even be said to protect life and property, despite its illegality. 

No sensible person wants to live in a world in which a Leviathan state is omniscient and omnipotent, capable of cracking down on every minor infraction. (It is noteworthy that Switzerland became a global hub for financial privacy because persecuted Calvinists there knew very well the importance of that privacy to their freedom and safety).

Next, it is important to consider some problems with the AML machine, as it is in practice. Four points made by authors Norbert Michel and David Burton at the Heritage Foundation are worth noting. 

First, the vast majority of money laundering investigations, indictments, and convictions on the federal level in the United States are by the IRS, not the FBI. This strongly suggests that its primary use case is to maximize tax revenues, not to protect victims (as repeatedly mentioning money laundering alongside terrorist financing and human trafficking suggests that it does). 

Second, it is impossible to demonstrate any effectiveness of anti-money laundering efforts as a tool to crack down on more serious crimes since law enforcement typically charges alleged offenders with money laundering and non-money-laundering crimes simultaneously. Michel and Burton write that this practice “[makes] it difficult to tell whether law enforcement discovered a drug crime because of money laundering or vice versa.”

Third, no matter how you splice the numbers, the cost to taxpayers to convict a person for money laundering is several million dollars each, and sometimes in the hundreds of millions – and none of this even includes the hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs to the private sector every year. 

And fourth, tax evasion is often cited as a justification for AML. But as Burton and Michel argue, crimes in one country are often not considered crimes in other countries and therefore do not justify data sharing between governments (as AML legislation requires) under the principle of dual criminality. Tax evasion is, in some countries, a civil violation (not a criminal one). So to use tax evasion as a justification for AML data sharing is about as misguided as using “speaking out against one’s government, peaceful political or labor organizing, gambling, [or] homosexual behavior.” 

Consider just one example that demonstrates how AML has run amok outside the United States. In New Zealand, like in many parts of the world, someone accused of a crime maintains the legal right to attorney-client privilege. That privilege does not apply, however, in cases of suspected money laundering. So, if you commit a series of violent murders in New Zealand, you have full right to a proper legal defense, but if your attorney suspects you may be involved with money laundering, he is required to submit a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) about you – and thereby do exactly the opposite of what attorneys exist to do in the first place. This reveals backwards governance priorities of policymakers. 

And lastly, the elephant in the room. While AML efforts globally impose enormous costs onto taxpayers, private businesses, and the economy more broadly, it should be noted that the primary offenders are some of the world’s largest banks. Add to that, many activities conducted by government agencies themselves or by private actors on behalf of these agencies certainly rhyme with money laundering.

To cite just one example, recent discoveries of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities from 1979 onwards reveal that while he worked for Bear Stearns, he was responsible for concealing the true sources of funds for illegal arms deals on behalf of intelligence agencies of various governments. So while the AML regime is promoted as one that hinders crime, it seems ineffective at hindering crimes committed by the politically powerful.

AML is a Regulatory Attempt to Erode Privacy and Property Rights

The first “Crypto Wars” of the 1990s established the legal precedent that computer source code is protected speech under the First Amendment. What remains of the ongoing Biden-era Operation Chokepoint 2.0 lawfare threatens that precedent. Additionally, the privacy protections intended by the Fourth Amendment are under fire nearly everywhere in the world when it comes to financial privacy. In the United States, the chief enemies to it are the Bank Secrecy Act, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), PATRIOT Act, the Money Laundering Control Act, and Chokepoint 2.0 — all regulatory attempts at weakening property rights in one way or another. 

There are ways in which anti-money laundering laws can be rationally justified from different perspectives. But given that AML creates a new class of victims for exposure to frequent data breaches, given that it is not clear just how effective AML is at revealing more serious (non-money-laundering) crimes, given the enormous cost to taxpayers and to the private sector, given that money laundering can be a victimless crime, and given that it is a tool of choice for prosecutors to shut down founders and developers who provide much-desired financial privacy to cryptocurrency users, it is time to call AML out for what it is: an enormously wasteful scheme and abuse of power.

by
Read More
In Latest News

Bipartisan lawmakers propose bill to block military action against NATO members amid threats to take Greenland

No Comments

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is introducing a bill aimed at restricting any unauthorized military action by President Donald Trump, amid growing debate over his comments about acquiring Greenland ‘one way or the other.’

Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., is leading the legislation along with Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., according to POLITICO.

‘This is about our fundamental shared goals and our fundamental security, not just in Europe, but in the United States itself,’ Keating said in a statement to the outlet.

The group involved in the effort is soliciting broader support for the legislation and say they hope additional Republicans will back the effort to restrict funding for any unauthorized military action against U.S. allies.

In a letter to colleagues, Keating said ‘this legislation takes a clear stand against such action and further supports NATO allies and partners,’ according to POLITICO.

While the measure does not specifically name any specific countries, it is clearly in response to Trump’s repeated threats against Greenland.

Keating said the decision to omit Greenland’s name was meant to broaden the legislation’s focus. He said he met with the Danish Ambassador and the head of Greenland representation.

‘This isn’t just about Greenland. This is about our security,’ Keating said.

Keating also said he believes slashing funding is the most impactful way to disincentivize Trump administration officials from taking action.

‘War powers are important, but we’ve seen with Democratic and Republican presidents that that’s not as effective,’ he said. ‘It’s hard to get around having no funds or not allowing personnel to do it.’

This comes after the Senate advanced a bipartisan resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro. The Upper Chamber could pass the measure later this week, although its future in the House remains uncertain despite some support from Republicans.

On Greenland, administration officials are openly weighing options such as military force to take the Danish territory, a move that would violate NATO’s Article V, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them and could end the alliance of more than 75 years.

‘We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,’ Trump said on Friday. ‘Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.’

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders reaffirmed last week that the self-governing island has no interest in becoming part of the U.S.

‘We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,’ the leaders said, adding that Greenland’s ‘future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.’

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as well as the leaders of Italy, Spain and Poland, also signed a letter stating: ‘Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.’

The chance of expanding U.S. control over Greenland has drawn mixed reactions from Congress. While most Democrats have opposed the idea, some Republicans have voiced support for pursuing closer ties with the territory.

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., who introduced legislation to make it the 51st U.S. state, although he said the best way to acquire Greenland is voluntarily.

‘I think it is in the world’s interest for the United States to exert sovereignty over Greenland,’ Fine told Fox News Digital.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Doug Casey: Gold, Silver, Uranium, Oil/Gas — My Focus in 2026

No Comments

Doug Casey of InternationalMan.com and the podcast Doug Casey’s Take shares his thoughts on gold, silver and more heading into the new year.

Casey, who is also a best-selling author, sees higher prices for both precious metals ahead.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Pentagon Deal Seeks to Create First Large-scale US Gallium Facility

No Comments

The Trump administration is considering a direct equity stake in a Louisiana-based refinery to establish what officials say would become the only large-scale producer of gallium in the US.

The Department of Defense is set to invest US$150 million in preferred equity in Atlantic Alumina, known as ATALCO, as part of a strategic partnership with an affiliate of Pinnacle Asset Management, according to Bloomberg.

The unannounced deal will fund an expansion of ATALCO’s alumina output and the construction of a new circuit to recover gallium, a critical metal used in military systems and advanced semiconductors.

Under the agreement, ATALCO will pair the Pentagon’s investment with an additional US$300 million from Pinnacle. The US government is also expected to provide additional funding within 30 days of the transaction’s closing.

“This strategic partnership is an essential step in reducing reliance on foreign nations for critical minerals,” ATALCO said.

Once fully built out, the facility is expected to produce more than 1 million metric tons of alumina annually and up to 50 metric tons of gallium per year. Gallium is typically recovered as a by-product of alumina refining, and China currently dominates both global alumina processing and gallium supply.

ATALCO has operated continuously since the late 1950s at its refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, where it processes Jamaican bauxite into alumina, a fine white powder used in aluminum production.

After the closure of a neighboring refinery in 2020, the facility became the last alumina refinery of its kind in the country. The company says it currently supplies roughly 40 percent of domestic alumina demand.

The investment is a continuation of the Trump administration’s shift toward taking direct financial stakes in companies it views as strategically important in its effort to rebuild a domestic supply chain for rare earths and critical minerals.

Last November, the government backed a US$1.4 billion public-private partnership involving Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies, a subsidiary of American Resources (NASDAQ:AREC), to expand domestic rare earth magnet production.

In October, officials explored taking an equity stake in Critical Metals (NASDAQ:CRML), a US-listed company developing Greenland’s Tanbreez rare earths deposit.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Rare Earths Market Forecast: Top Trends for Rare Earths in 2026

No Comments

Aided by rising demand for permanent magnets, the rare earths market entered 2025 on firmer footing, with prices and investor sentiment trending higher.

That early optimism, however, was quickly overtaken by mounting geopolitical risk as US-China trade tensions returned rare earths to the center of global supply chain concerns.

Through the first quarter, uncertainty around tariffs and the prospect of tighter Chinese controls weighed heavily on downstream industries and reinforced the strategic value of rare earths.

That risk crystallized in early April, when China issued Announcement 18, a sweeping export control regime covering a range of medium and heavy rare earths — including terbium, dysprosium, samarium and yttrium — as well as related oxides, alloys, compounds and permanent magnet technologies.

Framed by Beijing as a national security and nonproliferation measure, the policy added a new layer of regulatory friction to supply chains underpinning electric vehicles, defense systems, clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

The response was swift. In Washington, the Trump administration moved to reassess US critical minerals security, singling out rare earths as a strategic vulnerability.

“An overreliance on foreign critical minerals and their derivative products could jeopardize US defense capabilities, infrastructure development, and technological innovation,” the White House said, underscoring a shift from market-driven concern to national security imperative.

For Jon Hykawy, president and chief executive at Stormcrow Capital, the Trump administration’s rare earths ambitions and its understanding of the minerals markets was the most impactful trend of 2025, commenting, “By far the biggest impact was the implication from re-elected US President Donald Trump that rare earths and other critical materials, to be found in Ukraine or Greenland or Canada or wherever, are the most bigly important things, ever.’

The seasoned market analyst also questions the administration’s broader goals.

“Critical materials are, to me, what is necessary for ensuring that important projects can be completed,’ he said.

‘But President Trump has also decided that climate change is a scam, that electrified vehicles and wind power are terrible and coal and oil are where it’s at,’ Hykawy continued.

‘In that case, whether or not Trump has even the concept of a plan regarding what a rare earth actually is, and he isn’t using ‘rare earth’ as a catch-all phrase for ‘weird metal that I don’t know how to spell,’ then rare earths or lithium are not critical materials, as far as the USA should be concerned: if you don’t need ‘em, they ain’t critical.”

China’s rare earths chokehold exposes supply chain fault lines

By mid-year, the impact of China’s controls was being felt most acutely in the automotive sector. European suppliers warned of production shutdowns as licensing delays rippled through tightly integrated supply chains.

The Asian nation controls roughly 70 percent of global rare earths mine output, as well as 85 percent of refining capacity and about 90 percent of magnet manufacturing.

That concentration left markets highly exposed when Beijing escalated restrictions again in October, expanding export controls to cover a total of 12 rare earths and associated permanent magnets.

Although some measures were later paused through November 2026, earlier dual-use restrictions stayed in place, reinforcing the perception that rare earths are now a tool of geopolitical leverage.

“At its core, China has shown a greater willingness to use its dominance in critical minerals to advance its trade and geopolitical influence, potentially causing significant disruptions to global supply chains for industries like automotive, aerospace, defense, and electronics,” states a S&P Global Energy report.

Against that backdrop, efforts to diversify supply accelerated.

In the US, government support moved from rhetoric to capital. The Department of Defense committed US$400 million to MP Materials (NYSE:MP) to expand processing at Mountain Pass and build a second domestic magnet plant, securing a US-based source of permanent magnets for defense applications.

Days later, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) announced a US$500 million agreement with MP to supply recycled rare earth magnets for hundreds of millions of devices starting in 2027, tying supply chain security to sustainability.

As Hykawy explained, these developments are setting the stage for ex-China supply:

“We are at the beginning of producing, processing and utilizing rare earths in a supply chain entirely outside of China. There is absolutely nothing that prevents us from building that western supply chain except time and money. Rare earth deposits of all types, including ionic clays and their relatively inexpensive production of heavy rare earths, are readily available outside of China.”

He went on to note that there has been a misconception about the impacts of rare earths production, paired with a lack of investment and expertise that has prevented a faster buildout.

“It’s a media cliché that rare earth mining and processing is somehow much more destructive to the environment than other types of mining, but that’s also just plain wrong,” Hykawy added.

“Unfortunately, building that supply chain will take money and, especially, time, because we need the people who know how to do all of this, and there is no substitute for the time required to give them their required experience.”

Rare earths supply security and growing demand

As global demand for rare earths accelerates and supply chain risks heighten, experts believe the sector’s importance on the global stage will keep intensifying.

During a Benchmark Week presentation, Michael Finch of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence explained that rare earths have “become far more strategic in nature” over recent years, with applications spanning electric vehicles, consumer electronics, wind energy, robotics and modern military systems.

While permanent magnets remain a headline driver, non-magnetic uses now account for a larger share of total demand, underscoring the material’s broad industrial importance.

Demand projections for rare earths forecast robust growth, underpinned key segment expansion.

According to Finch’s data an average 100 kW EV traction motor contains roughly five kilograms of neodymium-praseodymium and about one kilogram of dysprosium oxide, illustrating how electrification is fueling consumption.

Additionally, permanent magnet applications are projected to grow at an 8.5 percent compound annual rate through 2030, with magnetic and non-magnetic uses expected to reach parity over the next decade.

Military demand is also a significant driver.

“(There are) 418 kilograms of rare earths going into an F 35 type two fighter (jet), 2.6 metric tons going into a type 51 (naval) destroyer, and 4.6 metric tons going into a Virginia class submarine,” said Finch.

As stated, supply remains heavily concentrated in China which controls 91 percent of the overall supply chain, from mining to permanent magnets. Finch emphasized that this concentration creates a single-country risk, noting, “When a country owns so much of a supply chain, it’s easy to use it as a bargaining chip.”

The global rare earths supply chain is gradually diversifying. North America and Africa are emerging as key growth regions, with projects expected to significantly expand non-Chinese production in the coming decade.

Finch pointed to Africa, which could account for up to 7 percent of global supply after 2030, driven by low capital intensity and favorable mining costs. Despite this progress, he cautioned that complete self-sufficiency outside China remains a distant prospect, emphasizing the need for rapid investment and strategic coordination to secure supply.

Rare earths investment bolstered by government support

In addition to the Department of Defense’s MP Materials investment, the US government has established a price floor for NdPr oxide, the high-value rare earths ingredient inside permanent magnets.

During a fireside chat at Benchmark Week, Ryan Corbett, CFO of MP Materials, explained the impact of the price floor in support of the burgeoning US supply chain. He told the audience that the deal is “absolutely transformational,’ and pointed to China’s ability to control pricing by flooding or starving the market. “What good is it to invest billions of dollars if the second you turn your refinery on, prices go from US$170 to US$45?” said Corbett.

In October, the Trump administration announced another strategic investment aimed at reshoring critical supply chains through a US$1.4 billion public-private partnership with Vulcan Elements and ReElement Technologies.

Under the agreement, the Commerce Department will provide US$50 million in CHIPS Act incentives for neodymium-iron-boron magnet production in exchange for an equity stake, alongside up to US$700 million in conditional Defense Department loans to support facilities targeting up to 10,000 metric tons of annual output.

On the private investment side, Rare earths developer Pensana (LSE:PRE,OTCPL:PNSPF) secured a US$100 million strategic investment to advance its mine-to-magnet ambitions in the US, at the end of 2025.

Although the rare earths sector saw several multimillion-dollar deals in 2025, exploration capital remains scarce.

According to S&P Global’s Senior Principal Analyst, Mining Studies & Mine Economics, Paul Manalo the rare earths account for 1 percent of global exploration budgets, however, that number has improved in recent years.

“For the sixth consecutive year, budgets for rare earths were up reaching US$155 million in 2025; it’s the highest level since 2012,” Manalo said during the S&P Global Market Intelligence 2026 Corporate Exploration Strategies webinar.

Although exploration budgets are growing, the expert said 80 percent of that capital is being deployed in only four countries: Australia, Brazil, USA and Canada. “Just like in other minor metals, the juniors are the primary drivers for exploration of rare earths, with only a few majors dabbling in it,” Manalo told listeners, adding, “There are few rare earth mines outside of China, so most pending exploration is for late stage projects.”

The government funding and strategic stockpile proposal were acknowledged as a good starting point by Stormcrow Capital’s Hykawy, who also cautioned that they may not be as meaningful as markets anticipate.

“I give the efforts so far an ‘A’ for enthusiasm but a ‘C-‘ for effectiveness. From what I have seen, the powers-that-be are beavering away to create a supply chain that can provide what the world is demanding, today,” he said.

“Unfortunately, many of their efforts can’t bear fruit for 5 years or more, and none of these agencies seemed to think it worthwhile to try and evaluate what will be required in 5 or 10 years.”

More long-term foresight is needed.

“Technology giveth, but technology also taketh away, and while no one can be sure what the technology-driven need will be in 5 or 10 years, we should at least try to incorporate that into planning,” he said.

“If the wrong projects are being backed, the economics for that producer or processor in 5 or 10 years are not going to look good and money and time will have been completely wasted.”

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Questcorp and Riverside Make New Gold Discovery in Initial Drill Results from Luis Hill and Famosa Targets at Union Project, Sonora, Mexico

No Comments

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) along with its partner Riverside Resources Inc. (TSXV: RRI) (OTCQB: RVSDF) (FSE: 5YY0) (‘Riverside’), is pleased to announce a new discovery of potential Carlin-like gold mineralization at the Luis Hill target within the La Union Project in Sonora, Mexico.

Initial drilling in the Luis Hill target returned a 42m @ 0.3 g/t gold drill-width intersection of sediment-hosted gold mineralization in black shales and carbonate strata—a style not previously recognized at the Union Project. This was the only hole drilled into the Luis Hill target during the initial H2 2025 drill program.

Highlights of the Drill Program:

  • Target Reporting: This release reports results from Luis Hill, Famosa, and Famosa Mag targets.
  • New Discovery: Discovery of previously unknown Carlin-like gold mineralization in black shales and carbonate strata at Luis Hill, returning 0.3 g/t gold over 42m. Results to date show sulfides, mineralization types, and intrusions aligned with a carbonate-hosted metal system.
  • Program Scale: Completed 12 core holes totaling >1,600 m across six targets: the past-producing Union, Union Norte, and Famosa Mine, as well as Cobre, Luis Hill, and Famosa EM.
  • Assays Pending: Over 700 half-core samples have been shipped; further assays are pending for Union, Union North and Cobre targets.
  • Strategic Orientation: Holes were oriented at angled and near-vertical positions to cut stratigraphy and structures typical of Carbonate Replacement Deposit (CRD) systems, focusing beneath oxidized horizons generally <150 m in depth.

Questcorp President & CEO, Saf Dhillon stated, ‘We are incredibly pleased with the work from the team at Riverside Resources. This story is starting to evolve quite efficiently, especially considering a first phase of drilling is more of a data gathering process that is utilized primarily to hone future work programs. Hitting a number of gold anomalies in the early stages is very promising as we continue to work towards making a new potential discovery in the rich Sonora Gold Belt. I believe 2026 could be an inflection point for the success and growth of both Questcorp and Riverside!’

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_001.jpg

Figure 1- Luis Hill cross section with drill hole 9.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_001full.jpg

Target Hole_ID Starting at Length (m) Au_ppm Comments
Luis Hill UND25-009 198.25 42.70 0.286 Shale hosted, silicification, CRD style alteration
   
Famosa Targets
Famosa Mine UND25-004 19.10 14.90 Test CRD mineralization (Manto)
     
UND25-005 39.10 1.85 0.345
UND25-011 11.50 11.85 Test CRD Mineralization (Manto) at Famosa Mine
UND25-012 9.65 17.45
Including 14.90 2.00 0.162
Famosa EM UND25-010 146.40 1.65 0.134 Test EM Geophysics anomaly
 

 

Table 1- Assay results table with gold for Luis Hill hole 9, Famosa Area holes 4, 5, 10, 11, 12.

Riverside CEO, John-Mark Staude, states,

‘Riverside is pleased to be working with Questcorp on the Union Project and these first 6 drill holes, representing half of the program so far is exciting and sets up for the next news release of the next 6 holes of the overall 12-hole program. Hole 9 into the Luis Hill exploration target is an exciting start finding a new western area that has scale and could be a great step for the program. Drilling at Famosa was positive for the structure and further drilling is warranted along strike north and south for over 1 km is wide open for discovery there and past assay results in earlier news releases of high-grade gold and past mining, make the Famosa area a priority as well. We are excited for a good 2026 and next exploration phase at Union.’

Luis Hill Target Detail

Hole 9 was drilled vertically in the southern area of a large, 1,500m by 500m magnetic high Luis Hill target. While Hole 9 did not hit an obvious large magnetic source, however several magnetic dioritic dikes which may be emanating from a deeper, larger magnetic source likely intermediate composition intrusion were intersected. The discovery interval consists of gold in siliceously replaced jasperoid-like dolomite and silica flooded black shale, which is similar to some sediment hosted gold deposits in Nevada (USGS Prof Paper 1267, 1985). The discovery, a new finding for this part of Sonora, is important for both the property and in the region as it shows the potential for previously unknown sediment hosted gold inside of one of the most prolific gold belts in Mexico, the Sonora Gold Belt – also referred to as the Megashear Gold Belt in past scientific studies. Folding and Basin and Range block faulting is expected to bring the mineralized formations closer to surface for 2026 H1 drilling within the magnetic target area. The Companies feel Luis Hill has the potential to become a major new discovery in Mexico.

The discovery interval of 0.3 g/t gold over 42 metres included 23 assay intervals ranging in width from 0.45m to 2m, with assays ranging from 0.005 g/t to 1.31 g/t gold. Fifteen intervals returned gold values in excess of 0.1 g/t, with three in excess of 0.5 g/t.

Sample ID m From m To Interval Au_ppm Sample ID m From m To Interval Au_ppm
RRI-U545 198.25 200.25 2 0.38 RRI-U557 219.5 221.5 2 0.014
RRI-U546 200.25 202.25 2 0.678 RRI-U558 221.5 223.5 2 0.012
RRI-U547 202.25 203.8 1.55 0.393 RRI-U559 223.5 225.5 2 0.187
RRI-U548 203.8 205.8 2 0.007 RRI-U561 225.5 226.9 1.4 0.011
RRI-U549 205.8 207.8 2 -0.005 RRI-U562 226.9 228.3 1.4 0.114
RRI-U550 207.8 209.8 2 0.059 RRI-U563 228.3 228.9 0.6 pending
RRI-U551 209.8 211.8 2 0.012 RRI-U564 228.9 230.9 2 0.158
RRI-U552 211.8 213.8 2 0.849 RRI-U565 230.9 232.9 2 0.724
RRI-U553 213.8 215.5 1.7 0.316 RRI-U566 232.9 234.2 1.3 0.135
RRI-U554 215.8 217.8 2 1.31 RRI-U567 234.2 235.55 1.35 0.083
RRI-U555 217.8 218.9 1.1 0.319 RRI-U568 235.55 236 0.45 0.131
RRI-U556 218.9 219.5 0.6 0.321 All intervals are down hole widths.

 

Table 2- Full Assay Interval for UND25-009 Discovery Intersection.

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_002.jpg

Figure 2- Cross section Famosa Mine area with 4 holes intersecting mineralized horizon that is the downdip projection from the Famosa mine and remains open for further drilling along strike north-south and further down dip to the west. Note the map shows how drill holes are projected onto a simplified single plane for schematic purposes.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_002full.jpg

Famosa Mine and Famosa EM Target

This release is also reporting results from the 5 holes drilled at the Famosa Mine and the Famosa Electro-Magnetic (‘EM’) target. Drilling at the Famosa mine focussed on extensions of the CRD mineralization, where past mining and the geology and structure indicate a manto horizon. One hole tested the EM Target located 500 m west of the Famosa Mine workings.

Four core holes tested a west-dipping dolomite manto target and adjacent structures in the Famosa Mine Area, where historical small-scale mining left surface dumps. Dump sampling reported highlight gold grades in excess 0.5 oz/t (>15 g/t) gold as detailed in the May 7, 2025, technical report found under Questcorp’s profile on SEDARplus. Holes were drilled at angles toward the east to intersect the target as close to perpendicular as practical and to evaluate continuity of alteration and mineralization with intrusive dikes and breccias noted in the core logging. A drill width intersection of 1.85m @ 0.345 gold, starting at 39m, on the down dip projection from the horizon at the Famosa Mine 70o CRD shaft was recorded in Hole 5.

Hole 10 tested the Famosa EM target, intersecting the favorable dolomitic stratigraphy. The Famosa drilling results will be followed up.

The summary collar and drilling information for all 12 holes and 1625m drilled in Phase 1 is provided in the table below.

Table for Phase 1 Drilling Union Project H2, 2025 All Holes, 1625m total
Hole_lD Easting Northing Elevation Azimuth Dip Total Depth Target
UND25-001 376043 3347225 358.66 131 -50 198.25 Union Mine
UND25-002 375606 3347813 381.37 65 -50 201.30 El Cobre
UND25-003 376048 3347598 378.34 65 -50 25.90 Union Norte
UND25-004 375137 3344629 360.47 110 -70 129.35 Famosa Mine
UND25-005 375146 3344578 362.35 92 -70 104.80 Famosa Mine
UND25-006 376099 3347627 389.13 100 -80 118.45 Union Norte
UND25-007 376199 3347156 355.46 280 -80 166.20 Union Mine
UND25-008 376111 3347136 369.34 125 -80 128.10 Union Mine
UND25-009 375261 3347551 400.64 0 -90 292.80 Luis Hill
UND25-010 374941 3344765 363.95 90 -70 161.60 Famosa EM
UND25-011 375171 3344608 362.45 90 -85 51.00 Famosa Mine
UND25-012 375171 3344608 362.45 90 -90 47.25 Famosa Mine

 

Table 3- Drill collar information with the bolded and italicized holes are in this news release.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_003full.jpg

Cannot view this image? Visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_004.jpg

Figure 3- Map of the location of the Luis Hill and Famosa areas among the other areas that were drilled and results will be coming next from the other target areas when available.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10197/280127_3a05f3b904909978_004full.jpg

Geological Model and Strategy

The H2 2025 Phase I program was designed to test primary areas of historical mining and key magnetic targets. The program followed the geological model of the South 32 Taylor deposit in southern Arizona. Drilling intersected gold, zinc, and silver indications consistent with vectors toward a major discovery.

Furthermore, the sediment-hosted gold style found at Luis Hill is comparable to Nevada’s carbonate platform geology, making it an intriguing new development area for the Union Project.

Sampling Procedures and QA/QC

Core was logged, saw-cut, and half-core samples were shipped for analysis. Samples from the first eight holes were delivered to Bureau Veritas (Hermosillo, Sonora) for gold fire assay, with pulps forwarded to Vancouver, Canada for Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (‘ICP-MS’) following four-acid digestion to determine silver, base metals, and pathfinders. Samples from the final four holes were shipped to ACT Labs Zacatecas, where preparation, gold assay, and multi-element ICP are completed in Mexico. The final 4 holes of the program were shipped to ACT Labs where they were similarly assayed using the same processing methods but with their initial preparation and assaying completed in Zacatecas, Mexico using the same ICP and gold fire assay methods. The change in lab halfway through the program was due to assay turn around issues. Samples were maintained in chain of custody being delivered to the laboratory in sealed bags. Remaining half-cores are retained for reference.

Standards were inserted every 20 samples and blanks every 100 samples. The laboratory also did duplicates every 20 samples as additional check on the quality control. The QA/QC was analyzed with a check for any variations in the standards beyond 2 standard deviations and the standards passed.

Next Steps

After all assays are interpreted and released, the Companies will work together on organizing the H1 2026 Phase 2 exploration program, building from the Phase I exploration results. Along with follow-up drilling, Phase 2 will likely include geophysics, geochemistry and mapping. The results announced here are exciting for the western Luis Hill area, which has never seen prior drilling, although small scale mines indicate potential locations. Based on these drill results, a focused follow-up is strongly warranted at Union for this target, as well as other targets.

The Companies are diligently working toward an expanded drill program for H1 2026, as all permits and access are in good standing. With the new data, targets will be ready to explore, with the potential to immediately begin field work portions early this year.

The Company will release the next set of drill results once a QA/QC review is completed.

Qualified Person:

The technical content of the new release has been reviewed and approved by R. Tim Henneberry, P.Geo (British Columbia), a director of the company and a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101.

The Union Agreement

Questcorp currently holds an option to earn a 100% interest in the Union Project with business terms announced May 6, 2025, and align Questcorp and Riverside through Riverside being a share owner initially 9.9% of Questcorp and upon earn-in Riverside will become a 19.9% share owner and retain a 2.5% NSR.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp Mining is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metals properties of merit. The company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100-per-cent interest in and to mineral claims totalling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island copper property, on Vancouver Island, B.C., subject to a royalty obligation. The company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100-per-cent interest in and to mineral claims totalling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

Saf Dhillon
President & CEO

Questcorp Mining Inc.
saf@questcorpmining.ca
Tel. (604-484-3031)

Suite 550, 800 West Pender Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6C 2V6.

Certain statements in this news release are forward-looking statements, which reflect the expectations of management regarding completion of survey work at the North Island Copper project. Forward-looking statements consist of statements that are not purely historical, including any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results, performance or developments to differ materially from those contained in the statements. No assurance can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will occur or, if they do occur, what benefits the Company will obtain from them. Except as required by the securities disclosure laws and regulations applicable to the Company, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/280127

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Jack Smith to testify next week at a public House Judiciary Committee hearing

No Comments

Former special counsel Jack Smith will testify in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee next week, giving Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the panel a chance to grill him in a public setting on his prosecutions of President Donald Trump.

Smith will appear before the committee on Jan. 22, one month after he sat for a closed-door deposition with the committee and testified for eight hours about his special counsel work, a source familiar told Fox News Digital.

Smith had long said he wanted to speak to the committee publicly, and although Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, first demanded the deposition, the chairman also said an open hearing was on the table.

Smith investigated Trump and brought two indictments against him over the 2020 election and alleged retention of classified documents. Trump pleaded not guilty and aggressively fought the charges, and Smith dropped both cases when Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Department of Justice policy that discourages prosecuting sitting presidents.

In a public hearing, House lawmakers will be able to question Smith in five-minute increments, whereas in the deposition, each party questioned Smith in one-hour sessions. Politico first reported that Smith would appear for a hearing sometime this month.

Smith gave little new information during his initial meeting with the committee and defended his work.

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith said, according to a transcript of the deposition. ‘We took actions based on what the facts, and the law required, the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.’

Smith said he followed DOJ policy when his team made the controversial decision to subpoena numerous Republican senators’ and House members’ phone records as part of his 2020 election probe. Smith noted the subpoenas sought a narrow set of data.

‘If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators [to delay the election certification proceedings], we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,’ Smith said.

The Republicans have said the subpoenas were unconstitutional violations of the speech or debate clause, and they have broadly said the Biden DOJ abused its authority by bringing, in their view, politicized criminal charges against a former president and presidential candidate.

Trump, who has long decried Smith as a ‘thug’ and said he belongs in jail, has said he welcomes Smith at a public hearing.

Asked about Smith’s appearance next week, a representative for Smith provided a statement from one of his lawyers, Lanny Breuer.

‘Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents,’ Breuer said.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

10 Biggest Cannabis Stocks in the US and Canada in 2026

No Comments

After a year of stop‑start policy signals, the US cannabis market ended 2025 with a new wave of attention as US President Donald Trump moved to accelerate federal cannabis rescheduling efforts.

His December executive order directing the attorney general to complete the process of shifting marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III has energized the sector. At the same time, companies are reshaping product portfolios around changing consumer behavior, with rapid growth in edibles and rising interest in cannabis‑infused beverages as smoke‑free formats gain traction.

With policy catalysts still unfolding and demand trends evolving, many investors are revisiting the space. For those looking to get exposure, starting with the key US and Canadian names held by major cannabis exchange‑traded funds (ETFs) offers a practical way to focus on the largest, most established public operators.

This list of the biggest publicly traded cannabis companies was put together based on the top-weighted cannabis stocks included in the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (ARCA:MSOS) and the Global X Marijuana Life Sciences Index ETF (TSX: HMMJ) as of January 2, 2026. Share price information for the companies was accurate as of that time.

US cannabis market

Cannabis is federally illegal in the US, but state market openings have allowed some operators to thrive. Typically these firms set up vertically integrated businesses with a focus on branded products, retail networks and licenses.

While these companies have adapted to regulatory challenges, they have much to gain from country-level reform in the US, and are eager to see more welcoming federal laws that will allow their businesses to develop further.

Top cannabis stocks in the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF

The AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF provides exposure to public companies exclusively operating within the US cannabis industry. By investing in companies that are working in states with clear guidelines, MSOS gives investors a way to be more selective about the types of cannabis companies they’re investing in.

1. Trulieve Cannabis (CSE:TRUL,OTCQX:TCNNF)

ETF weight: 24.53 percent
Market cap: C$2.28 billion
Share price: C$11.91

Trulieve is a major player in the cannabis industry, with a strong focus on medical cannabis. The company offers a diverse selection of cannabis products, including flower, pre-rolls, concentrates, edibles, topicals and more.

Vertically integrated, Trulieve Cannabis has over 200 dispensaries across the US. It holds a dominant market share in its home state of Florida, and also has a significant presence in Arizona and Pennsylvania.

2. Curaleaf Holdings (CSE:CURA)

ETF weight: 22.25 percent
Market cap: C$2.76 billion
Share price: C$3.58

Cureleaf Holdings also has a significant presence in the US cannabis market, with 158 dispensaries and several cultivation centers across 17 states. The company is also continuing its expansion into the European cannabis sector, with a July 2025 buyout of its minority partner for full control and a partnership with Australia Natural Therapeutics Group to supply medical cannabis to the UK.

Curaleaf has a wide range of brands covering a variety of cannabis product types, including flower, vapes, edibles and hemp-derived THC beverages.

3. Green Thumb Industries (CSE:GTII,OTCQX:GTBIF)

ETF weight: 20.93 percent
Market cap: C$2.57 billion
Share price: C$11.10

Green Thumb Industries is a multi-state operator (MSO) with headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. The company is involved in the entire process of the industry, from cultivating and producing cannabis products to selling them in its own retail stores across the US.

Green Thumb Industries produces and distributes a portfolio of well-known cannabis brands like Rythm, Beboe, Dogwalkers, Incredibles and Doctor Solomon’s.

The company previously owned the intellectual property for these brands. However, following a 2025 strategic transaction, Green Thumb now manufactures them under a long-term licensing agreement with RYTHM (NASDAQ:RYM), which changed its name from Agrify following the deal.

4. Cresco Labs (CSE:CL,OTCQX:CRLBF)

ETF weight: 7.01 percent
Market cap: C$774.16 million
Share price: C$1.74

Cresco Labs is a vertically integrated multi-state cannabis operator in the US. Founded in 2013, it is known for its strong brands like Cresco, High Supply and Good News.

Cresco Labs controls its supply chain from cultivation to retail, offering a wide range of products. While it has its own stores, it focuses heavily on wholesale, getting its products into dispensaries across the country.

5. Glass House Brands (CBOE:GLAS.A.U,OTC:GLASF)

ETF weight: 6.79 percent
Market cap: C$481.48 million
Share price: C$8.97

Glass House Brands is a vertically integrated cannabis company focused on the California market and founded in 2015. The company emphasizes sustainable, low-cost production. Glass House controls its products’ full supply chain, cultivating cannabis in large facilities such as its flagship 5.5 million square foot site in Southern California.

Following a federal immigration raid in July 2025 that significantly disrupted operations and impacted Q3 revenue, Glass House says it has overhauled its labor model and expects to reach full production capacity in Q1 2026.

Canadian cannabis market

In 2018, Canada became the first G7 nation to legalize adult-use cannabis and create its own streamlined program regulated by both federal and provincial powers. Since then, companies working in the country have faced ups and downs in dealing with tight marketing rules, high tax rates and ongoing competition with the unregulated market.

Top cannabis stocks in the Global X Marijuana Life Sciences Index ETF

The Global X Marijuana Life Sciences Index ETF was the first cannabis ETF available in Canada, and it holds a variety of publicly traded companies involved in cannabis, along with several non-flower companies.

While HMMJ does not invest in US-based multi-state operators, it does have exposure to the US market through Canadian companies that have interests in the US cannabis industry. Overall, HMMJ is designed to give investors broad exposure to the cannabis industry, with a particular focus on North American companies.

1. Jazz Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:JAZZ)

ETF weight: 10.75 percent
Market cap: US$8.3 billion
Share price: US$136.90

Jazz Pharmaceuticals is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing medicines for people with serious diseases, often with limited or no other options. It has a diverse portfolio of products in areas like sleep disorders, cancer and epilepsy.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ cannabis business stems from its 2021 acquisition of GW Pharmaceuticals and its epilepsy medicine Epidiolex for a whopping US$7.2 billion.

At the American Epilepsy Society 2025 meeting in December, Jazz presented four abstracts on Epidiolex’s non-seizure outcomes and real-world effectiveness in treating rare forms of epilepsies like Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex associated epilepsy.

2. Innovative Industrial Properties (NYSE:IIPR)

ETF weight: 10.06 percent
Market cap: US$1.5 billion
Share price: US$24.56

Innovative Industrial Properties is a real estate investment trust that provides specialized real estate opportunities for cannabis companies in 19 states. Its properties mostly consist of processing plants, greenhouses and warehouses, with retail spaces making up a small percentage of its portfolio.

The firm has provided long-term absolute net lease agreements to some of the cannabis industry’s biggest names, including Green Thumb, TILT Holdings (NEO:TILT,OTCQB:TLLTF), Ascend Wellness (CSE:AAWH.U,OTCQX:AAWH) and Curaleaf. The company’s sale-leaseback program has helped cannabis companies access a source of capital, a much-needed workaround in the US where there are fewer traditional financing options.

3. Cronos Group (NASDAQ:CRON,TSX:CRON)

ETF weight: 9.84 percent
Market cap: US$1.02 billion
Share price: US$2.66

Cronos Group is the Canada-based company behind the Spinach, Peace Naturals and Lord Jones cannabis brands. Founded in 2012, its portfolio spans a wide range of affordable products. In Canada, Cronos’ Spinach brand is in the top three for retail sales in the flower and edible categories.

The company also has a presence in Israel and Germany with its brand Peace Naturals. In late 2023, the company re-entered the German medical cannabis market through its partnership with a German medical cannabis company called Cansativa Group. Cronos serves the Israeli market through its subsidiary Cronos Israel.

4. Tilray Brands (NASDAQ:TLRY)

ETF weight: 9.56 percent
Market cap: US$1.84 billion
Share price: US$1.66

Tilray Brands is a pharmaceutical cannabis company headquartered in New York City, with operations spanning Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, Germany and Portugal. Established in 2013, it was among Canada’s first licensed cannabis producers and has evolved into a global leader in medical and recreational cannabis products. Some of its cannabis brands include Good Supply, Broken Coast and Soleil.

The company operates through several segments, including cannabis cultivation and distribution, and it also owns multiple craft breweries. In 2023, it acquired eight beverage brands and breweries from Anheuser-Busch for US$85 million, expanding into cannabis-infused beverages alongside traditional craft beer.

Recent highlights include a 1:10 reverse stock split in November 2025 and premium vape launches under its Redecan brand.

5. SNDL (NASDAQ:SNDL)

ETF weight: 9.36 percent
Market cap: US$653.8 million
Share price: US$2.54

SNDL, formerly known as Sundial Growers, is the largest private-sector liquor and cannabis retailer on the Canadian market. It cultivates and sells cannabis products under various brands, including Top Leaf, Palmetto, Versus, No Future and more. It focuses on premium indoor cultivation and have a strong presence in the Canadian market.

SNDL has faced financial challenges in the past, but in Q3, the company’s cannabis business revenue grew year-on-year for the 15th consecutive quarter. The company has continued to make strategic investments in 2025, including a deal to acquire 32 cannabis retail stores in two stages.

FAQs for investing in cannabis

Are cannabis stocks worth investing in?

Each investor will have to think and act for themselves to manage their own risk exposure, but it’s no secret that cannabis stocks have taken a beating for some time now. While financial experts point to the long-term upside of US operators as more state markets expand, the stock market has not been kind to these names lately.

Are cannabis stocks considered a high- or low-risk investment?

Cannabis investments are extremely young in the grand scheme of the investment universe. There is an exciting and refreshing element to these stocks, but the market has always been characterized by volatility and unpredictability.

While wild, spontaneous swings in the open market have become less common, cannabis stocks are often moved — both positively and negatively — by big pieces of market news or legalization updates.

Why do people buy cannabis stocks?

Investors may choose to get exposure to the cannabis market as a way to participate in the development of a new drug market with consumer packaged goods capabilities. Some participants are bullish on the industry’s long-term outlook and expect more welcoming laws in the US and across the world to provide upward momentum.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Jeffries says DHS Secretary Noem ‘should be run out of town’ amid ICE shooting backlash

No Comments

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., directed some heated remarks at a Trump administration Cabinet official whose department has been dominating headlines in recent weeks.

‘What is clear is that Kristi Noem is completely and totally unqualified. She should have never been confirmed by Senate Republicans,’ Jeffries said of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary during a Monday press conference. ‘It’s disgraceful that she’s there. She should be run out of town as soon as possible.’

Criticism against Noem, DHS, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has intensified on the left in the wake of a deadly ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis last week.

An ICE agent shot and killed a U.S. citizen, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, who allegedly presented a threat to ICE agents as they attempted to conduct enforcement operations. Partisan fissures have since erupted over which side was acting improperly when the deadly incident occurred.

‘Kristi Noem, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, they’re totally out of control. And the American people want these extremists to be reined in,’ Jeffries said on Monday.

He said Good ‘should be alive today’ and accused both Noem and the ICE agent who shot Good of a ‘depraved indifference toward human life.’

Video of last week’s incident appears to show Good’s car making contact with the ICE agent who shot her before he opened fire. Arguments have since raged over whether she was deliberately getting in the way or even weaponizing her car, or whether she was trying to drive away.

Federal officials like Noem have defended the agent as acting in self-defense while accusing Good of trying to actively impede ICE activity in the Democrat-controlled city.

Democrats, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have accused ICE and Republican officials of stoking fear and tension in the city while demanding the federal government cease current operations there immediately.

Now Democrats in Congress have been threatening to withhold support from funding DHS unless significant reforms are made — a threat Jeffries alluded to during his press conference.

‘What’s in front of us right now is a spending bill that will go either one of two ways. Either Republicans will continue their my-way-or-the-highway approach as it relates to the Homeland Security bill — and if that happens, then it’s going to be on them to figure out a path forward,’ Jeffries began.

‘Alternatively, particularly in the face of the tragedy…there’s some commonsense measures that need to be put in place so that ICE can conduct itself in a manner that is at least consistent with every other law enforcement agency in the United States of America, at the state, local and federal level.’

The deadline to finish federal funding and avert a partial government shutdown is at the end of day on Jan. 30.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for a response.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More