Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Latest News

Government shutdown enters day 4 as lawmakers gear up for House-wide vote on Trump-backed deal

No Comments

The ongoing partial government shutdown is now in its fourth day, but House GOP leaders are confident that the end is near.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is aiming to hold a chamber-wide procedural vote on the Senate’s funding compromise on Tuesday afternoon, teeing up a subsequent vote on final passage potentially later in the day.

It comes after he and President Donald Trump quelled a burgeoning rebellion by House conservatives who were threatening to tank the measure if an unrelated election integrity bill was not attached to the funding legislation.

House GOP leaders had been watching anxiously for signs of defections on a House-wide ‘rule vote’ that appears to have been largely abated after the rebellion’s ringleader, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., told reporters she was backing off her threats on Monday night.

A rule vote allows for lawmakers to open up debate on a given bill, and normally falls on partisan lines even if the underlying legislation has bipartisan support.

Under current House margins, Johnson can only lose support from one GOP lawmaker to still advance legislation on a party-line vote.

Meanwhile, Luna had corralled a group of conservatives to vote against advancing the rule if a bill called the SAVE America Act was not attached to the final funding bill.

The SAVE America Act would require voter ID for casting ballots in federal elections and mandate proof of citizenship in the voter registration process, among other election safeguards.

Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Fla., had both signaled to Fox News Digital that they would vote against the rule if it was not attached.

But such a move, if successful, would force the bill to be returned to the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned it would be dead on arrival.

Luna told reporters on Monday night that she and Burchett both changed their minds, however, after getting assurances from the White House that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would force a vote on the SAVE America Act.

‘As of right now, with the current agreement that we have, as well as discussions, we will both be a yes on the rule,’ Luna said. ‘There is something called a standing filibuster that would effectively allow Senator Thune to put voter ID on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing that that is going well and he is considering that…so we are very happy about that.’

The Senate compromise would fully fund the departments of War, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Education and Labor through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, lining up with previously passed spending bills.

But Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding would only see current levels extended for two weeks in order to give Democrats and Republicans time to negotiate a bill that would more significantly rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

It passed the Senate on Friday after Democrats there walked away from an earlier bipartisan deal that would have also fully funded DHS. Left-wing lawmakers demanded further guardrails on Trump’s immigration enforcement after the second of two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis during anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests there.

And despite House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., indicating to Johnson that Democrats would not help him pass the new deal, there are some signs that it will get bipartisan support.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said she would vote for the legislation after voting against the original House-passed deal.

‘I will take those ten days and see what we can get,’ she said of the stopgap funding for DHS. ‘And at the end of those ten days, if if we can’t decide to go with it, then it’s a no vote, and Department of Homeland Security is shuttered…but not the other five bills because they’re good bills with good things for the people that we care about.’

In the meantime, nearly 14,000 air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay. Members of the military could also miss paychecks if the shutdown goes on long enough, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be limited in its ability to communicate public health updates to Americans.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump to host Colombia’s Petro as drug trafficking expected to dominate high-stakes talks

No Comments

Relations between President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro have swung sharply from open confrontation to cautious engagement over the past year, setting the stage for a pivotal White House meeting scheduled for Tuesday.

Once considered a model partnership in the Western Hemisphere, U.S.–Colombia ties are now being tested by deep disagreements over drug policy, security cooperation and migration.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the visit, President Donald Trump suggested the tone between the two leaders has shifted in recent weeks, while underscoring that drug trafficking will dominate the talks.

‘I mean, he’s been very nice over the last month or two,’ Trump said during a press availability. ‘They were certainly critical before that. But somehow after the Venezuelan raid, he became very nice. He changed his attitude. Very much so.’

Trump said he is looking forward to meeting Petro in person, while making clear that narcotics remain a central concern. ‘He’s coming in. We’re going to be talking about drugs because tremendous amounts of drugs come out of his country,’ Trump said. ‘And I look forward to seeing him. We’re going to have a good meeting.’

Colombia has long been one of Washington’s closest partners in South America, particularly on counternarcotics and security. Bilateral cooperation expanded dramatically under Plan Colombia beginning in 2000, with U.S. military and law-enforcement assistance playing a central role in Colombia’s fight against insurgent groups and drug trafficking networks. That cooperation helped stabilize the country and eventually led the United States to designate Colombia a major Non-NATO ally. U.S. officials and analysts say that foundation has eroded in recent years amid diverging priorities and growing mistrust.

Tensions first erupted in January 2025, when Petro initially refused to allow U.S. deportation flights carrying Colombian nationals to land. The standoff prompted Trump to threaten tariffs, travel bans and visa restrictions before Colombia reversed course and agreed to accept the flights. The episode marked the first major rupture between the two leaders following Trump’s return to office.

Relations deteriorated further in September 2025, when Petro traveled to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, participated in protests and publicly urged U.S. soldiers to ‘disobey the orders of Trump.’ The remarks prompted the U.S. State Department to revoke Petro’s visa on Sept. 27, 2025. The following month, the Trump administration announced punitive measures targeting Petro and members of his inner circle, citing concerns about drug trafficking and security cooperation.

Colombian officials denounced the moves as politically motivated. Trump publicly labeled Petro a ‘drug leader,’ suspended U.S. aid and threatened additional punitive measures, pushing relations to what observers described as their lowest point in decades.

Signs of de-escalation emerged last month when the two leaders spoke by phone for the first time since the diplomatic breakdown. Trump later described the call as a ‘great honor,’ saying he appreciated Petro’s tone and looked forward to meeting him in person. Both sides agreed to restart dialogue on contentious issues, including counternarcotics, migration and trade. Colombia subsequently resumed U.S. deportation flights as part of broader efforts to stabilize relations, paving the way for Tuesday’s face-to-face meeting.

Melissa Ford Maldonado, director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, said the visit highlights how much is now at stake for both countries.

‘Colombia remains the most important U.S. partner in South America, but that status is conditional, and lately it’s been under real strain, largely because of President Gustavo Petro’s tolerance for criminal networks that threaten both Colombian sovereignty and American security,’ Maldonado told Fox News Digital.

She said the Trump administration’s objectives heading into the meeting are likely focused on restoring what she described as ‘real cooperation’ on counternarcotics and security after years of drift.

‘Counternarcotics and security cooperation will likely dominate the conversation,’ Maldonado said, pointing to record cocaine production and what she described as growing tolerance within parts of the Colombian state for criminal networks. She argued that Washington has increasingly treated Colombia as failing to meet U.S. expectations in the fight against illegal drugs.

Maldonado said the administration has signaled it is no longer willing to accommodate governments it believes enable narco-criminal ecosystems.

‘What to watch going forward is whether Colombia chooses to course-correct or continues drifting toward the model next door, which blurred the line between the state and organized crime,’ she said. ‘Colombia earned its status as a major Non-NATO Ally through decades of sacrifice. That trust has been badly damaged, but it is not beyond repair if Colombia demonstrates genuine resolve against cartels, rejects political cover for criminal groups and realigns clearly with the United States on hemispheric security.’

She added, ‘This visit should make one thing unmistakable: the United States wants a strong, sovereign Colombia. It is in America’s best interest. However, it will not tolerate ambiguity when it comes to narco-terrorism, regional security or the safety of the American people,’ Maldonado said.  


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

The Myth That Foreigners Pay Our Tariffs

No Comments

The answer to the question “Who pays the cost of tariffs?” is obviously important. If the costs of all tariffs were paid exclusively by foreigners, with no negative consequences suffered by citizens of the country that imposes the tariffs, the case for a policy of free trade would be far weaker than if tariffs inflict some damage on the domestic economy. Ethical objections to tariffs would still be available, but the conventional economic case against protective tariffs would be null and void, as that case focuses almost exclusively on the economic welfare of citizens of the home country.

Yet the costs of tariffs are always shared by buyers and sellers of tariffed goods and services. This inevitability springs from the fact that all trade is mutually advantageous. Because tariffs prevent some trades from occurring that would otherwise occur absent the tariffs, both parties to the obstructed trade suffer. In some cases, would-be buyers suffer more than do would-be sellers, and in other cases the bulk of the suffering is inflicted on would-be sellers. But in all cases, tariffs inflict harm on both parties.

The Simple Analytics of the Tax Called “Tariffs”

Whether intended to raise revenue or to protect domestic sellers from foreign competition, tariffs are a tax. In practice, the legal obligation to pay this tax is imposed on importers, who are middlemen between the foreign suppliers and the domestic buyers. If we think in terms of suppliers and buyers – of supply and demand – we can helpfully simplify just a bit by thinking of tariffs as a tax formally obliged to be paid by suppliers. The higher the tariff, the higher the cost to suppliers of supplying any given quantity of the good or service in question. From the suppliers’ perspective, a tariff is simply another cost of doing business – a cost that must be covered no less than does the cost of labor and of other inputs into the production process.

Suppliers, of course, would love to offload the entire cost of the tariffs onto buyers. For example, if the tariff on imported apples is $1 per pound, and the pre-tariff price of apples is $2 per pound, sellers of imported apples would love to raise the price of apples to $3 per pound so that the amount of revenue ($2 per pound) that sellers of imported apples clear with the tariff remains the same as what they cleared before the tariff was imposed. And a naïve person might suppose that this is just what sellers of tariffed apples do.

But the naïve person, unsurprisingly, is mistaken. The apple sellers, although legally allowed to raise the price they charge for a pound of apples from $2 to $3, aren’t economically allowed to do so. The reason is that apple buyers purchase fewer apples as the price of apples rises.

Suppose that before the tariff, with the per-pound price of imported apples being $2, sellers of these apples sold – and, hence, buyers bought – 1,000 pounds each week. If, when a $1 per-pound tariff is imposed, these sellers raise their asking price to $3 per pound, buyers will obviously purchase some amount less than 1,000 pounds. Let’s say that the weekly amount buyers will purchase at $3 per pound is 550 pounds. At $3 per pound, sellers produce and offer for sale 1,000 pounds each week but buyers purchase only 550 pounds.

What are sellers to do in the face of this surplus of apples? The answer is to lower the price in order to entice buyers to purchase more than 550 pounds.

Let’s say that the price falls to $2.60 per pound, and at this price buyers purchase 800 pounds each week. For two reasons, buyers are worse off than before the tariff. First, buyers now pay 60 cents more for each pound of apples that they buy. Second, buyers get and consume 200 fewer pounds of apples each week.

What about the sellers of the imported apples? After handing to the customs agents $1 for each pound of apples that they import and sell, sellers are left with $1.60 for each pound of apples sold, which is 40 cents per pound less than they cleared before the tariff. It’s because they earn less per-pound sold with the tariff than without the tariff that suppliers of imported apples are willing now to supply only 800 pounds per week instead of the 1,000 pounds they willingly supplied before the tariff was imposed.

And so the apple sellers, like the apple buyers, are worse off because of the tariff in two ways. The sellers receive 40 cents less for each pound sold, and they sell 200 fewer pounds of apples each week, missing out on the profits they obviously earned on the pre-tariff sale of those 200 pounds.

The government, however, now rakes in weekly customs revenue of $800: 800 pounds of apples are imported each week with a $1 tariff charge collected on each pound.

Two Different Manifestations of Tariffs’ Costs

Discussions of who pays the tariffs too often focus exclusively on how much of the customs revenue is paid by buyers (in the form of paying more out of pocket for the imports) and how much of this revenue is paid by sellers (in the form of clearing less money on each unit imported and sold). In the above hypothetical example, analysts would conclude that 60 percent of the tariffs’ costs are paid by buyers while 40 percent of these costs are paid by importers. Of the weekly customs revenue of $800, buyers pay a total of $480 ($0.60 X 800) and importers pay $320 ($0.40 X 800).

The detailed distribution of this cost of the tariff between domestic citizens (buyers) and foreigners (sellers) is determined, as we economists say, by the relative elasticities of demand and supply. The less responsive are domestic buyers to increases in the prices of tariffed imports, the greater is the ability of foreign suppliers of tariffed goods to offload onto these buyers, in the form of higher prices, some of the costs of the tariffs. It follows that the less responsive are domestic buyers to increases in the prices of tariffed imports (relative to the responsiveness of foreign suppliers to their receipt of less revenue per unit sold), the greater is the share of the customs revenue paid by domestic citizens and the lesser is the share paid by foreigners.

If the above jargony paragraph is indecipherable, no worries. The larger point is that customs revenues are always paid in part by foreign suppliers and in part by domestic citizens.

But to focus exclusively on what portion of the customs revenue is paid by domestic citizens and what portion is paid by foreigners is to lose sight of the losses suffered by both groups as a result of selling and purchasing fewer units of tariffed goods.

This oversight is significant. To see why, consider the extreme case in which foreign suppliers ‘eat’ the entire dollar cost of the tariffs. Foreign apple growers, hit with a $1 per-pound apple tariff, absorb this entire tariff amount by lowering the pre-tariff per-pound price they charge from $2 to $1. One dollar per pound is paid to the customs house by foreign apple suppliers, leaving only $1 being cleared by these suppliers. Every cent of the customs revenue is paid by foreigners. “Hooray!” cheer American economic nationalists. “The tariffs cost us nothing!”

But the economic-nationalists are mistaken. Because foreign apple sellers now clear, for each pound of apples sold in the US, only $1 instead of the $2 they cleared before imposition of the tariff, the amount of apples these sellers will supply to Americans will not only fall, it will fall by more than if some of the tariff costs were paid by Americans.

The resulting decrease in the supply of apples in the US will raise the price charged by the apple importers, as well as by domestic apple growers. Despite the dramatic fall in the price charged by foreign apple growers, Americans will purchase and consume fewer apples than they would have purchased and consumed absent the tariff. The resulting loss in consumer welfare is real despite not showing up in any accounting statement. The books at the customs house will show that every cent of the customs revenue is paid by foreigners, leading pundits and politicians to wrongly conclude that the tariffs cost Americans nothing. Yet the diminished consumption of apples, as well as the diversion of more American resources into apple growing and away from other, more-productive uses, are very real costs of this tariff.

Another point: Even if every cent of the US customs revenue is paid by Americans, with none being paid by foreigners, the dollar value of what Americans pay to the customs house is still less than the full cost to Americans of the tariffs, for this dollar amount doesn’t include the value to Americans of the apples that the tariffs prevent them from consuming.

While some tariffs hit foreigners harder than do other tariffs, there’s no tariff that will not impose real costs on domestic citizens. And this reality holds regardless of the portion of customs revenue paid by foreigners relative to the portion paid by domestic citizens.

by
Read More
In Economy

Warsh or Not, The Fed’s Next Chair Will Inherit Too Much Power

No Comments

President Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh  to succeed Jerome Powell, whose term as Federal Reserve Chair expires in May 2026. Trump has made no secret of his desire to influence monetary policy. He has consistently called for “Too Late” Powell to bring rates down and seems to believe the president should have a say in interest rate decisions. But the real problem goes beyond Mr. Trump: the next Fed chair will inherit far too much discretionary power. 

The Fed has spent nearly two decades accumulating emergency authorities that never sunset and expanding its reach beyond its statutory mandate. It operates with little oversight from or accountability to Congress. The Fed’s ever-expanding powers, when combined with political pressure, is a recipe for disaster.

Three areas illustrate the pattern. First, consider the Fed’s standing overnight repurchase agreement (repo) facility. The Fed deployed a repo facility in 2008 and 2019 to deal with market disruption. But, in July 2021, it transformed this crisis tool into permanent market infrastructure. The Fed’s standing repo facility now provides up to $500 billion daily in liquidity. What began as emergency support became a permanent backstop with no sunset clause. 

Second, consider the emergency lending powers authorized under Section 13(3). The Fed rolled out six emergency lending facilities in 2008: Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF), Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF), and Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). 

The Fed’s emergency lending powers were purportedly constrained by Dodd-Frank (section 1101). The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic showed, however, how weak those constraints were. Four facilities (CPFF, PDCF, TALF, and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF), which was just a slightly revised AMLF) were revived, and five new facilities were established. 

These new facilities included the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF), Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF), Main Street Lending Program (MSLP), Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) New. Whereas the older facilities might generally be reconciled with the Fed’s emergency lending facilities, the newer facilities permitted the Fed to extend credit to entities Congress never authorized it to support. What began as a crisis improvisation in 2008 became standard practice in 2020, with few constraints on what the Fed could do through its lending facilities.

Third, consider the regulatory authority the Fed has asserted in recent years. It has denied master accounts to cryptocurrency-focused institutions like Custodia Bank. A master account provides access to the Fed’s payment rails and has traditionally been granted to regulated depository institutions. Yet, the Fed has repeatedly denied applications from crypto banks. These denials demonstrate how discretionary power enables the Fed to pursue policy goals beyond its statutory remit.

The Fed is not blind to its expanded discretionary powers. Federal Reserve officials have openly acknowledged the institution’s expanded role. Former Chair Ben Bernanke defended the Fed’s crisis interventions as “necessary” to prevent financial collapse because, at the time, “no federal entity could provide capital to stabilize AIG and no federal or state entity outside of a bankruptcy court could wind down AIG.” But perceived necessity doesn’t grant legitimacy.

The accumulation of discretionary power increases the risk of politicization. When the Fed wields significant power and discretion over credit allocation, market functioning, and financial access, the president’s appointments to the Fed’s Board of Governors are all the more important. It is also more tempting to apply political pressure. Politicians will find it difficult to resist if the Fed might be used to improve their re-election odds. The Fed’s independence and credibility suffer as a result.

The accumulation of discretionary power — and trillions of assets on the Fed’s balance sheet — also makes financial institutions more dependent on the Fed. If financial institutions come to expect support from a big, powerful Fed in times of stress, they will be encouraged to take on excessive risk. This moral hazard creates a positive feedback loop, where dependent financial institutions require a bigger, more powerful Fed. The end result is a Fed that continuously increases its regulatory reach.

Perhaps worst of all, the accountability mechanisms in place have generally failed to keep up with the Fed’s expanded powers. Congress checks in twice a year. But, unlike other major federal agencies, the Fed lacks an independent inspector general. It has gained abilities to influence corporate and municipal bond markets, but it still operates under an oversight structure designed for a much narrower scope. 

The Fed’s power problem is not limited to a particular chair or administration. It is institutional. Over the last two decades, the Federal Reserve has accumulated vast discretionary powers that enable mission creep and invite political pressure. Whoever follows Powell will inherit this vast discretionary power — and, if history is any guide, will be tempted to expand it further. But the Fed’s credibility and independence will suffer until its discretionary power is reined in.

by
Read More
In Investing

Questcorp Mining Engages Contractor for Commencement of North Island Copper IP Survey

No Comments

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) has chosen Peter W. Walcott and Associates Limited of Coquitlam, BC to undertake the permitted 10 to 15 line km induced polarization (IP) survey at the Company’s 1,168 hectare North Island Copper project near Port Hardy on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The IP survey will concentrate on the historic Marisa Zone, a porphyry copper target last explored in the 1990’s. Surface sampling and a preliminary 12.3-line km IP survey identified an interesting chargeability anomaly that was followed up by a five-hole, 376.43 diamond drilling program. Two of the five holes hit interesting copper values including down hole intervals of 0.078% copper over 56.39 metres in DDH92-01 and 0.041% copper over 70.71 metres in DDH92-03 in an altered quartz diorite. Copper grades were increasing with depth in DDH92-03. The Company plans to follow up these historic results. Source: Geophysical and Diamond Drilling Report on the Marisa Property by G.J. Allen and P.G. Dasler dated 1992-Feb-29 for Great Western Gold Corporation.

‘As copper prices continue to climb due to demand and supply issues, the importance of the North Island Copper project increases,’ commented Questcorp President & CEO, Saf Dhillon. ‘We feel the 1992 preliminary drill results demand further exploration, especially with copper grades increasing with depth to the bottom of one of the historic drill holes. Our setting in the right rocks between the historic Island Copper Mine and NorthIsle Copper and Gold Inc. (CSE: NCX), further attests to the potential of Questcorp’s North Island Copper project.’

The 2026 IP survey will run lines at the same azimuth, spaced midway between the 1973 IP survey lines to tighten the coverage over the area. Walcott hopes to incorporate the historic IP with the 2026 data to generate new chargeability and resistivity subsurface elevation plans, along with the 2026 psuedosection lines. The plans and sections will be utilized to generate drill targets for a follow-up drill program. Walcott is expected to mobilize to the property mid-February, with completion anticipated prior to month end.

Questcorp cautions investors a Qualified Person has not verified the historical exploration data and further cautions the presence of copper mineralization on the NorthIsle Copper and Gold and the BHP properties is not necessarily indicative of similar mineralization on the North Island Copper property.

The technical content of this news release has been reviewed and approved by R. Tim Henneberry, P. Geo (BC), a Director of the Company and a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp 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 metal 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.

Contact Information

Questcorp Mining Corp.
Saf Dhillon, President & CEO
Email: saf@questcorpmining.ca
Telephone: (604) 484-3031

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that the geophysical surveys will be completed as contemplated or at all and that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company 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 required by law.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/282479

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

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

When Will Silver Stocks Catch Up to the Silver Price?

No Comments

The silver price remains historically high despite a recent pullback, and many silver stocks haven’t kept pace.

Silver’s strong performance over the past year is the result of a perfect storm of factors, including an entrenched supply deficit, growing industrial demand, a weakening US dollar and deepening geopolitical and economic uncertainty.

For these reasons, investors are flocking to silver for both its safe-haven status and its developing role as a critical metal in energy, artificial intelligence and defense technologies.

As of early February, the silver price was trading in a range of US$70 to US$80 per ounce, while the Amplify Junior Silver Miners ETF (ARCA:SILJ) was trading between about US$31 to US$32 per share.

SILJ tracks small-cap and mid-cap producers, developers and explorers that derive most of their revenue from silver. The profit margins of this segment of the silver-mining industry are the most sensitive to rising silver prices, hence SILJ tends to outperform the price of physical silver during bull markets.

Why is there a lag between the silver price and silver stocks?

During a presentation at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC), held from January 25 to 26, Peter Krauth, editor of Silver Stock Investor and Silver Advisor, looked at the performance of silver stocks relative to the price of physical silver, honing in on the silver-mining exchange-traded funds.

‘So we actually have had negative leverage in silver stocks versus silver. If you look back over one year, two years, we’re essentially even. You’ve gotten no reward for taking on additional risk by being in the silver stocks.’

Why are silver stocks, particularly those on the SILJ, lagging behind the performance of the physical metal?

Krauth explained that valuation models for these stocks are still factoring in silver prices at US$25 to US$30, even though last quarter the price was averaging around US$70 per ounce. “They essentially almost all need to be revalued because silver is so much higher, and that hasn’t happened yet,” he said.

“I think they’re going to have to redo their calculations for gold and silver miners.”

“That caps their earnings. Well, the good news for speculators, investors and mining stocks is that those hedges expire,” said Penny, who believes that the relative outperformance of the silver stocks to the silver price will “kick in soon.’

When will silver stocks catch up to the silver price?

Penny is looking for those hedges to expire over the first few quarters of the year.

“Then that’s where these mining stocks, the profits are just going to go through the roof. I mean, even if we pull back to the mid US$60s — not expecting that — but even if that were to happen, these mining stocks are not pricing in US$60 silver. They’re still pricing in sub-US$50 silver. So a lot of upside potential here for the mining stocks,” he said.

Barton is also looking for a move sooner rather than later, especially with earning calls coming up.

“I think we have a catch-up trade coming. I think it’s coming soon. So if no one has taken advantage of this yet, I think you need to act like now,” said Barton, who later added, “Assuming the silver price could stay above, you know, US$75 an ounce or so, that should blow out expectations. And I think it’ll be a really nice trade. I really do.”

But that won’t be the end of the party for silver. Krauth sees strong potential over the next two or three years for a “dramatic run” for the silver sector. And like his peers, he sees that run starting soon.

“I think what we’re going to see is over the next few quarters, as those projects, producers, cashflows, get revalued at higher input prices, we’re going to see the profit margins really explode and expand,” he said. “We’re going to see when those numbers get reported, the market is going to start to appreciate that and start to re-rate a lot of these stocks.”

Rick’s rules for silver sector profits

Rick Rule, investment guru and proprietor at Rule Investment Media, is already making plays in this latest silver bull market, leveraging the profits he’s made in physical silver to better position himself for the next stage.

“My reasoning being as follows: if silver goes nowhere for a year, if it stays rangebound, the best silver producers are discounting US$45 silver a year from now, if the price is at US$75 or US$80 they’ll be discounting US$75 or US$80 silver, which means the stock will be up 50, 60, 70 percent,” he explained.

“The speculative outlook for the silver stocks seemed to be better than the speculative outcome for silver. If silver stays flat for a year, by definition, silver won’t give me any return. But if it stays flat, the silver stocks would give me 50 or 60 percent so it was a better speculative outcome,’ Rule added.

What did he do with the rest of his gains from his physical silver investment? He parked 25 percent in physical gold. “That’s how I save. I maintain liquidity in US currency, and I save in gold,” said Rule.

The other 25 percent went into oil and gas stocks. “As you know, my motto is that I buy hate and I sell love. Silver was loved, so I sold it. Oil and gas were hated, so I bought it.”

Both Krauth and Barton are on board with Rick’s Rules for silver investment.

“(Rule) has had for a long time a significant position in physical silver, and has sold a good portion of that because he is looking for value all the time and not sitting still. And he decided that those proceeds were going to go to where he saw value,” said Krauth. “And that’s part of my thesis going forward as well — that the value, or the unrealized value, in the silver space is now, especially in the miners.”

Barton also sees value in this strategy. “I have been selling some physical silver, and I’ve been putting it into oil stocks, and I’ve been putting it into gold and silver miners because they have not played that catch-up trade, right?,” he said. “Spot gold and silver are relatively expensive compared to very good silver and very good gold miners. So that could be a place where you could take some profits and rotate into the next leg up.”

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

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

10 Biggest EV Stocks to Watch in 2026

No Comments

The energy revolution is here to stay, and electric vehicles (EVs) have become part of the mainstream narrative.

The shift toward green energy is gathering momentum, with governments adding more incentives to accelerate this transition. Increasing EV sales are good news for battery metals investors, as EVs are significant drivers for commodities such as lithium, cobalt and graphite, key components in the cathodes of EV batteries. Additionally, interest in EV options outside of Tesla is heating up, and Chinese EVs are increasing in popularity outside of the country.

Read on to learn about the top US and Chinese EV stocks, and the batteries and battery suppliers they’re using for their current and upcoming models.

1. Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA)

Market cap: US$1.62 trillion

First on the list is EV maker Tesla, which has brought significant attention to the EV narrative.

The company’s story starts in 2003, when it was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. Elon Musk invested in the company in 2004, becoming the largest shareholder, and eventually became its CEO in 2008. A well-known story for battery metals investors, the company made headlines in 2014 when it broke ground at its first gigafactory in Nevada, US, an unthinkable proposition at the time.

Outside of the US, Tesla also has gigafactories in China and Germany. Tesla’s massive Shanghai Gigafactory was the company’s first auto plant outside of the United States. The company produces Model 3s and Model Ys for China and global export.

Tesla uses a range of different lithium-ion batteries in its models. In partnership with Panasonic (TSE:6752), at its Nevada gigafactory Tesla produces batteries with nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) cathodes — different from most of Tesla’s competitors, which use a nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) mix.

Tesla announced in 2021 that it was changing the battery chemistry for its standard-range vehicles to lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) cathodes, which are cobalt- and nickel-free. China’s largest battery maker, CATL (SZSE:300750), is a key supplier of LFP batteries for Tesla, particularly for the Shanghai and Berlin gigafactories.

Changes in US tariffs on EVs made or sourced in China have impacted Tesla’s business, leading the company to try diversifying its supply chain. Last year, South Korea’s LG Energy Solution (KRX:373220) signed a US$4.3 billion deal to supply Tesla with LFP batteries from its factory in Michigan, US, starting in 2027.

On the other hand, Tesla’s prime EV position got a boost in the first quarter of 2026 Canada announced it would allow imports of up to 49,000 Chinese-made EVs per year, and lowered tariffs on them from 100 to 6.1 percent. Half of that quota could apply to Tesla’s EVs made in Shanghai, while the other half is dedicated to EVs priced under C$35,000.

Red Tesla Model 3 driving on a desert highway under a clear sky.

Image via Tesla.

2. BYD Company (OTCPK:BYDDY,HKEX:1211)

Market cap: US$116 billion

Leading Chinese EV maker BYD Company was founded in 1995 and is a top producer of several kinds of rechargeable batteries, including nickel-metal hydride batteries and NCM batteries. BYD has a vertically integrated supply chain, from mineral battery cells to battery packs.

Backed by Warren Buffett, in 2020 BYD officially launched its Blade battery, a less bulky LFP battery. The following year, the company announced that it would use the Blade LFP batteries for all of its pure electric models.

In April 2025, BYD released two new EV models, the Han L sedan and Tang L SUV, based on its new Super e-platform, which allows users to add 400 kilometers (248 miles) of range in five minutes of charging, and charge to 100 percent in 20 minutes.

BYD’s range of models include low-cost options such as the Seagull and Dolphin. Because of this, the company stands to benefit from Canada’s decision to allow imports and slash tariffs for up to 49,000 Chinese EVs per year, half of which must be under C$35,000.

For the first time, in 2025, BYD overtook Tesla as the world’s biggest EV seller in terms of annual sales. BYD sold 2.25 million units for the year, up 28 percent over 2024, compared to the 1.64 million units sold by Tesla in 2025, down 9 percent from the previous year.

Blue BYD Dolphin EV parked in front of modern art sculptures and a wooden gate.

Image via BYD.

3. Rivian Automotive (NASDAQ:RIVN)

Market cap: US$18.08 billion

Founded in 2009 in Florida, US, Rivian designs, develops and manufactures EVs and accessories and sells them directly to customers in the consumer and commercial markets.

The US company is based in Irvine, California, and manufactures its vehicles in Illinois.

The carmaker announced plans to use cells made with LFP chemistries for its standard-level vehicles in 2022, and in 2023 announced plans to switch its entire lineup to this type of battery. South Korea’s Samsung SDI (KRX:006400) and LG Energy Solutions are Rivian’s current battery suppliers.

Last year, the company revealed e-scooters to market through its spinoff electric micromobility company named Also. The scooters are expected to hit the market in mid-2026. It has plans to launch a three-wheel EV line as well.

In early January 2026, Rivian reached a major milestone toward full-scale production of its new R2 with the manufacturing of validation builds at its plant in Illinois. This latest reiteration will be priced starting at US$45,000, with first deliveries slated for the first half of this year. Rivian sold 42,247 EVs in 2025.

Green Rivian R1S driving in an urban area, with modern glass buildings in the background.

Image via Rivian.

4. XPeng (NYSE:XPEV)

Market cap: US$17.49 billion

Xpeng is a Chinese EV maker focused on smart EVs. The company’s main manufacturing plant is located in Guangdong province.

Xpeng now uses LFP batteries for 99 percent of its EV lineup. CALB (HKEX:3931) is Xpeng’s largest battery supplier, and its other suppliers include CATL, BYD, Sunwoda Electronic (SZSE:300207) and EVE Energy (SZSE:300014).

Last year, the company showcased its 2025 XPENG X9 flagship vehicle, with self-driving capabilities powered by Xpeng’s self-developed Turing AI chip. At the same time, Xpeng unveiled its AEROHT Land Aircraft Carrier, slated for mass production in 2026. The company bills it as ‘the world’s first modular flying car.’

XPeng’s 2025 EV sales reached 429,445 units. The company has ambitious goals for 2026, aiming to sell between 550,000 and 600,000 EVs during the year. XPeng is launching four new SUV models this year: the XPeng G01 and XPeng G02, as well as two models from the Mona series, the D02 and D03.

Xpeng cars.

Image via Xpeng.

5. Li Auto (NASDAQ:LI)

Market cap: US$17.03 billion

Li Auto bills itself as a pioneer in successfully commercializing extended-range EVs in China, and is a leader in China’s full-size and large SUV markets. The company started volume production of its first model, Li ONE, in November 2019, and launched its initial public offering in July 2020, raising US$1.1 billion.

Li Auto has battery supply agreements with CATL, Sunwoda Electronic and SVOLT Energy Technology.

One of the main differences between Li Auto and the other companies on this list is that Li Auto’s models allow battery pack charging with electricity or gas. The company calls this design extended-range EV technology.

Li Auto launched its first all-electric car, Li MEGA MPV, in 2024. In 2025, the company followed that with its second all-electric vehicle, the i8 SUV, which uses an NMC battery and maxes out at 536 horsepower. Li Auto also broadened its markets last year, launching three core models (Li L9, Li L7 and Li L6) in Egypt, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.

Li Auto achieved a significant milestone in 2025, with annual sales surpassing 1.5 million units. This made it “the first among China’s new EV startups to reach that mark,” according to the company’s Chairman and CEO Li Xiang.

Li MEGA EV parked beside a building with large windows.

Image via Li Auto.

6. NIO (NYSE:NIO)

Market cap: US$10.36 billion

Founded in 2014, Chinese EV maker NIO designs, jointly manufactures and sells smart and connected premium EVs.

NIO’s strategy includes its battery-as-a-service endeavor, a subscription purchasing model where buyers lease vehicle batteries. The company says the idea behind this move is to reduce vehicle costs. The service is run by a battery asset company, with NIO and leading battery maker CATL owning a stake. CATL is already NIO’s sole battery supplier.

The company has built battery swap stations that allow drivers with low batteries to pull up and have it swapped for a full battery within minutes. Its fifth generation swap stations are expected to roll out starting in 2026.

In September 2021, the company introduced a standard-range hybrid-cell battery that combines NCM and LFP cells. NIO is also offering the world’s longest-range semi-solid-state battery on a rental basis through its partnership with Beijing WeLion New Energy Technology.

In 2024, NIO launched its newest EV brand, Firefly, in China. The first model in this brand is a small car for city dwellers who struggle with finding convenient parking, as it can locate available spots and use parking assist to maneuver into them. Drivers are also be able to access the above-mentioned battery swap program.

NIO reported 2025 vehicle sales of 326,028 units, an increase of 46.9 percent year-over-year. Launched in September 2025, its flagship ES8 SUV became the fastest-selling EV in China in its price category by the end of the year. The company plans to bring three new large SUV models to the market in 2026, and expand into Australia and New Zealand in the second half of the year.

Grey Nio ES8 SUV with black roof and modern front design in a studio setting.

Image via Nio Newsroom.

7. VinFast Auto (NASDAQ:VFS)

Market cap: US$7.72 billion

VinFast Auto, Vietnam’s first global automotive manufacturer, is a multinational EV manufacturer producing both affordable and luxury EVs. The company’s lineup also includes an electric pickup truck known as the VF Wild.

VinFast has showrooms and service centers in North America, including in 14 US states and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Québec.

Vietnam is the EV maker’s largest market, and it significantly expanded its footprint in Asia in 2025, adding numerous showrooms in the Philippines, Indonesia and India. Last year, the company brought a new manufacturing facility online in India and opened its first Indonesian assembly plant in December. It is scheduled to scale up production and launch new models, including electric two-wheelers, in 2026.

Orange VinFast VF8 SUV driving on a wet road with trees in the background.

Image via VinFast.

8. Zhejiang Leapmotor Technology (OTC Pink:ZJLMF,HKEX:9863)

Market cap: US$7.58 billion

The Leapmotor brand first launched in China in 2017. The EV manufacturer designs and supplies its own battery packs for its vehicles.

Major auto maker Stellantis (NYSE:STLA) became a 20 percent shareholder in late 2023. The following year, the two entities formed the 51/49 joint venture company Leapmotor International, in which Stellantis holds the controlling interest. The joint venture is focused on selling and manufacturing Leapmotor vehicles outside of China.

The company’s current models in the market include seven seater SUV C16, mid-size crossover SUV C10, smart electric SUV C11, smart-tech C11 SUV, compact SUV B10, the new B01 sedan and T03 city EV.

Leapmotor unveiled its B01 electric sedan in April 2025. The vehicle is powered by LFP batteries from Gotion High-tech, CALB and Zenergy.

At the 2026 Brussels Motor Show, Leapmotor showcased the three EVs it has launched in Europe since expanding into the market: the B03X compact electric SUV, the B05 hatchback and the B10 range-extended electric vehicle.

Purple Leapmotor C16 SUV displayed at an auto show with a crowd and large screen backdrop.

Image via Wikimedia Commons.

9. Lucid Group (NASDAQ:LCID)

Market cap: US$3.59 billion

Headquartered in California, Lucid Group was founded in 2007 and produces luxury electric cars. The company’s first car, Lucid Air, is a state-of-the-art luxury sedan that is being produced at its US factory in Casa Grande, Arizona.

In April 2025, Lucid announced the acquisition of select Arizona-based facilities and assets of battery and fuel-cell EV company Nikola Corporation.

Lucid Motors uses high-performance Panasonic battery cells for its long-range electric vehicles. These cells are currently manufactured in Japan, but the company is transitioning to using batteries from Panasonic’s new facility in Kansas by mid-2026 to avoid Trump’s import tariffs.

Lucid plans to launch a full-scale manufacturing facility in Saudi Arabia in 2026, with an annual capacity of 150,000 vehicles by 2029.

The company’s Gravity SUV was named Esquire’s 2026 Car of the Year.

Black Lucid Air EV driving on a mountain road at dusk.

Image via Lucid.

10. Polestar Automotive (NASDAQ:PSNY)

Market cap: US$1.41 billion

Sweden-based electric performance car brand Polestar is owned by Geely Automobile Holdings (OTC Pink:GELYF,HKEX:80175). Up until early 2024, Volvo Cars was also a part owner, but it decided to hand Polestar entirely over to Geely to operate as an independent brand, attributing the move to slowing global demand for EVs.

Polestar’s current lineup includes the five door liftback Polestar 2, the luxury performance Polestar 3 SUV, the Polestar 4 compact coupe SUV and the Polestar 5 performance sedan, the last of which was released in 2025. The company is also planning the Polestar 7 compact SUV and the Polestar 6 roadster.

Polestar has experienced some difficulties in the last couple years, including software challenges in 2023 that caused delays in the rollout of the Polestar 3. In 2024, the company recorded a 15 percent drop in deliveries.

The EV maker’s bad luck seems to be turning around in 2025. Polestar sold a record 60,119 vehicles during the year, a 34 percent improvement over 2024.

This is in part thanks to Polestar’s efforts to capitalize on Tesla’s struggles with Musk and its brand image. In February 2025, Polestar began offering Tesla owners in the US and Canada discounts of up to $20,000 on new leases of its models. Its Q1 2025 sales jumped 76 percent year over year.

White Polestar electric car driving on a road beside green trees.

Image via SlashGear.

Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, 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

Plan to end government shutdown survives key House hurdle after Trump quells GOP rebellion threats

No Comments

The Senate’s compromise to end the ongoing partial government shutdown survived an important hurdle on Monday night, teeing up the legislation for a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills get a chamberwide vote, advanced the upper chamber’s deal with the White House with little internal discord among Republicans on the panel.

But the measure could face issues on the House floor during a second procedural hurdle called a ‘rule vote,’ which needs a simple majority of lawmakers to unlock debate and a vote on final passage. House votes normally fall along partisan lines, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will need virtually all GOP lawmakers to vote in lockstep to succeed.

The current partial shutdown, affecting roughly 78% of the federal government, is in its third day after Congress failed to send its remaining spending bills to President Donald Trump’s desk by Jan. 30.

House lawmakers passed an initial set of bipartisan bills to finish funding the government through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026, Sept. 30, but Democrats rebelled against the plan en masse in protest of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

Senate Democrats walked away from the deal in protest of its funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), after federal law enforcement shot and killed a second U.S. citizen during anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demonstrations in Minneapolis.

Trump has responded by removing Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose agents shot the second person, from the Midwest city, and replacing senior officials leading the crackdown there.

But Democrats are demanding further guardrails, like judicial warrants, to restrict agents in Minneapolis even further.

The resulting compromise would fund areas of government that were caught up in the political standoff — the departments of War, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education — while simply extending the current federal spending levels for DHS for two weeks.

That two-week span is aimed at giving lawmakers time for more bipartisan negotiations on a longer-term deal.

The Senate passed the new deal on Friday, but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is sharply divided from his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in his position.

Despite Schumer and Senate Democrats negotiating the plan with Trump’s White House, Jeffries told Johnson not to rely on House Democrats’ support to pass the bill.

It’s a stunning division between the top two Democrats in Congress, and one that will leave House Republicans largely on their own for much of the process of ending the shutdown.

But Trump managed to quell another rebellion on the conservative side earlier on Monday, easing at least one headache for House GOP leaders.

At least four House Republicans signaled they could vote against their own party during the rule vote on Tuesday over its exclusion of an unrelated measure requiring proof of citizenship in the voter registration process.

The president posted on Truth Social earlier Monday demanding ‘NO CHANGES’ to the current deal, effectively undercutting conservatives’ push for the legislation.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had been leading a group of conservatives threatening to tank the rule vote if the SAVE America Act was not attached.

But Luna told reporters on Monday night that she and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., both changed their minds after getting assurances from the White House that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would force a vote on the bill — called the SAVE America Act.

‘As of right now, with the current agreement that we have, as well as discussions, we will both be a yes on the rule,’ Luna said. ‘There is something called a standing filibuster that would effectively allow Senator Thune to put voter ID on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing that that is going well and he is considering that…so we are very happy about that.’

It’s not clear if it’s enough for other House Republicans, however, some of whom are upset over the new deal opening up the need for bipartisan discussions on reining in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Johnson can only lose one House GOP vote for the funding deal to survive a chamber-wide rule vote.

In the meantime, nearly 14,000 air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay. Members of the military could also miss paychecks if the shutdown goes on long enough, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be limited in its ability to communicate public health updates to Americans.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

Planned Parenthood drops lawsuit challenging Trump administration’s Medicaid cuts

No Comments

Planned Parenthood announced it is voluntarily dropping its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s ability to withhold Medicaid payments under a provision in President Donald Trump’s tax bill.

The organization sued in July after President Donald Trump signed a spending bill that included prohibiting federal funding from going to abortion providers, a section of the legislation that Planned Parenthood attorneys argued unfairly targeted their clinics and would leave patients with even fewer health care options.

In December, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration could continue to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

A separate lawsuit filed by a group of mostly Democratic states suffered a similar setback in January but remains ongoing, and a related case filed in Maine was voluntarily dismissed in October.

A third lawsuit filed in Maine by a network of medical clinics that was also impacted by the spending bill was voluntarily dismissed in October.

Planned Parenthood moved on Friday to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.

‘The goal of this lawsuit has always been to help Planned Parenthood patients get the care they deserve from their trusted provider. Based on the 1st Circuit’s decision, it is clear that this lawsuit is no longer the best way to accomplish that goal,’ the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in a joint statement.

Under the tax provision in Trump’s spending bill, Medicaid payments would be stopped if providers like Planned Parenthood primarily offered certain services, including abortion, and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

Planned Parenthood was not specifically named in the legislation, but the organization’s leaders have said the law is intended to affect their clinics across the country, as Republicans at the federal and state level continue to target the organization.

Federal law bans taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but many Republicans have long argued that abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood used Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion.

Planned Parenthood said 23 of their health clinics have been forced to close due to Trump’s spending bill. More than 50 clinics closed in 18 states last year, with most located in the Midwest.

‘President Trump and his allies in Congress have weaponized the federal government to target Planned Parenthood at the expense of patients — stripping people of the care they rely on,’ Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

‘Through every attack, Planned Parenthood has never lost sight of its focus: ensuring patients can get the care they need from the provider they trust,’ she continued. ‘That will never change. Care continues, as does our commitment to fighting for everyone’s freedom to make their own decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Latest News

House GOP majority shrinks to just one vote as Johnson swears in new House Democrat

No Comments

The House Republican majority just got reduced to a perilously slim one-vote margin thanks to a Democrat’s victory in Texas over the weekend.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., swore in newly minted Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, on Monday evening, bringing the overall House of Representatives margin to 218 Republicans and 214 Democrats.

That means if a bill gets no Democratic support and the House is in full attendance, losing more than one GOP vote will result in a 216-216 tie — meaning it would fail to pass.

Johnson is no stranger to dealing with slim margins and has eked out significant GOP victories while dealing with majorities between two and three seats. 

But this is a particularly difficult week for House GOP leaders who are scrambling to end an ongoing partial government shutdown.

The House is expected to vote on a funding compromise hashed out between Senate Democrats and the White House sometime on Tuesday, and Republicans will need nearly everyone in lockstep for the legislation to survive a chamber-wide ‘rule vote.’

Rule votes are procedural hurdles that traditionally fall along partisan lines.

Menefee, a former attorney for Houston’s Harris County, won a special congressional election in a left-leaning district in Texas that has been vacant for nearly a year.

He’s replacing the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Texas, who died while in office in March 2025.

The Associated Press reported that Menefee defeated former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards, a fellow Democrat, in Saturday’s runoff election to fill the seat left vacant when Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner died last March.

Sylvester, a former longtime state lawmaker, served two terms as Houston mayor before winning election to Congress in 2024 to fill the seat of the late longtime Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

While Texas has redrawn its congressional maps for the 2026 midterms, as part of the high-stakes redistricting battle between President Donald Trump and Republicans versus Democrats, the special election used the state’s current district lines.

The addition of another lawmaker into the House Democrats’ ranks will give Republican leadership in the chamber further headaches.

And House GOP leaders are painfully aware of the politically difficult situation they’re in.

‘They’d better be here,’ Johnson said of his Republican members last month. ‘I told everybody, and not in jest, I said, no adventure sports, no risk-taking, take your vitamins. Stay healthy and be here.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More