Losing By Winning

Winning the Super Bowl provided Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold with a winner's share of $178,000 that goes to each of the players on the winning team.

Of course, those are taxable earnings for the 2026 tax year.

Darnold also signed a $105 million, three-year contract before the season with Seattle.

Sam Darnold
Credit: Seattle Times

Based on the projected payments under that contract, Darnold will owe federal income taxes on his Super Bowl sum along with taxes on his $12.3 million in base salary, $6.4 million in pro-rated signing bonus to be paid in 2026 and a potential $15 million roster bonus if he plays for Seattle in 2026 

California, the site of this year's Super Bowl, claims that it is entitled to tax a share of Darnold's annual income for the work he performed in the state during the year.

This is true for everyone who might work in the state (even for just a day or two) but is generally only enforced for those with large incomes such as entertainers, pro athletes and other highly paid individuals.

California has the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%. 

California taxes non-resident pro athletes a percentage of their income based on “duty days” spent in the state. A "duty day" is a day in which the athlete performs work-related activities.

For an NFL player, that includes not only the day of the game but also days traveling, pre-season camp and games, practices, attending meetings and otherwise preparing for the game.

The total duty days for an NFL player is typically around 200 days.

Teams travel to the Super Bowl the preceding Sunday for practices, media appearances and the like meaning that Darnold and the other players will generally have at least 8 duty days in California associated with the Super Bowl.

A typical NFL game usually entails 2 duty days. Arrival on Saturday with some team activities that day and a game on Sunday.

The Seahawks will have two regular season games in California in 2026. One with LA and another with San Francisco.

We will assume there will be no exhibition games in California in 2026 for the Seahawks

This would mean that Darnold would usually have 4/200 (2%) of his income taxed in California.

Playing in the Super Bowl would increase duty days to 12/200 (6%).

Let's do the math (for simplicity I am just applying the marginal rate to all income (which overstates the total somewhat) on what that means for Darnold's tax liability in California.

Based on an estimated $33.7 million in income in 2026, without playing in the Super Bowl, Darnold would owe California $89,642 in taxes ($33.7 million x.02 x 13.3%.

Add to the $33.7 million the $178,000 that Darnold gets for being on the winner's team greatly increases his tax liability due to the game being played in California and the jock tax duty days.

For playing and winning the Super Bowl Darnold owes California $270,346 ($33.7 million + 178,000= $33,878,000 x .06 x 13.3% )

Darnold's winning share of the Super Bowl of $178,000 does not cover the additional $180,704 in taxes he will owe by playing the game in California. Darnold is a couple thousand dollars poorer overall despite winning.

It would have been worse for Darnold if the Seahawks had lost. 

The loser's share is $103,000. Darnold's tax liability to California would be $269,788 ($33.7 million +103,000=33,808,000 x.06 x 13.3%). That is $180,146 of additional tax for playing in the Super Bowl compared to the $103,000 he got for playing. Darnold would be $77,000 poorer by playing in the Super Bowl in California.

It is true that Darnold and other athletes can soften the blow of the California taxes by claiming a tax credit up to the tax rate on their home state income tax returns. 

This would mean they would only pay extra for the additional amount of the California taxes over and above what the taxes would be in their home state domicile.

However, if Darnold has a smart tax planner, I would assume he has made the state of Washington as his home which has no state income tax on earnings. Therefore, no mitigation would be available. The tax in California would all be incremental to him.

How do you lose by winning?

By playing the Super Bowl in California.

It makes you wonder why the National Football League Players' Association would not insist that the Super Bowl be played in a state without an income tax such as Florida, Texas or Nevada every year?

I do not know that has been an issue to this point

In fact, next year's Super Bowl is also scheduled to be played in California at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles.

Maybe the players should make the taxes an issue?

In the meantime, a lot other people and businesses are getting the message.

California is the last place that anyone who is productive and prosperous wants to call their home (or even visit) for a few days.

Ask Sam Darnold.

All the same, he would probably trade the extra $180,000 in California taxes this year for the Super Bowl ring on his finger for the rest of his life.

However, he could have had the ring and kept the $180,000 if the game had been played in Texas, Florida or Nevada.

That is losing by winning.

Consensus Until It Isn't

For most of the last decade or so we have been told it was the consensus of medical and psychiatric professionals that gender transitioning drugs and surgeries were the best treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

Ignore the fact that this conclusion was in conflict with thousands of years of human experience.

Or the consensus of medical and mental health professionals for decades until groups like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) endorsed gender transition surgeries a decade ago.

This week the consensus supporting gender transitioning began to evaporate as the ASPS was followed by the AMA in stating that doctors should delay gender-related surgeries for minors citing insufficient evidence that benefits outweigh the risks.

I would expect over the next few months we will see more "experts" reverse course on the issue of gender transition surgeries for minors until the consensus is 180 degrees different than it was last week.

This change in thinking may also begin to encompass gender-related surgeries for those who are not minors.

What changed?

Is it just a coincidence that a New York jury recently awarded $2 million to a woman for a medical malpractice claim involving a plastic surgeon and psychiatrist. The mother of the girl testified she had opposed the surgery but relented under pressure when she was told her daughter might commit suicide if the surgery was not performed.

If a New York jury can reach that verdict what do you think the chances are that there are a lot of other potential lawsuits out there in other parts of the country?

How did we get here in the first place?

It starts with someone with an agenda. Someone else follows that lead without doing much thinking or research on their own. Nobody wants to be an outlier or late to the party. Consensus is then formed within a self-fulfilling loop.

It is consensus until it isn't.

Many times the consensus is unwound as more and people start looking at facts and data and begin to understand that "the king has no clothes".

We hear a lot about consensus these days.

We hear it all the time on climate change.

"The consensus of scientists is that the planet is warming due to carbon emissions"

We heard it a lot during Covid.

"The consensus is that Covid was natural in origin and did not come from a lab in China".

We even heard it in the 2020 election.

"The consensus is that there was absolutely no fraud in the election."

In my mind, consensus is often a code word to keep people from looking at the facts and data t and coming to an independent or contrary conclusion on their own.

In many respects, consensus today is a word used to describe a political assessment rather than a scientific and factual conclusion.

One of the most popular blog posts I have ever written was titled "Consensus Is Not Science" back in 2017

In that post I wrote about the the so-called "consensus" of scientists that climate change was settled science.

When it comes to settled science, there is no doubt that we have climate change. It changes every hour, every day and every year. It has changed over the centuries.

The question is not whether it is changing but whether man is impacting that change and, even if that is the case, whether we can even do anything about it?

Whenever we hear about the "science" of human related climate change there is nothing "settled" about it. That is why we hear that this view is supported by the "consensus" of scientists.

Of course, "consensus" is not the same as facts. And consensus is not a scientific fact. A scientific fact is the law of gravity, the boiling point of water or the distance to the moon. 

Prior to the 15th century, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was the center of the universe.

In the 18th century, the consensus of medical scientists was that blood letting was the best method to cure illness.

As recently as 25 years ago the consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. We now know it is caused by bacteria.

I could go on and on. In fact, in most cases like these, the consensus of scientists was proven wrong by one person who did not believe the consensus and proved it wrong.

You have consensus until it isn't.

The late Michael Crichton said it best when talking about consensus and science.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. 

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. 

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Keep all of this in mind whenever you hear the word consensus.

It is meant to silence debate, diverse views and advance a political point of view.

Consensus is not science.

We have seen just how true that is again this week.

Ephemeral and Eternal Virtues

If there is one thing you can be certain whenever entertainment elites get together is that they are going to be virtue signaling.

Of course, they are not promoting eternal virtues such as integrity, honesty, humility, temperance, faith or patriotism.

Their virtues always seem to be ephemeral.

They also tend to determine what is virtuous as if it is an 8th grade popularity contest.

Or the flavor of the month.

All of this was in evidence at this week's Grammy Awards where the "virtue" this year was being opposed to ICE and making it clear they are not in favor of the enforcement of our immigration laws.

If you were really "cool" you donned an "ICE OUT" pin at the Grammys.

Source: https://wwd.com/pop-culture/culture-news/gallery/ice-protest-grammys-2026-photos-1238534352/68th-grammy-awards-premiere-ceremony-2/

We see the same type of behavior every year at the Oscars, Emmys or Tonys.

These entertainment elites have to make sure we know that they are both talented and VIRTUOUS.

However, it seems the "virtue" changes every year.

In 2024 everyone was standing up for Palestine.

Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/C4YTFv1O0jD/

The entertainment elites seem to have forgotten about the poor Palestinians.

Before that it was Ukraine.

Credit: https://okmagazine.com/p/2022-grammys-backs-ukraine/

Isn't  Zelensky cool anymore?

The war still continues.

At the Grammys, Billie Eilish who won the Grammy for best song and record of the year, had to make a point in her acceptance speech that "no one is illegal on stolen land."

Source: https://www.keysnews.com/news/billie-eilish-no-one-is-illegal-on-stolen-land/article_86ceacf1-e653-43dd-be5d-e2b6d3db2e21.html

That line elicited a rousing ovation from the crowd that included Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Link: https://x.com/search?q=ketanji%20brown%20jackson%20grammys&src=typeahead_click

What happened to that bygone era when Supreme Court Justices sat stone faced, sitting on their hands even when at the State of the Union address?

Billie Eilish may have the opportunity to set an example about her belief that we are living on stolen lands.

The Tongva tribe claims that her multi-million home is on their ancestral land and would like her to contact them.

Link: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2018726158481907801

Eilish also doesn't seem to know her history.

If anyone stole California, it was Mexico.

The United States purchased California  in the treaty ending the Mexican American War.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo sealed the American victory in 1848. In return for $15 million and the assumption of Mexican debts to Americans, Mexico gave up its hold over New Mexico and California. The enormous territory included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. Mexico also agreed to finally relinquish all of Texas, including the disputed area along the border. The U.S. Congress approved the treaty on March 10.

It also appears that Eilish has not been so gracious in the past about those who encroached on her space.

Source: https://x.com/LeftismForU/status/2018312924457041929/photo/1

All of those celebrities who want ICE OUT were also nowhere to be seen or heard from when Tom Homan was receiving an award from Barack Obama for his work in enforcing the immigration laws in 2015.

Almost 400,000 deporations a year were carried out by the Obama administration.

It should be remembered that Trump also inherited a much bigger problem than Obama or Biden did with millions and millions of additional illegals in the country.

Grammy night did have one performer who talked about eternal virtue.

Source: https://religionnews.com/2026/02/02/at-the-grammys-faith-and-politics-collide-with-bad-bunny-jelly-roll-and-the-dalai-lama/

Jelly Roll gave testimony to the transformation of his life by becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.

He went from a life that revolved around alcohol, drugs and time in prison to life redemption.

Jelly Roll used his acceptance speech for best contemporary country album to thank his wife and Jesus for his turnaround from being “a horrible human” after being convicted on drug charges and spending time in prison. He said he believes “that music had the power to change my life, and God had the power to change my life.

“And I want to tell y’all right now, Jesus is for everybody. Jesus is not owned by one political party. Jesus is not owned by no music label. Jesus is Jesus, and anybody can have a relationship with him. I love you, Lord,” said the artist, who also was a winner for his duo with Shaboozey on “Amen” for the best country duo/group performance.It was a sharp contrast with most of the others on stage and in the audience.

Eternal virtues rather than ephemeral virtues.

If the celebrities can't speak about eternal virtues they would be well advised to keep their opinions to themselves.

Do they not realize that most people do not care what they think?

They just want to be entertained.

That Was The Month That Was---January, 2026

Donald Trump had a very busy 2025.

As we entered 2026 the obvious question was whether that pace would continue into the new year.

The month that just ended suggests that things are not slowing down.

There are entire years in which we don't see as much significant activity as we did in January. 

I do not believe I could improve very much on this summary of big events that Travis Kling posted on X.

You can add to this list that Trump also had the United States withdraw from participating and funding 31 United Nations entities that he believed were operating contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty. 

The United States continues to be a member of the main body of the United Nations and its Security Council . The withdrawal is from entities such as the cultural agency UNESCO and its Human Right Council.

It only took weeks after that announcement for the UN to state that it is facing "imminent financial collapse".

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/united-nations-faces-imminent-financial-collapse-urgent-action-129717606

The documentary movie "Melania" also premiered on January 30.

The mainstream media predicted it would be a financial flop.

Its first weekend brought in over $8 million in ticket sales which is the best opener for a documentary in over a decade.

I have not seen the film yet but the early views confirms that there is a large divide between the liberal elites who are film critics and the rest of the country.

What should we expect in February?

The only thing I know is that there are only 28 days on the calendar.

Can we expect only 3/4 of a ton in big events as a result?

 

Insurrection in Minnesota

 It is hard to look at what has been going on in Minnesota and not describe it as an insurrection.

When people are actively obstructing and harassing federal agents from enforcing federal law we are not witnessing mere protests and the exercise of free speech.

Federal law (18 U.S. Code Sec. 2383) states that anyone engaging in rebellion or insurrection by inciting, assisting or engaging against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof shall be fined or imprisoned for a period of not more than ten years.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Federal law also give the President broad authority to take steps to quell insurrections and rebellions under the Insurrection Act that was first passed in the administration of Thomas Jefferson.

Under this law the President may use the U.S. military to enforce federal law and/or to suppress the insurrection if state and local authorities are incapable or unwilling to do so.

This is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

The continuing harassment of ICE officers and the obstruction that has occurred to prevent them from enforcing federal law in Minnesota would seem to be a textbook example of insurrection.

Evidence gathered this week from internet sleuths has further shown there is an extensive behind the scenes network that is funding and coordinating the chaos. 

The evidence also indicates that elected officials in Minnesota were some of those orchestrating the actions against ICE including a couple of state representatives and a Minneapolis city council member.

One of the leaders behind the scenes is alleged to be this woman---Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

It is hard to believe that she is either... 

1) this committed to the "cause" or 2) this stupid.

I guess we will find out in due course.

The failure of state and local authorities to assist and protect ICE in their duties (let alone organizing the insurrection behind the scenes) would also seem to clearly allow President Trump to deploy the U.S. military to enforce the law and suppress the rebellion in Minnesota.

This becomes even clearer when you see the perspective of this former Special Forces Warrant Officer who has experience overseas with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency operations.

This was posted by Eric Schwalm on X on January 26, 2026.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.

What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.

Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.

This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.

The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.

I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.

Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.

We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.

Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.

It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.

 

The President of the United States has invoked the Insurrection Act about 30 times over its history.

The most recent instance was in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest after the acquittal of four police officers who had beaten a Black motorist in Los Angeles.

The most famous use of the Insurrection Act in modern history involved the use of federal troops to assist in desegregation efforts and the protection of Civil Rights activists in the South in the 1960's.

In my view, President Trump has shown remarkable restraint in not invoking the Insurrection Act in Minnesota already.

It appears he wants to give Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Jacob Frey every opportunity to own up to their responsibilities and provide the necessary cooperation for ICE to do their jobs and provide the appropriate protection. 

There is no doubt that a political and PR dimension is in play here as well. 

Trump does not want to further feed the narrative that he is an authoritarian nor does he want to create martyrs of Walz and Frey who become bigger heroes of the Left by standing up to Trump.

We will have to see where this leads.

Will Trump get the cooperation he needs to bring the temperature down in Minnesota or does this eventually end with invocation of the Insurrection Act?

I have to believe that, at a minimum, we will see some prosecutions of those who were directing this insurrection on the front lines or behind the scenes.

At the same time, it is important to remember exactly how popular Trump's deportation policies are despite the mainstream media and the Left's attempt to demonize Trump and ICE.

Donald Trump was very clear when he ran what his policy would be on illegal immigration.

He did say he would focus first on the criminal element among illegals.

ICE's efforts in Minnesota and elsewhere have been focused on apprehending and deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States.

Yes, at times in those efforts ICE comes across illegals that have not committed crimes in the U.S. other than crossing the border illegally. ICE would be negligent in their duties to ignore these people. After all, their job is immigration enforcement.

The fact is that over two third's of ICE detainees last year had either been convicted of a crime of were facing pending criminal charges.

However, Trump ran on a platform stating that he would deport all illegal aliens but focus first on the worst of the worst.

He was elected with voters having full knowledge of that promise.

CNN recently went over the latest polling on the issue which still shows a vast majority of American voters favor deporting all immigrants here illegally.

This is true despite all of the negative news coverage and attempts to paint ICE's actions as extreme.

90% favor deporting those in the country illegally and who have criminal records.

The American people knew what they were voting for when they elected Trump.

They still hold the same views despite the attempts by the Left and the mainstream media to create an alternative narrative.

The Left likes to say that Trump is a threat to democracy and the rule of law

The only visible threat to democracy I see right now are those who do not want to accept what the people voted for in 2024 and those in Minnesota and elsewhere who want to foment rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law.

Simply stated, we cannot continue as a civil society when people ignore and obstruct the laws of the land.

The insurrection in Minnesota has to cease one way or the other.

The Indefatigable Iconoclast and Greenland

Donald Trump made headlines over the last year by setting his sights on having the United States acquire Greenland.

He floated the idea in his first term but he starting talking about it seriously shortly after being elected in 2024.

Trump ramped up the rhetoric in the last month and many in the EU and the mainstream media painted him as unhinged and unreasonable.

This narrative made Trump's Greenland push unpopular in public polling.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doubles-down-greenland-push-polls-show-little-public-support

By a 55%-37% margin, respondents in a Quinnipiac poll did not support Trump's efforts to buy Greenland.

Source: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945

However, neither the bad press, the poor polling or the indignation of the Europeans dissuaded Trump from continuing his efforts on Greenland.

He knows how critical Greenland is for America's future security.

I have written before that the two attributes that set Donald Trump apart from almost all other human beings.

Trump is both an iconoclast and is indefatigable.

There are no words that better describe the man.

He is an iconoclast.

Donald Trump is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. He is not afraid to attack and call out institutions like the WHO, NATO and the WTO when he thinks they have not served the interests of the United States of America. He is not satisfied with the status quo.

Trump is also indefatigable.

Trump doesn't tire. He doesn't quit. He is persistent and unrelenting in pursuing his goals.

Both of these qualities were clearly witnessed in his pursuit of a deal on Greenland.

Greenland has been seen as a national security priority for the United States for well over 100 years.

Woodrow Wilson attempted to purchase Greenland in the period before World War I over concerns that the Germans might gain a foothold there as well as in the Caribbean islands.

Denmark agreed to sell what is now the U.S. Virgin Islands to the United States for $25 million in gold in 1917. Denmark was not interested in giving up Greenland.

This actually led to a 1917 treaty in which the United States recognized Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland.

Similar concerns arose during World War II when Denmark fell to Nazi Germany within two hours of being invaded.

The United States then took control of Greenland to protect against German occupation of the island on our doorstep and protected it during the duration of the war.

This led to the establishment of three permanent U.S. military bases on Greenland that continued in operation after the war.

One remains today---the Pituffik Space Base which was formerly the Thule Air Base.

Right after the war, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland which Denmark rejected.

Greenland took on added importance as intercontinental missiles became the greatest threat to the United States in the 1950's and 1960's.

Greenland lies directly between the most direct paths for missiles to be launched at the United States by Russia (and China).

You can easily see the strategic importance of Greenland by looking at these graphics.

China lies just below the Russian sites on the globe.

Any movements of the Russian navy that night threaten the East Coast of the United States must go through the Giuk gap that abut Greenland.

It is also clear that Denmark neither has the financial wherewithal or will to protect and defend Greenland.

The United States has actually been doing that for well over the last 100 years.

Greenland has taken on even added national security significance with the development of hypersonic missiles that greatly compress the time frames for decisions on defensive responses.

President Trump is focused on developing a Golden Dome anti-missile defense system that would be most optimally deployed in Greenland since the shortest and fastest path to attack the United States is by missiles over the Arctic.

The big point here is that the strategic defense advantages of Greenland have been well known to a long line of American Presidents but none were willing to confront the issue directly and challenge the status quo.

Trump was willing to state the obvious.

Denmark is not capable of protecting Greenland.

But for the United States, Greenland would already be controlled by Germany or Russia.

Denmark had also given Greenland the right of self determination in 2009 which provides a legal right for its 57,000 residents to decide their own future, including independence.

That might include selling out to Russia or China.

If China can bribe American officials what would stop them from paying off a few thousand Greenlanders to take control of that territory?

Why shouldn't the United States be first on that list if Greenland was for sale by its own residents?

Trump the iconoclast was not afraid to challenge the status quo and be willing to take the heat that came with it.

The indefatigable Trump was unrelenting in his quest to get what the United States needed with Greenland and persisted when almost anyone else would have wilted from the criticism.

As a result, Trump got what he believes the United States needed in Greenland and boxed out Russia and China at the same time.

He also got it all without paying anything or deploying any armed forces to do it.

The art of the deal with Trump is to talk tough and use all the leverage he has to get what he wants.

We don't know the exact details of the final deal.

However, this is the reported outline of what Trump got for the United States with Greenland.

Another observer summarized it more simply.

Trump's critics say that he didn't really get anything we didn't have already.

If that is true, then why did Denmark and the Europeans complain so much along the way?

The truth is that it took an indefatigable iconoclast to get the United States what it nows has with Greenland.

It did not just happen automatically.

Like him or not, Trump is a change agent.

He is not only changing the United States... but also the world.

We have not seen anything like him for a long, long time.

We likely will not see another like him anytime soon as well.

What's Going On With Housing?

The prices and affordability of housing have received enormous attention during the last couple of years.

Apollo Global Management recently released a voluminous report on the U.S, Housing Outlook, January, 2026 which contains over 100 charts and graphs to provide context on what's going on with housing.

I have selected a few charts and graphs from the report that I found particularly interesting and enlightening.

The traffic of potential homebuyers is near 40 year lows. 

The only other sustained period when potential homebuyers were lower was in the Great Recession Period of 2008-2012.

A major reason for the weak demand is housing affordability.

However, what is interesting in looking at the data, if it were not for the improvement in housing affordability during the decade between 2009-2019 (driven by ultra low interest rates), I don't believe this would be the issue it is in the media and with young people

In fact, housing affordability was much worse in the early 1980's when 30 year mortgage rates surged as high as 18% in October, 1981.

Right now housing affordability is about the same as it was in the 20 years between 1989 and 2009.

A big reason for the low traffic in prospective homebuyers is that first-time buyers are largely absent from the market, 

The number of first-time buyers has declined from 40% in 2004 to 20% today.

At the same time, the median age of first-time buyers has increased from age 30 in 2008 to 40 today.

The median age of all homebuyers is now 59 meaning half of all buyers are 60 or older.

It was 31 in 1980!

The share of those with ultra-low mortgage rates below 3% has been declining in recent years as interest rates have risen.

There are now as many homeowners with 6% or higher mortgage rates as those with sub 3% rates.

The chart below shows how short-lived most mortgages are.

On paper, most mortgages are for 30 years but most last no longer than 7 or 8 years.

The chart title below is not as accurate as it should be.

In reality, 63% of all mortgages outstanding today were issued in 2019 or later.

This is despite the fact that 95% of mortgages outstanding today in the United States are 30 years.

It seems that very few people are taking the advice I gave my children---get a 15 year mortgage. 

You will save a ton of interest over the life of the mortgage!

Here are some typical mortgage amortization in other countries.

It blows my mind that some mortgages in Sweden can be up to 105 years!

Trump's proposal to create 50 year mortgages does not look quite so crazy with that context in mind.

Source: Grok

It should be noted that 40% of all homes in the United States are not subject to a mortgage today.

That percent has been steadily increasing with the aging of Baby Boomers.

Boomers paying down mortgages and increasing home values has resulted in owner's equity in real estate increasing by almost $25 trillion over the last 10 years.

The inventory of homes for sale has improved since 2022 but is still well below historical averages.

This apparently is a function of the number of homeowners who have low rate mortgages who do not want to sell and face the prospect of a higher rate but also the fact that there has been an ongoing structural decline in those moving each year.

In the mid-1980's about 20% of the population moved each year.

That number is now under 8%.

The increase in home values and mortgage rates has resulted in it being more financially advantageous today to rent versus owning a home.

 

Rents may soon be getting even more attractive as the current national apartment vacancy rate is the highest it has been in the last 10 years.

Credit for this is due to increased apartment construction with an assist from immigration easing demand pressure on apartment rents.

Those factors do not seem to be in play in Manhattan where residents now face a median monthly rate of $4,750 per month.

That is an increase of about 60% since November, 2020.

It will be interesting to see how this number evolves during the administration of Mayor Mandami.

He might get that rent number down but more likely than not it will be due to the law of unintended consequences.

Where are housing prices headed?

A lot of this depends on where you live.

The West, the East Coast and parts of Florida and Texas have the highest median prices and would seem to be most vulnerable to price compression over the next year.

Driven by price reductions in these areas it would not surprise me to see national median home prices  come down 10% or so over the next year to get us back within historical trends.

This chart shows how far home prices have gotten above historical trends.

Notice how home prices really spun out of control right after the Federal Reserve initiated quantitative easing policies in response to the Great Recession (2009-2012) and again with the money printing in response the Covid Pandemic (2000-2022).

In my view this is the primary reason that housing prices soared.

Too much easy money chasing a limited supply of housing.

This was exacerbated by the flood of illegal immigrants beginning in 2021 that increased overall demand for housing.

You simply could not bring in over 10 million people in a short period of time that needed shelter without having an adverse effect on housing costs (rents and, and by extension, home prices).

The biggest factor that potentially could prevent a decline in house prices in the near term is the fact that there is sizeable population of those in their 30's that are potential first time home buyers.

Demographics is providing a nice tailwind in the near term for housing demand and potential protection against falling prices.

However, as the Baby Boomers age out, more and more housing supply will become available.

This suggests to me that the long-term appreciation on residential real estate will be much harder to come by looking to the next decade and beyond.

I would expect to see home prices to be well within the historical trend channel by that time.

We will see it sooner if we experience an economic recession of some magnitude in the interim.

What goes up, can come down.

That may be truer today regarding housing prices than it has been in a long time.