Meta Cracks Down on Leaks: 20 Employees Fired for Sharing Confidential Information

Meta has taken decisive action against internal leaks, firing approximately 20 employees for sharing confidential company information, according to a spokesperson. The move highlights the tech giant's strict stance on internal security and its commitment to preventing unauthorized disclosures.

In an exclusive statement to The Verge, Meta spokesperson Dave Arnold reinforced the company's zero-tolerance policy:

"We tell employees when they join the company, and we offer periodic reminders, that it is against our policies to leak internal information, no matter the intent. We recently conducted an investigation that resulted in roughly 20 employees being terminated for sharing confidential information outside the company, and we expect there will be more. We take this seriously and will continue to take action when we identify leaks."

This latest crackdown underscores the increasing pressure on major tech firms to maintain control over internal communications and proprietary data. With Meta managing vast amounts of user and corporate information, the company views internal leaks as a significant risk to its operations, innovation strategies, and competitive edge.

The terminations signal that Meta is doubling down on its efforts to enforce confidentiality agreements and security measures. In the past, major tech companies, including Google and Apple, have also faced challenges with leaks and have responded with similarly strict policies to deter employees from sharing sensitive information.

As Meta continues its internal investigation, more terminations could follow, reinforcing the message that violating corporate confidentiality policies comes with severe consequences. The incident serves as a warning to employees within the tech industry that leaking sensitive information could cost them their jobs.

With increasing scrutiny on data security and corporate transparency, it remains to be seen how Meta and other companies will balance internal confidentiality with calls for greater openness within the tech sector. For now, however, the message from Meta is clear: leaks will not be tolerated.

Gene Hackman, his wife and their dog were found dead

 RIP – Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman, his wife, and their dog were found dead in their New Mexico home, authorities said Thursday.

Authorities do not suspect foul play, but they have not disclosed the circumstances surrounding their deaths, and an investigation is ongoing.

Is All the Gold Still at Fort Knox?

The U.S. Treasury’s Fort Knox Bullion Depository, located in Kentucky, has long been surrounded by mystery and speculation, particularly regarding the amount and status of its gold reserves. Fort Knox holds one of the largest gold reserves in the world, which historically played a crucial role in backing the U.S. dollar during the gold standard era. However, since the U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the role of gold in Fort Knox has become more symbolic, and questions have arisen about whether all of the gold that should be there still remains.

Is the Gold Still There?

In short, it’s believed that the gold at Fort Knox is still there, but there has been little transparency regarding the actual status of the gold reserves. The U.S. Mint, which manages the depository, claims that the gold stored at Fort Knox amounts to around 147 million ounces, worth hundreds of billions of dollars at current prices. However, the last official audit of the gold took place in 1953, and no comprehensive audit has been conducted since then, leading to public curiosity and conspiracy theories.

There is a significant lack of independent verification about the total amount of gold in the depository. Over the years, there have been calls for an audit, but no action has been taken by the U.S. government to grant outsiders access to verify the contents. Some people argue that Fort Knox’s gold might have been sold off or moved to other locations, but these claims are largely speculative and not backed by any concrete evidence.

Why the Secrecy?

The secrecy surrounding Fort Knox’s gold has contributed to the theories and suspicions. The U.S. government has kept tight control over access to the depository, and even journalists have been denied access for decades. The reasons behind this secrecy are unclear, but one possibility is national security, as revealing too much information about the U.S.'s gold reserves might impact market stability. Another explanation is simply the practicality of maintaining security for a massive and historically significant store of wealth.

Other Gold Reserves in the U.S.

It’s worth noting that Fort Knox is not the only place in the U.S. where gold is stored. The U.S. Mint also holds substantial amounts of gold at other facilities, including the West Point Bullion Depository in New York. Additionally, a portion of the U.S. gold reserves is held in the Federal Reserve's vaults in Manhattan. Together, these locations represent a vast collection of the nation’s precious metal assets.

Conclusion

While there is no definitive, up-to-date confirmation that all the gold once held in Fort Knox remains there today, it is likely that a large portion of it is still stored in the depository. However, without a thorough audit, it’s impossible to know for sure. The mystery surrounding Fort Knox and its gold reserves continues to fuel speculation, though for now, the government maintains that the gold is secure and present in the vaults.

USAID to Place Thousands on Administrative Leave After Court Ruling Lifts Block on Trump-Era Plan

In a major shake-up, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has announced that all non-essential direct hires will be placed on administrative leave starting at 11:59 p.m. ET on Sunday, February 23, 2025. This decision follows a recent court ruling that lifted the injunction blocking a Trump-era initiative aimed at restructuring and downsizing the agency.

The ruling, handed down by a federal judge last week, clears the way for the implementation of policies that had been previously halted due to legal challenges. While the full details of the plan remain unclear, early indications suggest it could involve widespread reductions in staffing, program overhauls, and a reevaluation of USAID’s foreign aid priorities.

Background on the Blocked Trump-Era Plan

Under the Trump administration, USAID faced significant scrutiny as part of a broader push to streamline government operations. Critics argued that the agency had grown bloated and inefficient, with excessive bureaucracy slowing down aid distribution. Proponents of the plan advocated for a leaner, more targeted approach to international assistance, focusing on strategic national interests rather than broad, long-term development projects.

However, the plan was met with resistance from lawmakers, international organizations, and USAID personnel, who feared that deep cuts and restructuring would undermine critical programs worldwide. Legal challenges stalled its implementation—until now.

Immediate Impact and Uncertainty for USAID Employees

With thousands of employees set to be placed on administrative leave, uncertainty looms over the future of USAID’s workforce. The agency has not yet clarified whether these leaves will be temporary or if they will lead to terminations. Affected employees are expected to receive further guidance in the coming days.

This move could also disrupt USAID-funded programs across the globe. The agency has been instrumental in providing humanitarian aid, disaster relief, and economic development assistance in regions facing crises. The administrative leave order raises concerns about potential delays or disruptions in ongoing projects.

Political Reactions and Future Implications

The decision has sparked immediate political backlash. Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have condemned the move, warning that it could weaken America’s global influence and hinder crucial aid operations. Meanwhile, conservatives supporting the restructuring argue that it is long overdue, pointing to wasteful spending and inefficiencies within the agency.

As the situation unfolds, the Biden administration will likely face mounting pressure to clarify its stance on the restructuring and whether it will attempt to reverse or modify the policy. The outcome of this shake-up could have far-reaching implications for USAID, the U.S. government’s role in foreign aid, and thousands of employees now facing an uncertain future.

Germany at a Crossroads: The Impact of the Snap Federal Elections

Germany is set to hold snap federal elections this Sunday, a pivotal vote that will shape the country’s political and economic trajectory for the next four years. As the European Union’s largest member state and its economic powerhouse, Germany’s leadership transition will have far-reaching implications not just domestically but across the continent. The outcome of this election could redefine policies on immigration, energy, industry, and foreign relations, particularly in the wake of growing economic and political challenges.

The new government will inherit a country facing mounting economic difficulties. For the first time in decades, Germany’s economy has contracted for two consecutive years, signaling deeper structural issues. Bureaucratic hurdles, soaring energy costs, and an automotive industry struggling to keep up with the global shift to electric vehicles have all contributed to this downturn. The once-dominant German car industry, a pillar of the country’s economic strength, is now facing stiff competition from international markets, particularly China and the United States, which have rapidly advanced in electric vehicle production and innovation. Additionally, Germany’s reliance on Russian energy, disrupted by geopolitical tensions, has further complicated economic recovery efforts.

Politically, the landscape is shifting toward the right. Polls indicate that Germany’s conservative bloc, led by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), along with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), have gained significant support. Friedrich Merz, leader of the CDU, is poised to become the next chancellor, potentially ending the tenure of Olaf Scholz and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). Scholz’s leadership has faced criticism for economic mismanagement, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and an inability to reverse Germany’s economic decline.

The rise of the AfD signals growing voter dissatisfaction with mainstream parties, particularly regarding issues such as immigration, energy policies, and national security. The AfD's populist rhetoric has resonated with voters who feel left behind by globalization and the rapid transition toward green policies that have increased costs for businesses and consumers alike. However, the party remains highly controversial, facing criticism for its nationalist views and hardline stance on immigration and EU policies.

This election is not just about leadership change—it is about the ideological direction of Germany. A shift to the right could mean stricter immigration controls, a reassessment of Germany’s energy transition, and a stronger emphasis on economic liberalization to stimulate growth. It may also lead to changes in Germany’s role within the EU, particularly in relation to economic policies and international diplomacy.

As Germans head to the polls, the world will be watching closely. The choices made in this election will shape the nation’s domestic policies and global standing, influencing European stability and the economic direction of the EU as a whole. Regardless of the outcome, Germany is at a crossroads, and the decisions made in this vote will have lasting consequences for years to come.

Yale Study Reveals Possible Link Between mRNA Vaccines and 'Post-Vax Syndrome'

 On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, researchers from Yale University, renowned for their meticulous and groundbreaking work in medical science, released findings that could have far-reaching implications. Their study suggests that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines may be linked to a condition they have termed 'post-vax syndrome.'

This newly identified syndrome manifests in a range of symptoms, including persistent brain fog, dizziness, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), extreme fatigue, and notable changes to the immune system. These effects bear a striking resemblance to what many have described as long COVID, raising questions about potential overlapping mechanisms.

While the study does not outright claim causation, it highlights patterns in patients who have reported prolonged health issues following vaccination. The researchers emphasize the need for further investigation into how the mRNA technology interacts with the immune system and whether certain individuals are predisposed to these effects.

The implications of this research are significant, particularly as public health authorities continue to promote booster campaigns. If validated through further studies, these findings could prompt a reassessment of vaccine-related risks and the development of targeted treatments for those affected.

As more data emerges, it remains crucial to balance vaccine benefits with a deeper understanding of potential side effects. Yale’s study is a step toward uncovering the full picture—one that medical experts, policymakers, and the public must now examine with a critical eye.

IRS Layoffs: 6,000 Employees Cut Amid Tax Season Chaos

In a shocking and emotional announcement, a senior executive at the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tearfully informed staff on Thursday that approximately 6,000 employees would be laid off. This move, eliminating roughly 6% of the agency’s workforce, comes at a critical time—right in the middle of tax season, when the IRS is already under immense pressure to process returns and provide taxpayer assistance.

The layoffs raise serious concerns about the agency’s ability to function efficiently during one of the busiest periods of the year. With fewer staff members handling audits, processing returns, and managing customer service inquiries, taxpayers could face delays in refunds and heightened frustration with an already bureaucratic system.

While the specific reasons behind the mass layoffs remain unclear, speculation is growing about whether this is part of broader budget cuts, restructuring efforts, or political maneuvering. The decision also fuels debates about government efficiency, with critics arguing that the IRS—despite receiving billions in additional funding under recent legislation—should be prioritizing modernization and taxpayer service rather than workforce reductions.

For many of the affected employees, the sudden layoffs are devastating. Losing a stable federal job can have significant financial and emotional consequences, particularly in an uncertain economic climate. The executive’s tearful address underscores the personal toll these cuts will take on individuals and families who depend on their IRS roles.

As the story unfolds, Americans will be watching closely to see how the agency manages the fallout. Will the IRS be able to navigate tax season smoothly despite the loss of thousands of workers? Or will these cuts lead to further inefficiencies, delays, and taxpayer frustrations? One thing is certain—this move will have lasting implications, not only for the agency but for millions of Americans expecting timely tax services.

Gain of Function? PHAC’s Latest Vaccine Purchase Raises Questions

 The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) made headlines Wednesday with its announcement of the purchase of 500,000 doses of a human vaccine against avian flu. Their reasoning? “It’s better to have a vaccine and not need it than need a vaccine and not have it.”

At first glance, this seems like a reasonable precaution—governments stockpile vaccines all the time to prepare for potential outbreaks. But the timing of this purchase raises important questions. Why now? What does PHAC know that the public doesn’t?

The Avian Flu Threat

Avian flu, particularly H5N1, has long been a concern among epidemiologists. While primarily affecting birds, sporadic human infections have occurred. The fear is that a mutation could allow for sustained human-to-human transmission, triggering a pandemic.

This vaccine stockpile suggests that PHAC sees a credible risk of avian flu making that jump. But is this a case of prudent planning, or is there something more behind the urgency of this purchase?

Gain of Function Research – A Controversial Topic

One of the biggest concerns surrounding viruses like avian flu is gain-of-function research—the practice of deliberately modifying viruses to study their potential mutations. Proponents argue it helps in developing vaccines and treatments before a pandemic emerges. Critics, however, warn that this research increases the risk of an outbreak, whether through a lab accident or intentional misuse.

Given recent revelations about the origins of COVID-19, public trust in government transparency on viral threats is at an all-time low. Could this vaccine stockpile indicate concerns over a lab-modified strain? Is there any link to ongoing gain-of-function research? These are fair questions that PHAC has yet to answer.

A Pattern of ‘Preparedness’

PHAC’s justification—better safe than sorry—echoes what we heard during COVID-19. Governments worldwide rushed to secure vaccines, often under emergency use authorizations, with limited long-term safety data. Billions were spent, and much of that stockpile later went to waste as public confidence waned.

Are we witnessing a repeat of this rushed response, or is this genuinely a necessary precaution? And most importantly—what specific intelligence is driving this decision?

Final Thoughts

While it’s reasonable to take proactive steps in public health, Canadians deserve clear answers. What does PHAC know about the avian flu risk that isn’t being shared publicly? Is this a typical precaution, or are there concerns about a new gain-of-function development?

One thing is clear: Transparency is essential. Canadians should demand more details—before this turns into yet another multi-billion-dollar pandemic operation with more questions than answers.

Canadians Rethink Shopping and Travel as US Trade War Looms

 A recent online survey reveals a significant shift in Canadian consumer habits as concerns over a potential US trade war grow. The findings indicate that many Canadians are actively reconsidering their purchasing choices and travel plans in response to escalating trade tensions.

According to the survey, 75% of respondents stated that they either agree or somewhat agree with cutting back on purchasing US-made products. This signals a growing sentiment among Canadian consumers to support domestic and alternative international markets rather than relying on American goods. Whether driven by patriotism, economic concerns, or a desire to push back against US trade policies, this trend could have lasting effects on cross-border commerce.

Similarly, 60% of respondents have either canceled or decided against traveling to the United States within the next six months. This decline in Canadian visitors could impact American businesses, particularly in border states that heavily rely on Canadian tourism. With inflation, economic uncertainty, and trade policies creating additional concerns, many travelers seem to be prioritizing destinations within Canada or looking to other international options instead.

If these trends persist, the economic ripple effects could be significant for both countries. Canadian businesses may benefit from increased domestic spending, while US retailers and tourism-dependent regions might see noticeable declines in revenue. The question remains—will these shifts become long-term habits, or are they temporary reactions to political and economic uncertainty?

What do you think? Are you changing your spending or travel plans due to US trade tensions? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Acting Head of SSA Resigns After Clash with Elon Musk-Led DOGE

 In a surprising turn of events, reports indicate that the acting head of the Social Security Administration (SSA) resigned over the weekend following a heated dispute with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Oversight and Efficiency (DOGE). The conflict reportedly centered around access to sensitive government records, with DOGE pushing for increased transparency and efficiency in data management—something the SSA leadership strongly resisted.

This resignation marks a significant shift in the ongoing battle between government agencies and Musk’s influence over public-sector operations. Since being tapped to lead DOGE, Musk has been vocal about modernizing outdated bureaucratic processes, advocating for streamlined data access, and eliminating inefficiencies in government record-keeping. However, such efforts have been met with resistance from long-standing officials who argue that rapid reforms could compromise privacy and security.

The departure of the SSA’s acting head raises questions about the future of the agency and whether DOGE will push for further restructuring. Some critics see this as a power struggle between entrenched government interests and Musk’s disruptive approach, while supporters argue that such shake-ups are necessary to eliminate corruption and inefficiency.

As more details emerge, one thing is clear: the fight for government transparency and accountability is far from over. Will Musk’s vision for a streamlined bureaucracy prevail, or will the deep state fight back to maintain control?

Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated that a potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin

U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated that a potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin could take place shortly as diplomatic efforts continue to address the ongoing war in Ukraine. 

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Trump stated, “There’s no time set, but it could be very soon,” signaling a possible high-level discussion between the two leaders. 

His remarks come ahead of a planned meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where representatives from both nations are set to engage in talks aimed at finding a resolution to the conflict. 

While details remain uncertain, the prospect of direct dialogue between Trump and Putin has already sparked speculation about the potential impact on international diplomacy and the broader geopolitical landscape.

US Tariffs

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose 25 percent tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, and reciprocal tariffs on countries leveling duties on US goods. 

On Monday, during a signing ceremony at the Oval Office, Trump announced the tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum were to be imposed “without exceptions or exemptions”. The tariffs are set to come into effect on March 12.

 

Who are the top suppliers of steel to the US? Steel is an important material primarily used in construction, manufacturing, transportation, and energy sectors due to its strength, durability and versatility. 

Roughly a quarter of all steel used in the United States is imported. Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are the top three steel suppliers to the United States. Between March 2024 and January 2025, they provided about half (49 percent) of steel imports for domestic consumption, according to the International Trade Administration. During that period, 

Canada supplied 22 percent (5.47 million tonnes) of the 25 million tonnes of steel imported into the United States, followed by Brazil with 15 percent (3.74 million tonnes) and Mexico with 12 percent (2.9 million tonnes). Mexico with 12 percent (2.9 million tonnes).

Trump Tariffs

U.S. President Donald Trump has officially announced his plan to implement reciprocal tariffs, a move that could significantly reshape international trade dynamics. This proposal aims to impose import taxes on foreign goods equivalent to the tariffs that U.S. exports face in other nations, leveling the playing field in what Trump describes as an effort to combat unfair trade practices.

The proclamation, unveiled on Thursday, signals a potential shift in U.S. trade policy that could have far-reaching consequences for America's economic allies. Under this approach, countries that impose higher tariffs on U.S. products would see their exports to the U.S. subjected to equivalent rates. This policy aligns with Trump's longstanding critique of what he sees as one-sided trade agreements that disadvantage American industries and workers.

By advocating for a system in which tariffs are adjusted to match those imposed by foreign governments, Trump seeks to pressure trading partners into reducing their own trade barriers. This could lead to a ripple effect across global markets, affecting industries ranging from manufacturing and agriculture to technology and automotive sectors.

While supporters argue that this strategy will protect domestic jobs and stimulate U.S. production, critics warn that it could escalate trade tensions and provoke retaliatory measures from key allies, potentially leading to a trade war. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and China—all of whom have intricate trade relationships with the United States—may respond with countermeasures if they perceive the tariffs as punitive rather than reciprocal.

The announcement comes amid broader debates over protectionism versus free trade, with economic experts weighing the potential benefits and risks. If enacted, the policy could influence global supply chains, consumer prices, and diplomatic relations, making it a defining issue in the evolving landscape of U.S. trade strategy. As Trump positions himself for a potential return to the White House, this move underscores his commitment to his "America First" economic agenda, a key pillar of his administration's trade policy during his first term.

The full details of the proposal, including which specific industries or products may be affected, have yet to be outlined. However, as discussions unfold, businesses, policymakers, and international leaders will be closely watching the potential economic impact of Trump's reciprocal tariff strategy.

New Brunswick’s Deficit Balloons to Almost $400M – A Predictable Liberal Failure

New Brunswick is now staring down a massive budget deficit, with the shortfall reaching nearly $400 million. The culprits? Rising healthcare costs, expensive campaign promises, and the impact of federal tax holidays.

For years, New Brunswick’s finances were in stable hands under the Conservative government, even managing to maintain a budget surplus. But as history has shown time and time again, once Liberals take control, fiscal responsibility goes out the window.

The warning signs were there. Spending surged. Promises piled up. And now, taxpayers are left footing the bill for reckless policies that were never sustainable in the first place.

It’s the same story across Canada—Liberal governments spend freely with no plan for long-term stability, and when the debt spirals out of control, they either raise taxes or cut essential services. New Brunswickers deserve better.

How much more proof do voters need? Every time the Liberals take power, fiscal disaster follows.

What do you think? Should governments be held accountable for reckless spending, or will voters continue to let history repeat itself?

The Impact of U.S. Aluminum Tariffs on Quebec and the Rest of Canada

The aluminum industry in Quebec is facing a significant challenge following U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on aluminum imports. Industry leaders and politicians across the province have condemned the move, calling it a brutal and unjustifiable attack on one of Quebec’s most vital industries. However, the effects of these tariffs extend far beyond Quebec, impacting the entire Canadian economy and trade relations between the two countries.

Quebec’s Aluminum Industry Under Threat

Quebec is the heart of Canada’s aluminum production, accounting for nearly 90% of the country’s total output. With its vast hydroelectric resources, the province has been able to produce aluminum at a competitive cost while maintaining an environmentally sustainable approach. The industry supports tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, making it a crucial economic pillar for the region.

The tariffs, which impose additional costs on aluminum exports to the United States, threaten to disrupt operations, force companies to scale back production, and put thousands of jobs at risk. Quebec’s political leaders, including Premier François Legault, have been vocal in their opposition, arguing that these tariffs unfairly target an industry that has been a reliable trade partner to the U.S. for decades.

The Economic Ripple Effect Across Canada

While Quebec bears the brunt of the impact, the repercussions of these tariffs extend across the entire Canadian economy. Canada is one of the largest suppliers of aluminum to the U.S., and any disruption in trade will have nationwide consequences. Key industries, including automotive manufacturing, aerospace, and construction, rely on a steady supply of aluminum, and increased costs could result in reduced production, job losses, and higher prices for consumers.

Provinces such as Ontario, which has a significant manufacturing base, will feel the pressure as increased aluminum costs make Canadian-made products less competitive. Western provinces, which export raw materials used in aluminum production, may also experience economic fallout. The tariffs create uncertainty in supply chains, discouraging investment and shaking business confidence.

Political and Trade Implications

Beyond the economic impact, these tariffs represent a major setback for U.S.-Canada trade relations. Just a short time ago, both countries finalized the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which was supposed to solidify a fair and stable trading relationship. Imposing tariffs on a key Canadian export contradicts the spirit of the agreement and raises concerns about the future of trade cooperation between the two nations.

The Canadian government has vowed to respond, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling the tariffs “unacceptable” and promising retaliatory measures if necessary. However, any escalation in trade disputes could further strain economic recovery efforts, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian officials are working to negotiate exemptions and find diplomatic solutions, but the uncertainty is already causing instability in markets and industries that rely on aluminum.

Conclusion: A Fight for Fair Trade

Quebec’s leaders are right to be outraged by this tariff decision. The aluminum industry has long been a critical component of the province’s economy, and these unjustified tariffs threaten to cause widespread damage. But the issue is larger than just Quebec—this is a national problem that could have serious long-term effects on Canada’s economy and trade relationships.

The Canadian government must stand firm in demanding fair treatment for its industries while seeking to protect jobs and investments across the country. As tensions rise, the battle over aluminum tariffs will be a key test of Canada’s ability to navigate an increasingly unpredictable trade landscape with its largest trading partner.

Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland has proposed eliminating GST for first-time homebuyers

In a significant policy announcement, Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland has proposed eliminating the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for first-time homebuyers on properties valued up to $1.5 million. This initiative aims to make homeownership more accessible for young Canadians, potentially saving them up to $75,000 on their first home purchase.

Freeland's proposal is part of a broader strategy to address housing affordability and support the middle class. In addition to the GST exemption, she plans to reduce income taxes for approximately 11 million Canadians by lowering the second income tax bracket rate from 20.5% to 19%. This change would result in annual savings of $550 for individuals with taxable incomes between $57,375 and $114,750.