EU’s ‘Frozen-Asset’ Gambit

American  Thinker 

The Commission is proposing to channel up to €140 billion of frozen Russian central bank assets into a complex “bond-for-collateral” scheme designed to support Ukraine’s war effort. However, the legal aspect of the plan raises too many questions.

At the heart of the global legal order lies the principle of state sovereignty — one nation cannot impose its jurisdiction on another without its consent (par in parem non habet imperium). This results in jurisdictional immunity, including immunity from execution. The International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, and EU courts have all consistently affirmed that sovereign assets, especially those held by central banks, are immune from seizure unless they are demonstrably being used for commercial purposes.

Article 21 of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities explicitly includes central bank reserves among the properties that are shielded from coercive measures. Thus, no EU member state has the legal authority to confiscate or transfer Russian central bank assets, regardless of existing sanctions regimes. Therefore, the Commission’s proposal rests on a precarious legal foundation, sparking costly litigation and setting a dangerous precedent for future disputes over sovereign wealth.

Stretching the Legal Framework

The Commission is attempting to legitimize its plan by invoking Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article allows the Union to provide financial assistance to Member States in cases of “exceptional circumstances”. However, it was drafted with intra-EU solidarity in mind, not for the appropriation of foreign sovereign property.

Further bolstering its argument, the Commission points to Regulation 2016/369 of March 15, 2016 on emergency assistance within the Union. However, this regulation explicitly limits aid to situations arising within the EU’s territorial borders. As Ukraine is not an EU Member State, using this regulation as a legal justification for seizing Russian assets fundamentally contravenes EU law.

Collective Action, Individual Responsibility

Any confiscation plan is fundamentally flawed due to the unresolved tension between the sovereignty of individual Member States and the competence of EU institutions. The Union’s legal framework lacks clarity regarding the extent to which supranational authorities can legally seize assets belonging to a non-member sovereign entity under international law. Furthermore, the principle of EU legal supremacy conflicts with the obligations of Member States under ratified international treaties, which form an integral part of their domestic legal systems.

The European Union is not a party to key global agreements such as the United Nations Charter, nor is bound by bilateral investment or diplomatic accords that its Member States have signed individually. EU leaders appear to be relying on this “gap” in obligations: if challenged internationally, the Union could argue that it has no direct treaty responsibilities concerning Russian sovereign assets.

However, each Member State remains a sovereign signatory to these treaties and is therefore individually responsible for any breach of international law. Attempting to shield accountability through collective EU action would not succeed, as each participating country would be held liable independently. Should a resolution authorizing the seizure of Russian assets materialize, it would constitute concrete evidence of joint participation in an unlawful act.

Economic Shockwaves: Inflation Risks and Investor Confidence

Beyond the legal side, the EU scheme poses a threat to the stability of Europe’s financial system. The majority of Russia’s frozen reserves are held by Euroclear, the Belgian clearing house that also manages assets for numerous other countries. Forcing the use of Russian funds could expose Euroclear to lawsuits from its shareholders and severely damage its reputation as a neutral custodian.

The European Central Bank has already expressed discrepancy, warning that the EU plan would mean the direct monetization of EU expenditure — a practice prohibited under EU law due to the risk it poses to financial stability. Furthermore, according to the prominent American economist Milton Friedman, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Injecting an extra €140 billion into the system without corresponding economic output growth is likely to fuel price pressures across the bloc, eroding real wages and undermining confidence in euro as a reserve currency.

From a market perspective, the prospect of expropriating sovereign assets could deter foreign investment, particularly from China, India, and the Gulf states, all of which are closely monitoring Europe’s regulatory environment. A decline in capital inflows would increase the inflationary shock, creating a damaging feedback loop that would harm both EU fiscal health and geopolitical credibility.

Moscow’s Inevitable Response: The Risk of Reciprocal Seizures

Moscow has warned that it will respond with “strong countermeasures”. While European courts may be reluctant to challenge sovereign immunity directly, Russian authorities can — and will probably — target European assets frozen in Russia. Estimates suggest that the value of these holdings is comparable to the funds that Europe hopes to redirect.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has already reported pressure from domestic businesses urging caution: if Brussels proceeds, Moscow could seize European-owned factories and other strategic properties located in Russia. The EU risks opening a two-way door that would allow both sides to confiscate each other’s sovereign assets, thereby entrenching financial hostilities and diminishing any incentive for future cooperation.

Moral Problem: Aid vs. Escalation

The humanitarian argument for using the EU-based Russian assets is compelling: Ukraine needs all the resources it can get to rebuild infrastructure, restore energy supplies and provide basic social services. However, a significant proportion of the proposed €140 billion tranche is earmarked for military procurement, which could prolong the conflict.

This moral dilemma is further complicated by the ongoing corruption scandal in Kyiv, which raises questions about the transparency and effectiveness of aid. Critics argue that channeling frozen Russian funds into Ukraine could normalize a war economy rather than hasten peace, particularly when these funds could be used to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to both parties.

The EU’s “Quick Fix” May Backfire

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly emphasized that a negotiated settlement, rather than financing endless war, is the only sustainable path for Ukraine. However, by tapping into frozen Russian assets, the EU will inadvertently fuel Kyiv’s war effort, embolden Moscow to hold firm and hinder any potential peace settlement.

Even if European officials identify a “legal loophole”, they will likely face resistance not just from the law community, but also from the continent’s financial sector, business leaders, and economists, who are wary of the potential inflationary impact. The legal, economic, and reputational costs could far outweigh any short-term gain.

The EU is at a crossroads where geopolitics clash with law and economics. While supporting Ukraine is understandable, bypassing established international law and jeopardizing Europe’s own financial stability is a dangerous gamble. A solution that respects sovereign immunity, protects the euro area from inflationary pressure and funnels aid through transparent, civilian-focused channels would better serve European values and long-term security interests than a hasty, legally dubious cash transfer.

Entertainment thread for Dec 18

 

Hope winter blues aren't getting you down.

Victor Davis Hanson: Hegseth Did What Biden Called ‘Impossible’

Why Should Americans Die for European Tyranny?

American  Thinker 

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”  

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.” 

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation: “The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Shellenberger’s pointed observations reinforce Vice President Vance’s recent criticisms of European censorship: “Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer.  There are thousands upon thousands of American troops in Germany today.  Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet?”  Vance has explicitly warned European elites that America and Europe “do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border” or canceling “elections because you don’t like the result — and that happened in Romania.  You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.”

When the leading candidate for the American presidency in 2028 and one of America’s pre-eminent journalists are both warning the European political class that its ongoing censorship activities are threatening the foundations of the Western alliance, the capitals of Europe should pay attention.

Unfortunately, it appears the paper tigers of Europe believe that their gentle purrs sound like ferocious roars and that their distorted shadows still convey strength.  As President Trump’s emissaries work to deliver peace between Russia and Ukraine, there are rumors on the continent that the European Commission is threatening behind somewhat closed doors to sell $2.34 trillion in U.S. Treasury holdings should the American government impose an “unsatisfactory” peace settlement or outright withdraw military and financial support from Ukraine.  Such economic warfare against the United States could trigger a financial crash more severe than what occurred in 2008.  

The fact that European powers would consider destabilizing the global economy in order to prolong war on the European continent says a great deal about the Old World’s twisted priorities.  While tens of millions of illegal immigrants erase Western civilization and insane “green energy” policies doom the economies of Europe, the aristocratic elites insist on censorship, government-approved propaganda, and perpetual war.  Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin are so committed to total war with Russia that they will sacrifice every last Ukrainian and outlaw peace.  Better to remain master over a dominion of poverty, division, and bloodshed than to permit non-globalist political parties to win elections and defend their respective nations’ sovereignties.

Given how ill prepared Europe is to fight its own battles without the assistance of America’s military machine, it is maddening to watch the deranged posturing of Europe’s bellicose ruling class as it salivates for more war.  While mourning the recent death of a British soldier in Ukraine, U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer tacitly admitted that a military contingent of unknown size is already operating in the country.  This led one of Russia’s most prominent political commentators to conclude that “a nuclear strike on Britain is inevitable.”  Should the British people perhaps have a say in whether their political leadership will risk nuclear war over Russian-speaking territories in eastern Ukraine?

Meanwhile, the French government is not so quietly preparing hospitals for the arrival of tens of thousands of wounded soldiers in the next few months.  Given that French president Emmanuel Macron is reportedly planning to announce a rapid expansion of the country’s military service, a significant military engagement on the continent appears increasingly likely.  Similarly, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Poland, and Germany are all working to increase the sizes of their military forces.  Military spending in Germany is set to “mark the largest single-year investment in defense equipment in the country’s history.”  And NATO chief Mark Rutte recently told foreign policy pooh-bahs in Berlin that Europeans “must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.”  As far as Europe’s political elites are concerned, all signs point to World War III!

Is this really what Americans want?  Must we really permit Europe’s totalitarian political elites to recklessly provoke a U.S.-NATO-Russia War?  It is revealing that Europe’s speech police work so assiduously to censor social media posts that dare to question the ruling class’s apparent desire to transform a regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine into a battle royale involving the whole of the continent.  How duplicitous with regard to their motivations and desperate in their political calculations could Starmer, Macron, Merz, and Queen Ursula von der Leyen be if they feel compelled to silence every European commoner who prefers to keep his children safely away from exploding drones on the battlefield?

I go back to the questions that Michael Shellenberger and Vice President Vance have asked concerning Europe’s diminishing commitment to Western values.  What is the point of defending a royal court of unelected European aristocrats who cynically prattle on about the need to “defend democracy” while spying on fellow citizens’ private communications and silencing their online debates?  Why should Americans fight and die for European elites who conspire to prevent non-globalist politicians from holding office and summarily cancel elections whenever preferred globalists flat-out lose?  Why should America’s military defend a European ruling class that regularly censors American citizens?

If Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin want war, let those socialists pick up a rifle and fight.  As for Americans, our cause should be to defend liberty.  And right now, unfortunately, liberty is of little concern to Europe’s political elites.

The Marxist Transformation of the Democrat Party

American  Thinker 

Since 1912 and the election of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has been America’s left-wing political party. Nonetheless, over the decades it has maintained tenuous ties to the basic tenets of the nation’s founding. In the 1930s, beginning with what was a de facto “cult of personality” centered around Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrat party establishment began wallowing in myopic party loyalty. It was that myopic party loyalty extended to Barack Obama together with a psychotic obsession with Donald Trump that has led to the Democrat party evolving into America’s Marxist/socialist political party and the greatest internal threat to the nation as founded in its 250-year history.

By 2020, the far-left or Marxists/socialists had cemented their grip on the party. In that election cycle the socialist wing of the Democrat party gained significant ground compared to previous elections. In 2020, per the Heartland Institute, 266 avowed socialist candidates ran under the Democrat banner for state legislative seats (200), U.S. House seats (60), and U.S. Senate seats (6). Virtually all ran in predominantly Democrat strongholds. More than ninety percent won their races. By comparison in 2018, only 86 Democrat candidates running for state and congressional seats were avowed socialists and of that number fewer than forty percent won their races.

By the summer and fall of 2025, even the legacy media was reporting about the Marxist/socialist takeover of the Democrat party and that the party is “…threatening to bring socialism into America’s mainstream via the two-party system.”

That outcome became inevitable in 2008 when the party went on a blind date with someone they did not know and made no effort to find out about and was responsible for Donald Trump seeking the presidency in 2016.

In 2008, Barack Obama, playing on his skin color, ability to deliver a speech, and a manufactured image geared to appeal to a celebrity-obsessed populace, captured the hearts and minds of the Democrat Party movers and shakers. It mattered little to an establishment marinated in party loyalty who Obama was or what he had said or done in his past. Winning the White House after eight years of Republican occupation was the only objective.

The mainstream media, the vast majority of whom historically promote Democrat candidates, were overwhelmingly predisposed to swallow the faux image portrayed by the Obama team as he met and exceeded their superficial image of an ideal presidential candidate.

The major financial contributors to the party were also susceptible to the new celebrity in their midst, as he had the unique ability to obfuscate socialism and make it sound not only benign but nation-saving. Out of loyalty to the party, they willfully chose to not believe that Obama harbored extreme left-wing beliefs, had historically demonized capitalism, and had incessantly trafficked in racial and class warfare rhetoric.

Additionally, Obama effectively stated during the campaign that he intended to transform the nation into a socialist state via a Marxist takeover of the Democrat party. However, all the revelations about his political philosophy and his past that were exposed during the campaign were waved away by those who in their juvenile celebrity worship or party loyalty refused to listen or ask questions.

To the elected Democrat officeholders, dependent on the largess of the party hierarchy, it mattered little who was the party nominee -- they would blindly support anyone chosen but particularly one the legacy media portrayed as “messianic.”

Once in office, the real Barack Obama surfaced. The blind date turned out to be a disaster for the party and the country.

Counting on the fascination with his racial identity and unbridled loyalty to the Democratic Party, Obama coerced the Congress, overwhelming controlled by the Democrats in 2009-2010, to take the lead and the arrows as they passed numerous bills transferring near unlimited power to the executive branch. Among these were the extremely unpopular ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act.

As all spending must be approved by Congress, a convenient scapegoat, Obama tacitly agreed with every spending request by his administration or any member of the party no matter how outrageous and detrimental to the long-term future of the country. In exchange, members of Congress raised no objections when extra-constitutional executive orders were issued and far-left ideologues appointed to further radicalize the federal bureaucracy. Additionally, many dubious and potentially illegal actions by the administration (such as the Fast and Furious debacle) were ignored and swept under the rug.

In the meantime, Barack Obama remained above the fray, ignoring Congress and its leaders as they myopically and slavishly did his bidding. His rare meetings with them were condescending and reminiscent of a summons before the throne of a monarch.

Unable to muster any self-respect, the Democrat members of Congress, in their juvenile obsession with party loyalty, continued to bow before the throne, even after a devastating defeat in the 2010 mid-term election (the Democrats lost a record 63 House seats). In that campaign, the titular leader of the Party, Barack Obama, did next to nothing to help those running for re-election.

As part of his agenda to transform the Democrat party, Obama, in the 2010, 2012, and 2014 election cycles essentially ignored the financial and campaign needs of a vast number of “moderate” Democrats resulting in the retirement or defeat of many in the primaries or general elections, thus, opening the door for far-left candidates to run under the Democrat banner.

Barack Obama no longer needed a Democrat Congress as he had a compliant and racially intimidated Republican party as his so-called opposition. Further, the Democrats had already granted and allowed him to usurp sufficient power to unilaterally proceed on transforming America but more importantly the party during his second term regardless of who controlled Congress.

With Obama’s re-election in 2012, the die was cast. By the end of his second term, the Democrat party was on the road to being in the grip of the far left. It was going to take time but it was only a matter of when.

The unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016 not only cemented that inevitability but moved the timetable up dramatically as Trump Derangement Syndrome overwhelmingly seized the Democrat party establishment transforming them into a babbling, incoherent rabble with revenge as their only reason for existence.

Rather than focus on why they lost in 2016 and the stealthy but persistent encroachment of Marxist true believers within both the elected and establishment ranks of the party, the old guard hierarchy became fixated on defeating and humiliating Donald Trump by any means possible including unleashing hitherto unthinkable voting fraud and manipulation to guarantee Trump’s defeat in 2020 and entering into de facto alliances and power sharing with virtually any element of the far left.

Those alliances opened the gates for groups such as The Democratic Socialist of America, the Progressive Democrats of America, and Our Revolution to not only field candidates under the Democrat party banner (which they successfully did in 2020) but occupy seats at the table.

These newest members of the Democrat hierarchy have youth and determination on their side as well as the backing of a majority of the younger generations. As the old guard establishment rapidly fades away, they will consolidate their control of the party and never relinquish their domination. The Democrat Party is America’s Marxist/socialist political party in perpetuity and greatest internal threat in its 250-year history.

That reality is not lost on the American people, as a July 2025 poll revealed that just 28% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democrat party. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the prevailing view of the party establishment Republicans in Congress as they refuse to acknowledge the threat the current Democrat party represents and to aggressively confront the Marxist agenda and tactics of their “colleagues” across the aisle.

US Trade Representative Cites Access to Canadian Dairy and Alcohol Markets as Conditions for USMCA Renewal

 

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer speaks during a media conference in Brussels, Belgium, on Nov. 24, 2025. AP Photo/Omar Havana

Top U.S. trade negotiator Jamieson Greer said Canada must change a number of its policies including in the dairy sector if it wants the United States to commit to a long-term renewal of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

In a portion of his closed-door remarks to members of Congress that were released to the public Dec. 17, Greer said that a “rubberstamp” of USMCA at next year’s July 1 joint review is not in the American “national interest” unless Canada changes its dairy supply management system, digital streaming rules, and provincial import bans on U.S. alcohol.

Greer also outlined U.S. requests that Mexico do more to enforce labour standards, give U.S. energy firms more access to bid on contracts instead of favouring state-run firms, and stop the flow of Chinese-made products from entering the United States.

Greer said the trade deal has grown American exports to Mexico and Canada by 56 percent since 2020 but that significant sticking points remain from Washington’s perspective.

“The USMCA has been successful to a certain degree,” Greer said in remarks released Dec. 17. “But at the same time, it is clear that we have not achieved all of our goals with respect to strengthening U.S. manufacturing capacity and creating good jobs, and nearly all stakeholders advocate improvements.”

Review Process

The tripartite trade agreement was signed in November 2018 for a term of 16 years, and comes up for its first joint review on July 1 of next year.

During each six-year review, the three nations have the option to renew for an additional 16-year term. Greer said if U.S. demands on Canada and Mexico are not met, the Trump administration may choose to approve the agreement on a year-by-year basis, rather than agreeing to a 16-year renewal.

Greer, who serves as the chief trade negotiator for the Trump administration as the U.S. Trade Representative, added that he’s open to negotiating the outstanding matters with Mexico and Canada in a bilateral or trilateral setting.

Dairy

Canada’s dairy supply management policy sets quotas for the production of dairy products, eggs, and poultry in order to prevent a glut in the market.

The policy also applies considerable tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on foreign eggs, milk, and poultry in order to shield domestic producers from foreign competition.

Greer said Canada’s rules “unfairly restrict market access for U.S. dairy products,” and go against the free-trade provisions of the USMCA.

Although he didn’t call for ending supply management altogether, Greer said that Canada must grow its “market access for U.S. dairy products” and stop exporting cheap Canadian dairy products if Ottawa wants the United States to renew the trade agreement.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said in April that Canada’s supply management is not negotiable.

“Supply management is part of our economic sovereignty. When it comes to negotiations with President Trump, it’s off the table,” he said.

Digital Regulations

Greer said Canadian digital regulations are another major impediment to renewing the USMCA. Canada pledged to rescind its Digital Services Tax (DST) this past June after U.S. President Donald Trump cited it in pausing trade talks at the time. The tax, which went into effect in June 2024, applied a 3 percent levy on revenue from large digital companies, which the Trump administration said unfairly impacted the earnings of large American companies such as Google, Meta, and Amazon.

Greer said Dec. 17 that while the lifting of the DST was a step forward, Canada’s Online Streaming Act and Online News Act continue to be roadblocks for Washington renewing the USMCA. The Online Streaming Act requires large streaming services like Netflix and Spotify to promote, fund, and platform Canadian content.

The Online News Act requires tech companies to pay back profits to Canadian news companies when the news outlets’ content earns revenue on the tech companies’ platforms such as Meta. The law has led to platforms such as Meta banning Canadian news from being shared on their platform, so they don’t have to pay publishers.

Greer says both laws go against the rules of the USMCA.

“We have succeeded in getting Canada to meaningfully address some of them, including its Digital Services Tax, which would have cost American digital companies billions in tax payments to Canada,” Greer said. He added that “Canada insists on maintaining its Online Streaming Act, a law that discriminates against U.S. tech and media firms, as well as a number of other measures that restrict digital services trade.”

Ottawa says the laws are needed to ensure fairness to publishers and to support Canadian content.

“If you benefit from the system, you should contribute to it. With the Online Streaming Act, we’re acting to support our creators, our artists, our independent producers and our culture so that they thrive in the digital age,” then-Minister of Canadian Heritage Pablo Rodriguez said in 2023.

US Alcohol

A number of Canadian provinces stopped selling U.S. alcohol products this past March due to ongoing U.S. tariffs, although Alberta and Saskatchewan have removed their bans on U.S. alcohol.

Greer said the provincial decisions violate the heart of the USMCA, and various procurement policies in Quebec, B.C., and Ontario limit market access to U.S. suppliers, citing concerns with Canadian customs registration processes. Greer said all these matters must be satisfactorily addressed before the United States agrees to renew the USMCA to a full term.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has said the ban on U.S. alcohol in his province will remain until the United States removes its tariffs on Canada.

“It’s still going to be banned until they cut the tariffs or we make a deal with them. It’s not coming on our shelves,” Ford said in August.

Ottawa’s View

Greer’s comments come in the wake of his previous statements Dec. 10 in which he said the United States is open to negotiating separate bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico instead of recommitting to the USMCA. Greer said exiting the USMCA entirely was one option being considered.

Carney responded to these comments by denying that the United States might leave the trade pact.

“That’s not what they’re saying,” he told media Dec. 11.

Minister Responsible for Canada-U.S. Relations Dominic LeBlanc also said Dec. 11 that he does not expect Washington to leave the USMCA and added that his view is also shared by Mexico.

The United States has applied a 35 percent tariff on all Canadian goods exported to the United States that are not covered under the USMCA, in addition to sectoral duties and tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum, copper, and softwood lumber.

Carney has repeatedly praised the USMCA as a favourable deal for Canada, saying that around 85 percent of Canadian goods exported to the United States remain tariff-free under the deal.

However in a meeting with Trump this past May at the White House, Carney also said there are aspects of the USMCA that will “have to change.”

“Some things about it are going to have to change, and part of the way you’ve conducted these tariffs have taken advantage of existing aspects of the USMCA, so it’s going to have to change,” Carney said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/us-trade-representative-cites-access-to-canadian-dairy-and-alcohol-markets-as-conditions-for-usmca-renewal-5959716?&utm_source=MB_article_paid&utm_campaign=MB_article_2025-12-18-ca&utm_medium=email&est=RMXGc5C%2FJuBy1jw2KqFvnwLm4zK5OpBIRYUhcgJOSA6oK3inT2Wkodn2%2FqO%2BGmsetBaM&utm_content=more-top-news-2

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

There’s No Evidence Australia’s Strict Gun Control Laws Are Effective

The supposed benefits of Australia’s gun buy-back rest on flawed statistics. Only concealed carry reduces mass public shootings.

The Federalist

Democrats in the United States repeatedly praise Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law as a successful model to emulate, while many Australians — especially after the Bondi Beach terror attack earlier this week — argue that the confiscation helped but failed to go far enough. Yet the supposed benefits of this policy rest on deeply flawed statistical analysis.

After the Minneapolis school shooting in September, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz claimed, “When they had a school shooting in Scotland or they had an incident in Australia, they simply made changes. … And since they did those things, they don’t have them. We’re an outlier amongst nations in terms of what happens to our children.” Prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, have echoed this praise for Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reinforced this narrative on Monday after the massacre, stating that a prior administration’s gun laws “have made an enormous difference in Australia and are a proud moment of reform, quite rightly, achieved across the parliament with bipartisan support.” Supporters typically point to declines in firearm homicides and firearm suicides as evidence of success.

Relying on that perceived success, Albanese has promised even stricter gun control, arguing that tighter laws would yield even greater benefits. Policymakers already advocate proposals such as limits on the number of firearms individuals may own and periodic license reviews.

For years, major media outlets — including USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post — have published stories crediting Australia’s 1996–1997 gun confiscation with cutting firearm homicide and suicide rates in half and eliminating mass public shootings.

Grossly Misleading Statistics

But simple before-and-after averages of Australian gun deaths are grossly misleading. Firearm homicides and firearm suicides declined steadily for roughly 15 years before the 1996–1997 confiscation. As a result, analysts could choose almost any year during that period and show lower average firearm death rates afterward than before, regardless of whether the law had any effect.

To illustrate, imagine a perfectly straight line declining at the same rate before and after the confiscation. In that case, no one could credibly claim the law caused the decline.

The relevant question is whether the rate of decline changed after the confiscation took effect. It did — but not in the way supporters predicted. After the gun confiscation, the decline in firearm homicides and firearm suicides actually slowed.

The confiscation removed nearly 1 million firearms — about 29 percent of privately owned guns — but private gun ownership soon began rising again. Today, Australians own more guns than they did before the confiscation. Since 1997, gun ownership has grown more than three times faster than the population, increasing from about 2.5 million to 5.8 million.

If gun control advocates’ theory were correct, firearm homicides and suicides should have dropped sharply after the “buyback,” as politicians often call the confiscation, even though the government never owned the guns in the first place. Those rates should have then risen again as gun ownership rebounded. That pattern never appeared.

Economists also note that people can substitute other methods for suicide or homicide, which makes total deaths more informative than firearm-specific counts. By that measure, the results look even worse. Immediately after the confiscation, total suicides jumped by roughly 20 percent and remained at or above pre-confiscation levels. A decade later, firearm homicides had declined slightly, but total homicides had increased.

Other crimes also defied predictions. Armed robbery rates surged immediately after the buyback before gradually declining.

Comparisons to U.S., Other Countries

Gun control advocates have lost their claim that Australia has experienced no mass public shootings since its gun confiscation. Despite banning anything resembling an “assault weapon,” the recent Bondi Beach attack left 15 people murdered and 43 injured — a toll far worse than the vast majority of U.S. mass public shootings. In the United States, researchers define mass public shootings as incidents in which four or more people are murdered in a public place and the attack is not connected to another crime such as robbery or gang activity. From 1998 to 2024, the average mass public shooting in the U.S. killed 8.4 people — roughly half the number murdered in Australia in this single incident. On average, U.S. attacks wounded about 11 people, roughly one-quarter of the 43 wounded in Australia this past Saturday.

Gun control advocates selectively highlight countries that appear to confirm their preferred narrative. Using Australia as proof is like selectively pointing to U.S. states with lax gun control laws that have experienced no mass public shootings. Thirteen states that the Giffords gun control group gave an “F” grade to have had no mass public shootings since 2010 — Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

European countries such as Belgium, France, and the Netherlands impose even stricter gun control laws than Australia, yet their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States.

Which Gun Control Measures Make a Difference?

The proper approach examines many comparable places and evaluates which gun control measures actually make a difference. In the first study to do this, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago and I compiled data on every multiple-victim public shooting in the United States from 1977 to 1999. 

We analyzed 13 different gun control policies, including waiting periods, registration, background checks, bans on so-called assault weapons, the death penalty, and harsher penalties for crimes committed with firearms. Only one policy reduced both the number and severity of mass public shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying permitted concealed handguns. Subsequent research has continued to confirm this finding.

Even more research shows that shooters are able to kill fewer people when an armed civilian is present. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, and research shows they are the single most important factor. But their uniforms make them operate at a real tactical disadvantage in stopping these shootings. Attackers can wait for uniformed officers to leave, pick another target, or if they do attack there, shoot the officers first — after all, the officer is the one person they know who can stop them. As a result, police were killed at 11 times the rate of intervening civilians and accidentally killed civilian bystanders or fellow officers five times more often than civilians accidentally shot bystanders.

From 2014 to 2024, using the FBI’s active-shooter definition (cases where a gun is fired in public, not part of some other type of crime), armed civilians stopped 199 of 562 incidents, preventing 35.4 percent of the attacks — and this figure rises to 52.5 percent in locations where carry was allowed. By contrast, police stopped 167 incidents (29.7 percent). Overall, armed civilians have proven remarkably safe and effective. In the 199 civilian interventions, bystanders were accidentally shot only once (0.5 percent of cases), with zero instances of interfering with police. Civilians were killed in just 2 cases (1.0 percent) and wounded in 49 (24.6 percent), and in 58 incidents (32 percent) they prevented potential mass shootings.

Uniformed police, despite superior training, faced greater risks and error rates in the 167 incidents they stopped. They accidentally shot bystanders or fellow officers five times (3.0 percent) — over five times the civilian rate — and suffered 19 officers killed (11.4 percent, 11 times the civilian rate) and 51 wounded (30.5 percent). In no active-shooter incident did either group have their firearm taken by the attacker. While neither civilians nor police stop every attack, the data demonstrates the presence of armed civilians improves outcomes. 

Unfortunately, both the Australia attack and the recent Brown University attack occurred in gun-free zones, where victims could not defend themselves. In fact, 92 percent  of mass public shootings take place in locations that ban guns. Gun control laws create defenseless victims, yet when attacks happen, policymakers respond not by repealing the regulations that contributed to the problem, but by imposing even more regulations.