Jan. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he may add tariffs to countries that oppose his plan to take over Greenland, which is under the control of Denmark, a NATO member.

He made the remarks during a White House roundtable on rural healthcare. He was talking about threatening European countries with tariffs if they didn’t pay more for prescription drugs.

“I went through country after country,” Trump said. “I just went one after another.”

“I may do that for Greenland on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland because we need Greenland for national security,” he said.

On Thursday, Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenland Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt met with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, but the meeting didn’t end in a diplomatic solution to the ongoing tension.

On Friday, a congressional delegation was set to visit Denmark to offer support to NATO allies against Trump’s plan to annex Greenland.

“Today, I’m leading a bipartisan delegation to Denmark to meet with Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Congress is unified in wanting to thank our NATO allies and stand firm against unnecessary threats to trusted partners,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Vt. posted on X Friday morning.

The overall U.S. tariff average since Trump took office is about 17%, CNBC reported.

The president has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for many of the tariffs, though the use of that law has been heavily challenged in the courts, and several courts have found it unlawful.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on the use of the IEEPA for tariffs.

“I hope we win the Supreme Court case, because if we don’t, [it’d] be a shame for our country,” he said Friday.

It would create one of the largest free-trade zones in the world, connecting markets with more than 700 million people.

A trade pact between the European Union and the Mercosur trading bloc has been agreed after almost 25 years of talks.

That’s despite opposition from farmers in several European countries.

The deal is seen as part of Europe’s effort to curb its economic reliance on China.

And it comes against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on countries around the world and his recent military intervention in Venezuela.

Also, will Big Oil invest in Venezuela?

Plus, are Greenland’s vast resources profitable?

EMRATA has done it again.

Just in time for Valentine’s day, supermodel Emily Ratajkowski is making headlines by showcasing her figure in a spicy red lace lingerie set on social media.

The sultry ensemble by British brand, Lounge, perfectly highlighted her curves, as she posed while squatting down on the floor.

Emily’s bold choice of color emphasizes not only her fashion-forward approach but also her ability to bring a fresh perspective to lingerie styling.

The vibrant red outfit included a lace bra, underwear, and garter belt.

The video, shot in a New York apartment interior, showed Emily kneeling in front of a mirror, taking the selfie video.

Fans commented with clamoring admiration.

“Lord have mercy,” one fan wrote. “I can’t put it into words. My God Emily.”

Female fitness trainer, Casey Cohen, dropped three fire emojis.

An EmRata fan account responded, “The most beautiful woman in the world.”

“She is a babe,” another fan commented.

Another fan wrote, “Thank you for inspiring me to be a supermodel! Modeling is raw energy that is focused, so it’s great skill and great talent.”

In addition to her fashion choices, EmRata has garnered attention for her advocacy, often using her platform to discuss issues that matter to her.

Her recent photos, including the ones shared on her Instagram, highlight her commitment to promoting self-love and confidence.

The model, actress, podcaster, and activist rose to widespread fame after her appearance in Robin Thicke’s 2013 Blurred Lines music video.

She has since established herself in the fashion world, modeling for renowned brands such as Marc Jacobs, Tory Burch, and DKNY, while also gracing covers of major magazines like Elle, Vogue, and Sports Illustrated.

In film, she has appeared in I Feel Pretty, Gone Girl, and We Are Your Friends.

Beyond her artistic contributions, Ratajkowski is a vocal feminist and advocate for body positivity, actively engaging in discussions on women’s rights through her writing and her former podcast, High Low with EmRata.

As an entrepreneur, she launched her clothing line, Inamorata, and continues to challenge beauty standards, promoting authenticity and self-expression in her public persona.

For more stunning visuals and to keep up with EmRata’s latest fashion statements, fans can check out her Instagram profile and explore her stylish past, including her memorable 2016 throwbacks.

WASHINGTON — Most American presidents aspire to the kind of greatness that prompts future generations to name important things in their honor.

Donald Trump isn’t leaving it to future generations.

As the first year of his second term wraps up, his Republican administration and allies have put his name on the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center performing arts venue and a new class of battleships that’s yet to be built.

That’s on top of the “Trump Accounts” for tax-deferred investments, the TrumpRx government website soon to offer direct sales of prescription drugs, the “Trump Gold Card” visa that costs at least $1 million and the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, a transit corridor included in a deal his administration brokered between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

On Friday, he plans to attend a ceremony in Florida where local officials will dedicate a 4-mile stretch of road from the airport to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach as President Donald J. Trump Boulevard.

Another example of the unorthodoxy of Trump’s career

It’s unprecedented for a sitting president to embrace tributes of that number and scale, especially those proffered by members of his administration. And while past sitting presidents have typically been honored by local officials naming schools and roads after them, it’s exceedingly rare for airports, federal buildings, warships or other government assets to be named for someone still in power.

“At no previous time in history have we consistently named things after a president who was still in office,” said Jeffrey Engel, the David Gergen Director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “One might even extend that to say a president who is still alive. Those kind of memorializations are supposed to be just that — memorials to the passing hero.”

White House spokeswoman Liz Huston said the TrumpRx website linked to the president’s deals to lower the price of some prescription drugs, along with “overdue upgrades of national landmarks, lasting peace deals, and wealth-creation accounts for children are historic initiatives that would not have been possible without President Trump’s bold leadership.”

“The Administration’s focus isn’t on smart branding, but delivering on President Trump’s goal of Making America Great Again,” Huston said.

The White House pointed out that the nation’s capital was named after President George Washington and the Hoover Dam was named after President Herbert Hoover while each was serving as president.

For Trump, it’s a continuation of the way he first etched his place onto the American consciousness, becoming famous as a real estate developer who affixed his name in big gold letters on luxury buildings and hotels, a casino and assorted products like neckties, wine and steaks.

Trump’s for-profit branding has continued

As he ran for president in 2024, the candidate rolled out Trump-branded business ventures for watches, fragrances, Bibles and sneakers — including golden high tops priced at $799. After taking office again last year, Trump’s businesses launched a Trump Mobile phone company, with plans to unveil a gold-colored smartphone and a cryptocurrency memecoin named $TRUMP.

That’s not to be confused with plans for a physical, government-issued Trump coin that U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said the U.S. Mint is planning.

Trump has also reportedly told the owners of Washington’s NFL team that he would like his name on the Commanders’ new stadium. The team’s ownership group, which has the naming rights, has not commented on the idea. But a White House spokeswoman in November called the proposed name “beautiful” and said Trump made the rebuilding of the stadium possible.

The addition of Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center in December so outraged independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont that he introduced legislation this week to ban the naming or renaming of any federal building or land after a sitting president — a ban that would retroactively apply to the Kennedy Center and Institute of Peace.

“I think he is a narcissist who likes to see his name up there. If he owns a hotel, that’s his business,” Sanders said in an interview. “But he doesn’t own federal buildings.”

Sanders likened Trump’s penchant for putting his name on government buildings and more to the actions of authoritarian leaders throughout history.

“If the American people want to name buildings after a president who is deceased, that’s fine. That’s what we do,” Sanders said. “But to use federal buildings to enhance your own position very much sounds like the ‘Great Leader’ mentality of North Korea, and that is not something that I think the American people want.”

Although some of the naming has been suggested by others, the president has made clear he’s pleased with the tributes.

Three months after the announcement of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, a name the White House says was proposed by Armenian officials, the president gushed about it at a White House dinner.

“It’s such a beautiful thing, they named it after me. I really appreciate it. It’s actually a big deal,” he told a group of Central Asian leaders.

Engel, the presidential historian, said the practice can send a signal to people “that the easiest way to get access and favor from the president is to play to his ego and give him something or name something after him.”

Supporters say the tributes are well-deserved

Some of the proposals for honoring Trump include legislation in Congress from New York Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney that would designate June 14 as “Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day,” placing the president with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington and Jesus Christ, whose birthdays are recognized as national holidays.

Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube has introduced legislation that calls for the Washington-area rapid transit system, known as the Metro, to be renamed the “Trump Train.” North Carolina Republican Rep. Addison McDowell has introduced legislation to rename Washington Dulles International Airport as Donald J. Trump International Airport.

McDowell said it makes sense to give Dulles a new name since Trump has already announced plans to revamp the airport, which currently is a tribute to former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

The congressman said he wanted to honor Trump because he feels the president has been a champion for combating the scourge of fentanyl, a personal issue for McDowell after his brother’s overdose death. But he also cited Trump’s efforts to strike peace deals all over the world and called him “one of the most consequential presidents ever.”

“I think that’s somebody that deserves to be honored, whether they’re still the president or whether they’re not,” he said.

More efforts are underway in Florida, Trump’s adopted home.

Republican state lawmaker Meg Weinberger said she is working on an effort to rename Palm Beach International Airport as Donald J. Trump International Airport, a potential point of confusion with the Dulles effort.

The road that the president will see christened Friday is not the first Florida asphalt to herald Trump upon his return to the White House.

In the south Florida city of Hialeah, officials in December 2024 renamed a street there as President Donald J. Trump Avenue.

Trump, speaking at a Miami business conference the next month, called it a “great honor” and said he loved the mayor for it.

“Anybody that names a boulevard after me, I like,” he said.

He added a few moments later: “A lot of people come back from Hialeah, they say, ‘They just named a road after you.’ I say, ‘That’s OK.’ It’s a beginning, right? It’s a start.”

Price and Weissert write for the Associated Press.

They cannot be serious.

They cannot be stopped.

Two months after winning a second consecutive World Series championship, the Dodgers have fired another destructively defiant shot across the bow of a battered baseball landscape, shredding losers and infuriating fans and raising an historically holy amount of hell.

Meet Kyle Tucker, the hottest free agent on the market, a right fielder who slugs the snot out of the ball and who is now a $60-million-a-year Dodger.

Of course he is.

Smile. Shrug. Giggle.

Tucker agreed to a four-year deal worth $240 million Thursday night, making him baseball’s highest annual salaried player just weeks after the Dodgers spent $69 million to make free agent Edwin Díaz baseball’s highest paid reliever.

And all of this, just one winter removed from the Dodgers signing top free agent pitchers Blake Snell and Roki Sasaki.

And all of that, just two years after the Dodgers signed star free agents Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto while locking up potential free agent Tyler Glasnow.

For Dodger fans, the dream continues.

For fans of every other team, the nightmare never ends.

Two years ago, the Dodgers built what appeared to be the best team ever.

Last season they built what appeared to be the best team ever, ever.

And now they’ve built quite possibly the best team ever, ever, ever.

With slugger Tucker in the mix, their batting order feels like it goes a dozen deep. With Díaz in the bullpen, their one weakness last season has been fixed as fast as you can say, “Timmy Trumpet.” And their starting rotation is already so strong, they shouldn’t even miss newly retired future Hall of Famer Clayton Kershaw.

This team could win 120 games. Check that. This team should win 120 games. Check that again. This team will probably win 97 games while they spend the regular season resting up for the playoffs.

No matter how the 2026 Dodgers finish, they are starting just as the last two Dodger teams started.

By hilariously making everyone hate.

This is a team with already such a monstrous payroll, they pay more in luxury tax than New York’s two high-priced teams combined. This is a team with individual players who earn more than some entire opposing starting lineups combined.

This is a two-time defending champion whose latest signing will be met with the same old whines from the same old chumps.

The Dodgers aren’t playing fair! The Dodgers are ruining baseball!

Actually, the Dodgers are playing totally fair, breaking no payroll rules, taking advantage of Ohtani’s incredible sponsorship impact and his massively deferred contract — he agreed to take only $2 million a year from his $700 million salary — to fund a team of all-stars around him.

And, actually, the Dodgers are totally not ruining baseball, they’re enhancing it. Last fall’s World Series ratings were up 20 percent from the previous year with Game 7 being watched by an average of 51 million viewers. That’s NFL playoff territory.

Any good drama requires a villain, and the Dodgers have been more than happy to fill that role, Manager Dave Roberts even publicly leaning into it while addressing the crowd after last fall’s National League Championship Series win over the Milwaukee Brewers.

“Before the season started, they said the Dodgers are ruining baseball,” Roberts shouted. “Let’s get four more wins and really ruin baseball!”

What they’re ruining is baseball’s current system, which favors a smart owner who is willing to reinvest the profits — hello, Dodger boss Mark Walter — over a lazy owner who won’t spend to win.

Kyle Tucker celebrates with his Chicago Cubs teammates after scoring a run against the San Diego Padres on Oct. 2.

(Michael Reaves / Getty Images)

That will surely all change after baseball’s union contract expires following this season. The owners will attempt to enact a salary cap, the players will resist, and the Dodgers will be blamed for causing some sort of labor stoppage.

So what? Who cares? If three consecutive titles blows up the game, so be it. The Dodgers’ only responsibility is to their fans, and they have more than fulfilled their civic duty, and that’s all that matters.

To those who have started bleating again about the Dodgers ruining baseball, the Dodgers owe answers only to their city, and the latest reply should be just two words.

Kyle Tucker!

They didn’t need a bat — they just won consecutive titles with a legendary lineup of bats — but they signed the best available one anyway.

Tucker is so good, during each of his last two full seasons, in 2022-2023, he had at least 29 homers and 107 RBI. He had struggled with injuries in the two seasons since, but even missing a month last year with the Chicago Cubs he still had 22 homers and 75 RBIs.

Tucker is so good, he will probably move fan favorite Teoscar Hernández from right to left field and probably move former NLCS MVP Tommy Edman from the utility man to second base and the Dodgers will be noticeably better everywhere.

Tucker is so good, while he would be arguably the best hitter on any other team he joined, he is probably only the fifth-best hitter in the Dodgers’ order

Tucker, who turns 29 on Saturday, has such a commanding left-handed hitting presence that a slowly aging and increasingly battered lineup can pretty much rest until October. Freddie Freeman, Mookie Betts, Will Smith, Max Muncy, take a couple of weeks off and see you in the fall.

Tucker celebrated his signing Thursday night with an Instagram highlight video titled, “It’s Time for Dodger Baseball.”

Indeed, it is. Anymore, it always is.

Anybody got a problem with that, go ruin yourself.

Jan. 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration levied new sanctions on Houthi-run organizations and individuals on Friday, targeting oil, weapons and financial interests operated by the Iran-backed group in Yemen.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control designated 21 groups and individuals subject to the new sanctions, which are aimed at disrupting revenue generation and smuggling networks.

“The Houthis threaten the United States by committing acts of terror and attacking commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a news release announcing the sanctions.

“Treasury is taking action to cut off nearly two dozen individuals and entities involved in transferring oil, procuring weapons and providing financial services for this Iran-backed terrorist organization. Treasury will use all tools at its disposal to expose the networks and individuals enabling Houthi terrorism.”

Originally forming in the early 1990s, the Houthis are an Islamist political and military organization that opposed the Saudi-backed Yemeni government in the civil war, which began in 2014. The Houthis seek to take full control of Yemen and oppose the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel.

The Treasury Department’s new sanctions target what it describes as “key front companies” operating out of Yemen, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Named in the sanctions were Al Sharafi Oil Companies Services and Adeema Oil FZC, owned by Waleed Fathi Salam Baidhani and Arkan Mars Petroleum DMCC; Alsaa Petroleum and Shipping FZC, owned by Imran Asghar; Janat Al Anwar General Trading LLC; Zayd ‘Ali Ahmed al-Sharafi; and New Ocean Trading FZE.

Weapons smuggling operations named include Wadi Kabir Co. for Logistics Services; Rabya for Trading FZC, owned by Ameen Hamid Mohammed Dahan; and Al-Ridhwan Exchange and Transfer Company. Aviation companies include Barash Aviation and Cargo Company Limited, Sama Airline and businessman Adil Mutahhar Al Muayyad.

Maritime operations include Albarraq Shipping Co and its director, Ebrahim Ahmed Abdullah al-Matari; vessel ALBARRAQ Z and its captain, Ahmad Ismail; and captains Ahmad Adriss, Ahmad Bseis, Ranveer Singh and Alexander Yurovich Pshenichnyy.

We, the undersigned scholars, students, and academic workers, unequivocally condemn the Trump administration’s January 3 strikes against Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. The attacks are a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter by a US president claiming, “I don’t need international law.” 

The unilateral act of aggression is the culmination of a quarter-century of US hybrid warfare targeting the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, first under President Hugo Chávez and subsequently under Maduro. This regime change campaign has included draconian economic sanctions, repeated coup attempts, financing of anti-government NGOs, and corporate media disinformation.

As the Trump administration has evidenced in its invocation of the Monroe Doctrine and brazen threats against other left-led countries in the region, the egregious onslaught on Venezuela’s sovereignty constitutes an unprecedented kinetic escalation of Washington’s crusade to shore up its declining imperial hegemony across the hemisphere and around the globe. It moreover poses a serious menace to the regime of political sovereignty that was the lasting achievement of the Bandung era of national liberation, threatening to generalize across Latin America and the Caribbean the state dismemberment and semi-colonization visited upon Iraq, Haiti, DRC, Libya, Sudan, and Syria over the past three decades. Together with the ongoing genocide in Palestine, these wars of encroachment waged by the West represent an existential danger to humanity. 

As such, we the undersigned demand the following: 

1. The immediate release and repatriation of President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
2. The immediate and unconditional lifting of all US unilateral coercive measures against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, its officials, and associated entities; the return of all pilfered Venezuelan state assets, including CITGO.
3. The immediate withdrawal of all US military assets and bases from the region, as consistent with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ (CELAC) 2014 declaration of the Americas a “zone of peace.” 
4. The payment of reparations to Venezuela for the destruction inflicted in the January 3 strikes as well as for the economic losses caused by US sanctions over the last decade; the UN General Assembly should appoint an independent commission of economists to calculate the total dollar amount owed to the Venezuelan state. 
5. The end of the US blockade against Cuba and payment of reparations likewise to be assessed by an independent UNGA-appointed commission.

As of January 16, 420 researchers and scholars have signed the statement.

Partial list of signatories (click here for the statement and full list in pdf form)

1. Atilio A. Boron, Universidad Nacional de Avellaneda y Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
2. Sandra Oblitas, Rectora de la Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela (UBV)
3. Miguel Mazzeo, Universidad Nacional de Lanús y UBA
4. Mariela Castro Espín, Miembro Titular de la Academia de Ciencias de Cuba
5. Steve Ellner, Latin American Perspectives
6. Omar Hurtado Rayugsen, Presidente del Centro Nacional de Estudios Históricos, Venezuela
7. Elias Jaua Milano, Centros de Estudios para la Democracia Socialista (CEDES)
8. Ramon Grosfoguel, Associate Professor of Chicanx Latinx Studies, University of California, Berkeley
9. Alejandrina Reyes, Rectora Universidad Nacional Experimental Simón Rodríguez / Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales Simón Rodríguez IISSR Centro CLACSO
10. Archana Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
11. Juan Eduardo Romero, Historiador/Diputado Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela
12. Claudio Katz, UBA/CONICET
13. Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez, Universidad Internacional de las Comunicaciones/ Cátedra MacBride
14. Néstor Kohan, Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
15. Paris Yeros, Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Brazil
16. Carlota McAllister, York University 
17. David Kazanjian, University of Pennsylvania
18. Max Ajl, University of Tunis & University of Ghent
19. Lucas M. Koerner, Harvard University
20. Reinaldo Iturriza López, Centros de Estudios para la Democracia Socialista (CEDES)
21. Freedom Mazwi, University of Zambia
22. Esther Lezra, University of California Santa Barbara
23. Sarah Raymundo, University of the Philippines 
24. Francisca López Civeira, Universidad de la Habana
25. Anna Zalik, York University 
26. Matteo Capasso, Northwest University, China
27. Josefina Saldaña-Portillo, New York University
28. Ilka Boaventura Leite, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
29. Nazia Kazi, Stockton, Stockton University
30. Javier Sánchez, Universidad de Antioquia
31. Bikrum Gill, Virginia Tech
32. Javier I. Echaide, University of Buenos Aires (UBA) / CONICET, Argentina
33. Corinna Mullin, City University of New York
34. Iván Pincheira, Universidad Academia Humanismo Cristiano, Chile 
35. Nina Farnia, Albany Law School
36. Martha Prieto Valdés, Académica de Mérito de la ACC-Cuba
37. Esteve Morera, York University
38. Farwa Sial, SOAS
39. Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Brooklyn College, CUNY
40. Gabriel Rockhill, Villanova University
41. Patrick Higgins, University of Houston
42. Luccas Gissoni, Universidade Federal do ABC
43. Edh Rodríguez, ANEP/CFE (Uruguay)
44. Hilda Saladrigas Medina, Universidad de La Habana-ACC 
45. Jennifer Ponce de León, University of Pennsylvania
46. Olmedo Beluche, Universidad de Panamá
47. Maria Haro Sly, Johns Hopkins University
48. Nidia Matilde Beltrán Prieto, Directora y docente UBV
49. Pedro Lovera Parmo, Universidad de Santiago
50. Immanuel Ness, Brooklyn College
51. Sara Aldabe, UBA-CONICET
52. José Romero Losacco, Instituto Venezolano de Investigación Científica (IVIC)
53. Rosa Elizabeth Acevedo Marin, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brasil
54. Ernesto Wong Maestre, CEEP UBV
55. Ethel Tungohan, York University
56. Adam Miyashiro, Stockton University
57. José Antonio Hernández Macías, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
58. Vicente Battista, Escritor/Argentina
59. Jaime Caicedo Turriago, ASPU Asociación Sindical de Profesores Universitarios, Colombia
60. Renate Bridenthal, Brooklyn College, CUNY
61. Maribel Almaguer Rondón, Universidad de Camagüey, Cuba
62. Maria Auxiliadora César, Universidade de Brasilia
63. Claudia Chaufan, York University
64. Arturo Guillén, Departamento de Economía de la UAM Iztapalapa 
65. Raul Kroeff Machado Carrion, Fundação Maurício Grabois – Brasil 
66. Olga Fernández Rios, Instituto de Filosofía y Vicepresidenta Academia de Ciencias de Cuba 
67. Paula Vidal, Universidad de Chile
68. Stefan Kipfer, York University 
69. Alberto Quintero, IVIC
70. Sandra Angeleri, Independent Scholar
71. Douglas Marín, Universidad Central de Venezuela
72. Ben Norton, Tsinghua University 
73. Christo El Morr, York University 
74. Cory Fischer-Hoffman, Independent Scholar
75. Taylor R. Genovese, SUNY – Dutchess
76. Ranu Basu, York University
77. Disamis Arcia Muñoz, Universidad de La Habana
78. Magnus S. Kjærgaard, Aarhus University, DK
79. Jordan Corson, Stockton University
80. Adrienne Pine, UC Riverside
81. Jesús Peña, UNEARTE
82. Ana Sáenz, Centro Marie Langer
83. Greg Albo, York University 
84. ​​Mayda Álvarez Suárez, Academia de Ciencias de Cuba
85. Alejandro Pedregal, Aalto University
86. Jeannette Graulau, Lehman College
87. Marcelo Colussi, Escritor / Guatemala
88. Timothy Kerswell, Development Watch Centre
89. Jaime Acosta Gonzalez, UC Riverside 
90. Christian Flores, UNEARTE
91. Maria Luiza Pinho Pereira, Universidade de Brasília 
92. Marxlenin P. Valdés, IDEAS Multimedios 
93. Adrian Ortega Camara Lind, Beijing Normal University
94. Harjeet Badwall, York University 
95. Tamara Lajtman, IEALC, UBA
96. Jorge Luis Oviedo Castillo, REDH Honduras
97. Joaquin Barrutia, Emory University
98. Carlos San Vicente, UCV
99. Michael Pelias, LIU Brooklyn
100. Josefina Morales, UNAM

Netflix fans are disappointed as the streamer has cancelled an unforgettable show after just one season.

Finding Her Edge will soon be landing on Netflix but it didn’t take fans long to moan that it looks “exactly” like a series that was axed six years ago.

Jennifer Iacopelli’s 2022 best-selling YA novel Finding Her Edge, which was inspired by Jane Austen’s Persuasion, is finally getting its own Netflix adaptation.

Ready to make its grand debut next week on Thursday, January 22, on Netflix, Finding Her Edge is a romance about figure skating royalty Adriana Russo (played by Madelyn Keys), who is troubled by her family’s legacy and financial struggles.

This is until she begins a fake dating scheme with her new skating partner Brayden (Cale Ambrozic), while juggling feelings for her former partner Freddie (Olly Atkins), just as they’re ready to compete in the Junior World Championships.

While book fans are excited to see Iacopelli’s story brought to life, many Netflix subscribers have been experiencing deja vu.

In February 2020, Netflix released the one and only season of ice skating drama Spinning Out starring Skins legend Kaya Scodelario.

Much like Finding Her Edge, Spinning Out sees its lead character figure skater Kat Baker (Kaya Scodelario) matched with a talented “bad boy” partner which quickly leads to a romantic spark.

Unlike the upcoming YA romantic drama though, Kat was an Olympic skater who suffered a bad fall and struggled to get back on the ice due to her PTSD as well as her new bipolar diagnosis.

Nevertheless, fans haven’t been able to help themselves in comparing the two ice-skating dramas.

“So why cancel Spinning Out (which was a fantastic show) to make one that looks exactly like the other show?”, someone asked on YouTube.

Another agreed: “This is basically Spinning Out that Netflix will cancel after one season…”

A third exclaimed: “ALL THESE SAME NEW SERIES after cancelling Spinning Out ? Makes no sense.”

While a fellow user questioned: “To cancel a series like #SpinningOut to make another similar one isn’t taking the mick out of the people watching, is it?”

Finding Her Edge premieres on Thursday, January 22, on Netflix.

In the aftermath of the U.S. military strike that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, the Trump administration has emphasized its desire for unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil more than conventional foreign policy objectives, such as combating drug trafficking or bolstering democracy and regional stability.

During his first news conference after the operation, President Trump claimed oil companies would play an important role and that the oil revenue would help fund any further intervention in Venezuela.

Soon after, “Fox & Friends” hosts asked Trump about this prediction.

“We have the greatest oil companies in the world,” Trump replied, “the biggest, the greatest, and we’re gonna be very much involved in it.”

As a historian of U.S.-Latin American relations, I’m not surprised that oil or any other commodity is playing a role in U.S. policy toward the region. What has taken me aback, though, is the Trump administration’s openness about how much oil is driving its policies toward Venezuela.

As I’ve detailed recently, U.S. military intervention in Latin America has largely been covert. And when the U.S. orchestrated the coup that ousted Guatemala’s democratically elected president in 1954, the U.S. covered up the role that economic considerations played in that operation.

By the early 1950s, Guatemala had become a top source for the bananas Americans consumed, as it remains today.

The United Fruit Company, based in Boston, owned more than 550,000 acres of Guatemalan land, largely thanks to its deals with previous dictatorships. These holdings required the intense labor of impoverished farmworkers who were often forced from their traditional lands. Their pay was rarely stable, and they faced periodic layoffs and wage cuts.

The international corporation networked with dictators and local officials in Central America, many Caribbean islands and parts of South America to acquire immense estates for railroads and banana plantations.

The locals called it the pulpo — “octopus” in Spanish — because the company seemingly had a hand in shaping the region’s politics, economies and everyday life. The Colombian government brutally crushed a 1928 strike by United Fruit workers, killing hundreds of people.

The company’s seemingly unlimited clout in the countries where it operated gave rise to the stereotype of Central American nations as “banana republics.”

In Guatemala, a country historically marked by extreme inequality, a broad coalition formed in 1944 to overthrow its repressive dictatorship in a popular uprising. Inspired by the anti-fascist ideals of World War II, the coalition sought to make the nation more democratic and its economy more fair.

After decades of repression, the nation democratically elected Juan José Arévalo and then Jacobo Árbenz, under whom, in 1952, Guatemala implemented a land reform program that gave landless farmworkers their own undeveloped plots. Guatemala’s government asserted that these policies would build a more equitable society for Guatemala’s impoverished, Indigenous majority.

United Fruit denounced Guatemala’s reforms as the result of a global conspiracy. It alleged that most of Guatemala’s unions were controlled by Mexican and Soviet communists and painted the land reform as a ploy to destroy capitalism.

United Fruit sought to enlist the U.S. government in its fight against the elected government’s policies. While its executives did complain that Guatemala’s reforms hurt its financial investments and labor costs, they also cast any interference in its operations as part of a broader communist plot.

It did this through an advertising campaign in the U.S. and by taking advantage of the anti-communist paranoia that prevailed at the time.

United Fruit executives began to meet with officials in the Truman administration as early as 1945. Despite the support of sympathetic ambassadors, the U.S. government apparently wouldn’t intervene directly in Guatemala’s affairs.

The company turned to Congress.

It hired well connected lobbyists to portray Guatemala’s policies as part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and the United States. In February 1949, multiple members of Congress denounced Guatemala’s labor reforms as communist.

Sen. Claude Pepper called the labor code “obviously intentionally discriminatory against this American company” and “a machine gun aimed at the head of this American company.”

Two days later, Rep. John McCormack echoed that statement, using the exact same words to denounce the reforms.

Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Sen. Lister Hill and Rep. Mike Mansfield also went on the record, reciting the talking points outlined in United Fruit memos.

No lawmaker said a word about bananas.

Seventy-seven years later, we may see many echoes of past interventions, but now the U.S. government has dropped the veil: In his appearance after the strike that seized Maduro this month, Trump said “oil” 21 times.

Aaron Coy Moulton is an associate professor of Latin American history at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas and the author of “Caribbean Blood Pacts: Guatemala and the Cold War Struggle for Freedom.” This article was produced in collaboration with the Conversation.

Sir Nick Faldo is returning home after having “successful” open-heart surgery, the six-time major winner has said on social media.

The Englishman won both the Masters and the Open on three occasions and ended his career with 43 tournament victories.

Faldo, 68, is widely regarded as Britain’s greatest player of the modern era.

“Headed home,” read a post on Faldo’s X account, external.

“After two weeks in Cleveland, Nick Faldo, and his wife, Lindsay, are on their way home following a successful, scheduled preventative open-heart surgery to repair his enlarged aorta, performed by world-renowned cardiac surgeon Dr Lars Svensson at The Cleveland Clinic.

“Nick is now looking ahead to returning to his golf course design work and to the Masters Week in Augusta, GA, where he will be celebrating ‘Six back in ’96’.

“Home never felt so good.”

Faldo was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1997 and was named PGA player of the year in 1990.

He spent a total of 97 weeks ranked as world number one.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Greenland’s location and resources make it vital to US security, Trump argues in his ongoing push for acquisition.

US President Donald Trump says he may impose tariffs on countries that do not support his plan to have the United States control Greenland.

“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security,” Trump said at a health roundtable at the White House.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, he has repeatedly expressed his desire to take over Greenland, a demand Denmark and many other European nations have rejected.

Trump has said Greenland is vital to US security because of its strategic location and large supply of minerals, and has not ruled out the use of force ⁠to take it.

A bipartisan delegation of US lawmakers met the leaders of Denmark and Greenland in Copenhagen on Friday, seeking to “lower the temperature” with assurances of congressional support after President Donald Trump’s threats to seize the Arctic island.

European nations this week sent small numbers of military personnel to the island at Denmark’s request.

The 11-member US delegation, led by Democratic Senator Chris Coons, met Danish Prime ​Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart Jens-Frederik Nielsen, as well as Danish and Greenlandic parliamentarians.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric, but there’s not a ‍lot of reality in the current discussion in Washington,” Coons told reporters following the meetings, saying the lawmakers would seek to “lower the temperature” on returning home.

Looking for a deal

Trump’s special envoy to Greenland also said on Friday he plans to visit the Danish territory in March and believes a deal can be made.

“I do believe that there’s a deal that should ‍and ⁠will be made once this plays out,” Jeff Landry told Fox News in an interview on Friday as a bipartisan ​delegation of ‌US lawmakers was set to meet leaders of Greenland and Denmark.

“The president is ‌serious. I think he’s laid ‌the markers down. He’s ⁠told Denmark what he’s looking for, and now it’s a matter ‌of having Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio and Vice President JD ‍Vance make a deal.”

CONCERNS have been raised over the temporary closure of a British Isle airport in a £24million scheme to rebuild its runway.

The charming British Isle of Guernsey has long been loved for trips, with flights between 40 minutes to an hour, but the future of its airport hangs in uncertainty.

Plans were in place to improve Alderney’s only airport – approved back in 2022 – but delays and climbing costs have put the development on pause.

The plans, due to start in 2024, were for the airport to have a £24million renovation to improve services and have more flights to and from the island; there are currently around seven flights to Alderney a day.

The makeover would extend the runway so it could welcome larger planes as well as modernise the 1960s terminal building.

Guernsey officials warned the airport may need to close for an “extended period” to complete the scheme in the shortest time – work could start in 2027.

SAVVY SAVING

I retired at 35 after turning £100 into £1million in 5 years – now we travel

TOP OF THE WORLD

Take your pick from our 2026 Travel Hot List of 10 must-visit destinations

Chris Blythe, Alderney resident and pilot and flying instructor, said he was concerned about the possibility of the airport closure leaving islanders “cut off”.

Sharing his worry, Blythe spoke on BBC News and said: “I think it’s going to be pretty brutal for the people on the island to be cut off and there’s been nothing said yet about how we would get to Guernsey or the mainland.”

He added: “From the point of view of the people who will be working on the project, there’s going to be a whole load of workers… who are going to be trapped on the island with us.”

Blythe insists passengers deserved to have a runway which was up to specification and met minimum legal requirements.

The proposed scheme involved the reconstruction of the asphalt runway, to meet minimum aerodrome design standards. Blythe believes this “was always going to be the only option”.

Blythe said: “The main runway in Alderney is not very good, in light aircraft it doesn’t really matter that much but for commercial aircraft it needs to be better than that.”

He added: “I think the previous proposal to extend it and put ATRs in was ludicrous and I think anybody who knew much about aviation probably came to that conclusion.”

German defense manufacturer Rheinmetall has confirmed that a batch of Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicles will arrive in Ukraine “in the coming weeks.” While a single example has already been provided for evaluation, the next five vehicles are expected to make the type’s combat debut. The KF41 variant was unveiled in 2018 and is otherwise only used by Hungary. Its future success could depend on how it fares on the battlefield with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Rheinmetall announced yesterday that five KF41s funded by the German government will soon be in Ukraine, in line with a contract signed last month.

“We are grateful for the trust that Ukraine has placed in us,” Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger said in a company statement. He also thanked the German government for paying for the initial batch.

The value of that contract is not known but is reported to be in the “mid-double-digit million-euro range.”

More important is the potential for much larger procurement by Kyiv, potentially including setting up a Ukrainian production line.

Ukraine made the decision to acquire the KF41 following the testing of a single evaluation example that was delivered in late 2024.

It’s also noteworthy that the version of the KF41 now headed to Ukraine has been specially adapted to local requirements. This includes a two-person Lance turret and other changes.

The exact configuration of the Lance has not been revealed, but this is a highly modular turret that can accommodate a variety of weapons and sensors and is available in crewed and uncrewed configurations. So far, Lynx versions have appeared with Lance turrets armed with 30mm or 35mm autocannons.

There is also provision for an anti-tank guided missile launcher, which has been demonstrated with a pair of Israeli-made Spike-LR missiles. Other payloads include small drones or loitering munitions, or additional equipment, while a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun is also a normal fixture.

Rheinmetall Lynx IFV hits with Spike ATGM

Overall, Rheinmetall’s Lynx was designed with modularity in mind so that it can readily accept different mission modules to perform different roles. The company began work on the vehicle in 2015, originally as a competitor to the Puma, which the German Army eventually selected as a successor to its Cold War-era Marder infantry fighting vehicle.

The company developed the Lynx with an eye toward the export market and uses a greater number of commercial-off-the-shelf automotive parts and other existing components to reduce overall cost and potential strains on logistics chains.

So far, however, the two major variants the company has shown publicly, the KF31 and KF41, are relatively similar.

The KF41 has a larger overall configuration, though, with a weight of around 44 tons, almost 10 tons heavier than the KF31 and even bigger than the Puma in its base configuration.

Within these main versions, Rheinmetall has also offered a variety of mission-specialist Lynx vehicles. These include a mortar carrier, heavy fire support vehicle, self-propelled anti-aircraft gun with Skyranger 30 air defense turret, command and control vehicle, reconnaissance vehicle, recovery vehicle, and ambulance. Any of these could also be attractive to Ukraine, with a common platform offering logistics advantages as well as economies of scale.

Otherwise, the KF41 has a standard crew of three as well as provisions to transport a squad of up to eight infantry. Like most modern infantry fighting vehicles, the Lynx is provided with sufficient firepower to engage enemy infantry as well as lightly armored targets.

As well as the standard attributes of mobility and firepower, the design of the Lynx focuses on a high level of protection to defend against certain anti-armor weapons, medium-caliber ammunition, artillery shrapnel, and bomb blasts. There is also the option to add active protection systems if specified by the customer.

The vehicle can reach speeds of up to 50 miles per hour.

Almost exactly a year ago, Rheinmetall’s Papperger announced that a single KF41 had been delivered to Ukraine at the end of 2024.

This first evaluation vehicle was produced at Rheinmetall’s factory in Unterlüß, Germany.

However, in the future, additional KF41s could be manufactured in Ukraine.

In 2023, Oleksandr Kamyshin, Ukraine’s then-Minister of Strategic Industries, announced plans for joint production of the vehicles with Rheinmetall.

This was followed up in November of last year by Papperger proposing Ukrainian production lines for the Lynx, as well as the Fuchs and Panther vehicles. This would be broadly in line with a similar arrangement that Rheinmetall implemented in Algeria.

As it stands, Ukraine will become the second country to introduce the KF41 to service, following Hungary, which received its first vehicles last December. These were manufactured in a purpose-built Rheinmetall facility in Szeged, Hungary.

The Lynx KF41 in Hungarian Army service:

The payment of the first batch of Ukrainian KF41s by the German government underscores the military support that Berlin has provided to Kyiv since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. As of October last year, German military aid to Ukraine amounted to more than $23.3 billion.

German military equipment transferred to Ukraine includes surplus Marder infantry fighting vehicles, as well as secondhand Soviet-designed BMP-1s that previously served with Germany but were later donated to Greece and Slovakia and then passed on to Ukraine with Berlin’s approval.

The case of the KF41, however, is somewhat different, since it is the first time that Germany is providing a vehicle in this class that is brand-new; in fact, not even in service with the German military.

Rheinmetall clearly sees a market for a new-generation infantry fighting vehicle, optimized for export, to challenge more established designs like the U.S. Bradley and the Swedish CV90.

As far as the Bradley is concerned, a version of the Lynx is also in the running to replace this vehicle with the U.S. Army. Under the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program, or XM30, American Rheinmetall Vehicles and General Dynamics Land Systems are each building a prototype. Two previous efforts to replace the Bradley — the Future Combat System (FCS) program and the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program — were cancelled.

Rheinmetall – Exclusively Lynx XM30 for the U.S. Army’s next-gen combat vehicle program

Already, the Lynx has been connected with around a dozen potential customers, but aside from Ukraine, only Hungary and Italy have so far placed firm orders. Much, therefore, could rest on whether the KF41 proves a success in Ukrainian hands, something that we might start to learn before too long.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com