 |
|
|
|||||
Less than three months ago, the world watched the Trump administration reduce the White Houses historic East Wing to a pile of rubble to begin construction on a massive new ballroom. But it looks like the dust from that demolition will have barely settled before Trump starts another project to turn the presidential residence into his own personal real estate development endeavor. This week, Trump and the head architect behind the ballroom construction, Shalom Baranes, revealed several heretofore unknown plans for the nations most symbolic building. They include multiple proposals that would add considerable architectural bulk to a White House thats already set to be burdened by a 90,000-square-foot East Wing (for context, thats nearly double the square footage of the White Houses main residence). East Wing demolition, November, 2025. [Photo: Andrew Leyden/Getty Images] Trumps ostentatious vision for the White House feels alarmingly similar to the ethos behind Americas suburban monstrosity, the McMansion: Maximizing for square footage by adding a hodge podge of extensions, additions, and flourishes, with no actual regard for architectural sensibility. Heres everything we know so far about his latest plans. A new “Upper West Wing” The most eyebrow-raising aspect of Trumps latest scheme is to construct what he calls an Upper West Wing: an entire additional level on top of the existing colonnade that connects the West Wing to the White House residence. In an interview with The New York Times on January 7, Trump said this concept was currently in design phases, and proposed that it could serve as first ladies offices for future first ladiesan ironic proposition, given that he just destroyed the East Wing, which historically served that very purpose. Baranes added a bit more context to this proposal at a public meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission on January 8. He told attendees that the West Wing addition will serve to restore a sense of symmetry to the White House after the East Wing renovation is complete by ensuring that both wings of the building stand at the same height. He did not provide any specific timetable for this new project. Many experts have pointed out that the 90,000-square-foot East Wing addition will dwarf the rest of the White House by comparisonin fact, that concern is reportedly one main reason that Trump cut ties with the ballrooms original architect, McCrery Architects, back in December. It seems unlikely that simply slapping more architectural mass onto the White House will offer an elegant solution to this problem. New details about the East Wing ballroom At the commission meeting, Baranes also offered a bit more insight into the future of the new East Wingan addition that Trump has repeatedly demanded be made both bigger and more costly, according to multiple reports. Architect Shalom Baranes shows elevation drawings for a new $400 million White House ballroom to members of the National Capital Planning Commission on January 08, 2026 in Washington, DC. [Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images] Baranes told commissioners that the entire East Wing project will encompass 90,000 total square feet, 22,000 of which will be taken up by the ballroom. The ballroom is set to feature towering, 40-foot ceilings, with enough seating to accommodate up to 1,000 seated guests. He added that it will be attached to the White Houses East Room via a two-story colonnade, hence the idea that an added story to the West Wings colonnade might help to even things out. In his interview with The New York Times, Trump also added a bit more color to his ballroom concept, explaining that he sees the space as a secure site to hold a future inauguration, complete with four to five inch thick bulletproof glass. Its being designed very much with the inauguration in mind, he said. Itll be able to hold six times what the Capitol can hold, and its all bulletproof glass, drone-proof roof, yeah, serious. The biggest drone could crash into ityoud hear a noise up there. It wouldnt be bad. Other plans Trumps apparent concern with the White Houses security from outside threats was echoed in his plans for Lafayette Park, located just north of the White House. He told The New York Times that he plans to tear up the park’s brick walkways and replace them with granite, in part due to fears that protestors could use the paths bricks as weapons. Unlike the ballroom, whose current estimated cost of $400 million is being bankrolled by a hefty list of corporate donors, Trump claimed the park renovation would be self-funded. Im spending my own money and Im going to redo it, he said of the project’s estimated $10 million price ag.
Category:
E-Commerce
Run a small business and you probably feel like you make dozens of decisions every day. Whether to cut a quality corner, or miss a ship date. Whether to respond to a customer complaint, or hope the problem goes away. Whether to address an employees behavior, or kick that can down the road. Then there are all the personal decisions. Whether to get up and going, or hit the snooze button. Whether to ditch the food you packed, or go out for lunch instead. Whether to keep grinding, or work out. None of those are actually decisions, though, since you already know you should do so. Nearly everything you decide already has an answer. Quality problem? Fix it. Customer complaint? Respond. Underperforming employee? Address the behavior now; a performance issue takes care of itself. The same is true for personal decisions. The nine minutes of sleep you get after hitting the snooze button isnt restorative sleep; youre better off setting your alarm for nine minutes later. (Or going to bed earlier.) The food you packed isor should bean integral part of your healthy lifestyle; going out for lunch when you didnt plan to is almost never better for you. Work out? Exercise can be your physical (and mental) competitive advantage. Thats the beauty of processes and routines. Rules arent restrictive. Rules are liberating, because rules free you up from having to make decisions. Over time, those actions become habits. Then you definitely dont need to make a decision, because habits are effortless. (In both good and bad ways, obviously.) Instead of wasting mental energy and willpower on choosing, all you have to do is act. As Jeff Bezos says, you dont get paid to make thousands of decisions every day. You get paid to make a small number of high-quality decisions. As Bezos wrote in Fast Company: You need to be thinking two or three years in advance, and if you are, then why do I need to make a hundred decisions today? If I make three good decisions a day, thats enough, and they should just be as high quality as I can make them. Warren Buffett says hes good if he makes three good decisions a year, and I really believe that. Clearly, theres a huge difference between making three good decisions per day, and three good decisions per year. Yet that difference is also easy to explain. Launching a startup, like starting anything from a relatively blank slate, requires making seemingly countless decisions. Infrastructure, branding, pricing strategies, marketing strategies . . . everything is up in the air. Its impossible to work in the future when you havent figured out the present. But once youve made a decision, you no longer have to decide. Barring evidence that decision was wrong and needs to be revisited, all you have to do is act. With time, the number of decisions you need to make every day should rapidly decline. Which means you can focus all that mental energy on making strategic rather than tactical decisions. You can focus on making decisions that set the course for the next months, or even years. To launch a new product line, or not. To open a new location, or not. To take your lifehealth, education, relationships, etc.in new directions, or not. Making fewer decisions (better yet, constantly revisiting fewer decisions) frees you up to think about the things that will make the biggest difference in your professional and personal life. Think of it that way, and you really dont need to make more than three good decisions a year. Especially if those decisions help you become the person you want to be, and to build the life you really want to live. Jeff Haden This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced that government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will buy an additional $200 billion in mortgage bonds. Trump wrote: Because I chose not to sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in my first term, a truly great decision and against the advice of the experts, it is now worth many times that amountan absolute fortuneand has $200 billion in cash. Because of this, I am instructing my representatives to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds. This will drive mortgage rates down, monthly payments down, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable. Long-term yieldslike the 10-year Treasury yield and the average 30-year fixed mortgage rateare set by demand / lack of demand for the underlying bond. Yields move inversely to bond prices. If demand for long-term bonds rises, prices go up and yields/mortgage rates fall. If bond demand falls, bond prices drop and yields/mortgage rates rise. For example, when the Federal Reserve engages in quantitative easing, as it did during the pandemic, it buys long-term assets like Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), increasing bond demand and pushing bond prices up and long-term yields down, including mortgage rates. The Feds MBS purchases put additional downward pressure on mortgage rates in 2020 and 2021. Conversely, during quantitative tightening since 2022, the Fed has been letting MBS assets roll off its balance sheet without replacing themeffectively removing a major MBS buyer from the marketwhich can put additional upward pressure on 30-year fixed mortgage rates. Effectively, Trump is proposing to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Macboth in government conservatorshipto absorb a larger share of mortgage bonds, increasing relative market demand for MBS. That could put some short-term upward pressure on MBS prices and downward pressure on mortgage rates, further reducing the mortgage spread. Around the same time the Federal Reserve began raising short-term rates and stopped buying long-term bonds in the spring of 2022, financial markets started pulling back from bonds, causing long-term yieldsincluding mortgage ratesto surge. Only, without the Fed buying MBS, the 30-year fixed average mortgage rates saw a bigger jump than the 10-year Treasury yield. At its peak in June 2023, the mortgage spreadthe difference between the 10-year Treasury yield and the average 30-year fixed mortgage ratehit 2.96 percentage points (296 bps). That was far above the 1.76 percentage point (176 bps) historical average since 1972. Over the past 2 years, the mortgage spread has slowly compressedhitting 2.05 percentage points (205 bps) in December 2025. The goal of Trumps announcement on Thursday (i.e., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying an additional $200 billion in mortgage bonds) is to accelerate that mortgage spread compression. As reported by Bloomberg in December, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have already started to accelerate their retained mortgage holdingswith them climbing around $69 billion in the second half of 2025. According to John Burns Research and Consulting, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to add another $200 billion in mortgage bond holdings in 2026, it would put the GSEs pretty close to their $450 billion legal limit ($225 billion each). On Thursday, Alex Thomas, research manager at JBREC, tweeted: Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac] have already added ~$70B to their retained mortgage portfolios since May of last year. Adding another $200B would basically put the GSEs at their legal cap ($225B each). Following Trumps Thursday post, there was some immediate MBS pricing movement. That said, its unclear exactly just how much impact an additional $200 billion in GSE retained mortgage bonds ould have on the mortgage spread and the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate. Through the end of June 2025, there is $9.26 trillion in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), according to data the Urban Institute recently provided to ResiClub. Below is the breakdown: > $3.00 trillion held by depositories (banks) > $2.74 trillion held everyone else > $2.14 trillion held by the Federal Reserve > $1.33 trillion held by foreign buyers > $0.06 trillion held by GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) The chart below is the same as the one above, but it shows MBS holders by distribution. Prior to the Great Financial Crisis, the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) used to be much bigger buyers of mortgage-backed securities. In an Urban Institute report published in January 2026, Laurie Goodman and Jim Parrott explain what happened: For years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the buyers of last resort in the market, stepping in to profit from widening spreads and, in doing so, putting a comforting outer bound on MBS volatility. Once they went into conservatorship, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) were replaced in that role by the Federal Reserve, which stepped into the agency MBS market to calm much larger swings in the economy. All of this went unnoticed outside of the MBS market until recently, when the Federal Reserve finally ended its time in the stabilizing role, leaving the MBS market without a buyer of last resort for the first time in decades. The GSEs gave up their role as market stabilizer when they went into conservatorship and began reducing their portfolio under the terms of their bailout by the Treasury. The Federal Reserve then promptly stepped into the role. As part of its broader effort to shore up the market in the wake of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve bought $1.25 trillion in agency MBS between January 2009 and March 2010 and bought another $823 billion between 2012 and 2014. Largely because of that aggressive posture, along with the bailout of the GSEs, the MBS market and mortgage liquidity generally remained stable through the depths of the crisis, a remarkable feat given the level of dislocation in the rest of the economy. The Federal Reserve was then well positioned to handle the next major disruption in the MBS market, when financial markets seized up in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In February and early March 2020, the financial markets froze, and investors were forced to sell their agency MBS to build cash reserves, pushing mortgage spreads wider by 75 basis points. The Federal Reserve stepped in in March, committing to buying agency MBS and Treasury securities in the amounts needed to support smooth market functioning and effective transmission of monetary policy to broader financial markets and the economy. 1 True to its word, the Federal Reserve, over the next month, bought more MBS than the entire gross production of the securities, stabilizing spreads and, with them, mortgages rates. Spreads ultimately settled a bit higher than they had been before the pandemic, but that was attributable to volatility in fixed income and a refinance wave triggered by the drop in Treasury rates. The Federal Reserve relinquished its role as the stabilizer of the agency MBS market when it pivoted to quantitative tightening in March 2022, ending its purchases of MBS and committing to running off its MBS portfolio. With the GSEs still operating under the portfolio constraints imposed in conservatorship, that left the market without a stabilizer for the first time in recent history.
Category:
E-Commerce
Barely 10 days into the new year, it already feels like you cant look away from the news. In the last week alone, the U.S. military captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and took over operations of the country; President Trump withdrew the U.S. from dozens of international organizations, including a major climate treaty; and an ICE agent fatally shot a Minneapolis resident, sparking outrage and widespread protests. If it seems impossible to focus on workor anything else, for that matteramid all this troubling news, youre not alone. Plenty of research in recent years has shown that Americans are overwhelmed by the state of politics and feel a heightened sense of anxiety over the news cycle. Theres also clear evidence that doomscrolling and constantly absorbing negative media can interfere with our physical and mental health. It might feel like theres no reprieve from the endless onslaught of news, and the idea of staying productive seems almost quaint when each day has something new in store. But there are, in fact, some things you can do to help ground yourselfand get through the workday without being consumed by the news cycle. Create some guardrails Our media consumption habits are unhealthy, and not only because of the obvious effects on our productivity. Engaging with the news cycle takes a toll on our well-beingand from an evolutionary perspective, our brains are wired to pay closer attention to negative news. When we see something in the news that triggers our perception of danger, we have a physiological response in our bodies, says Emma McAdam, a marriage and family therapist who also shares mental health resources on YouTube. So in order to not be reactive, we have to be really intentional consumers of the news. And we have to ask ourselves: Am I consuming news for entertainment, or am I consuming news to inform action? If the news youre taking in is not actionable, McAdam says, it can just increase your stress levels or serve as a distraction. It’s easy to pretend that we’re doing some important job by reading the newsthat we’re being informed, she says. But realistically, we’re probably more emotionally driven to read the news. At the same time, its also not realistic for many people to entirely block out the newsespecially when it directly impacts their lives. McAdam argues you can, however, be more intentional about how you consume news to avoid simply consuming information that is not actually actionable. This can be as simple as turning off push notifications and carving out specific times of day to catch up on the news. Or you might remove certain apps from your phone so youre less inclined to check the news unless youre on your laptop. Our bodies respond very differently to acute stress than chronic stress, McAdam says. We’re actually very good at managing little bits of stress. A big stressor in a short dose gives your nervous system a chance to get activated and then to relax and restore your internal sense of safety. But when we consume the news throughout our entire day, then we have this low level of chronic stress. Step away from the devices There are, of course, jobs where you simply cant avoid the news, or maybe a push notification pops up when you pick up your phone for something work-related. In those moments, you may have an emotional response that makes it difficult to stay on task. We’re not able to focus and concentrate as well because our nervous system is activated, says psychologist Maggie Stoutenburg, who works with the telehealth provider NY Mental Health Center. We feel this distress, but then we also feel hopelessand people can feel kind of paralyzed by that. If you find yourself in that situation, it can be helpful to just step away from your desk. When youre activated and on edge, doing something that lights up your parasympathetic nervous system can help calm you down, Stoutenburg says. Deep breathing can be quite powerful, she says, or you might try going on a brief walk or listening to soothing music. Even a funny video can do the trick. When you need to get back on track after a distressing news alert, Stoutenburg recommends trying to work for just 1015 minute increments without letting your mind wander. Give yourself some compassion, she says. Validate your own feelings, and try to acknowledge it and then redirect it. Okay, there’s this stress here. Maybe there’s not a lot I can do about that in this moment, but what I can do is accomplish something in the next 10 or 15 minutes that will give me more of a sense of productivity and control. Focus on what you can control Embracing the things that are within your control can be a crucial tool for managing news-related anxiety. McAdam recommends an activity that can help you gain agency, by articulating exactly what is within your control and what is out of your hands. You take a piece of paper, you divide it in half, and on one side, you write things I can’t control, and on the other side you write, what I can control, she says. I can’t control what the President said today. But I can control whether I’m going to show up at a protest. I can control whether I love my kids. In other words, you do have a say in how you respond to depressing newsand McAdam points out that even anxiety can be a useful response at times, by nudging you to take action and relieve that feeling. Anxiety isn’t just something bad that happens to us, she says. Anxiety is actually supposed to ask the question: Am I in danger? Is there something I should do about it? When we ask that question, we can get more clarity and be like, well, I can’t change this. I’ll let it go . . . And if there is something actionable, that little spurt of anxiety can help us take that action. When theres so much happening in the world, it can be difficult to stay motivated. You may have a harder time finding purpose or meaning in your work, especially in the face of more serious concerns. It can be helpful, then, to reframe how you think about your job or other elements of your life and understand where you can actually have an impact. Most of the news we read is very far from us, and most of the good we can do is very close to us, McAdam says. Parenting matters. Being connected to our neighbors and being kind to our neighbors matters. Doing good in my sphere, doing good in my job, being kind to my coworkers, being really productive and solving [problems] at workthese are things that actually do make a difference and hopefully make the world a better, kinder, happier, safer place.
Category:
E-Commerce
Two years ago, countries around the world set a goal of transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner. The plan included tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency gains by 2030important steps for slowing climate change since the energy sector makes up about 75% of the global carbon dioxide emissions that are heating up the planet. The world is making progress: More than 90% of new power capacity added in 2024 came from renewable energy sources, and 2025 saw similar growth. However, fossil fuel production is also still expanding. And the United States, the worlds leading producer of both oil and natural gas, is now aggressively pressuring countries to keep buying and burning fossil fuels. The energy transition was not meant to be a main topic when world leaders and negotiators met at the 2025 United Nations climate summit, COP30, in November in Belém, Brazil. But it took center stage from the start to the very end, bringing attention to the real-world geopolitical energy debate underway and the stakes at hand. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva began the conference by calling for the creation of a formal road map, essentially a strategic process in which countries could participate to overcome dependence on fossil fuels. It would take the global decision to transition away from fossil fuels from words to action. More than 80 countries said they supported the idea, ranging from vulnerable small island nations like Vanuatu that are losing land and lives from sea level rise and more intense storms, to countries like Kenya that see business opportunities in clean energy, to Australia, a large fossil-fuel-producing country. Opposition, led by the Arab Groups oil- and gas-producing countries, kept any mention of a road map energy transition plan out of the final agreement from the climate conference, but supporters are pushing ahead. I was in Belém for COP30, and I follow developments closely as a former special climate envoy and head of delegation for Germany and senior fellow at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. The fight over whether there should even be a road map shows how much countries that depend on fossil fuels are working to slow down the transition, and how others are positioning themselves to benefit from the growth of renewables. And it is a key area to watch in 2026. The battle between electro-states and petro-states Brazilian diplomat and COP30 President André Aranha Corra do Lago has committed to lead an effort in 2026 to create two road maps: one on halting and reversing deforestation and another on transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner. What those road maps will look like is still unclear. They are likely to be centered on a process for countries to discuss and debate how to reverse deforestation and phase out fossil fuels. Over the coming months, Corra plans to convene high-level meetings among global leaders, including fossil fuel producers and consumers, international organizations, industries, workers, scholars and advocacy groups. For the road map to both be accepted and be useful, the process will need to address the global market issues of supply and demand, as well as equity. For example, in some fossil fuel-producing countries, oil, gas or coal revenues are the main source of income. What can the road ahead look like for those countries that will need to diversify their economies? Nigeria is an interesting case study for weighing that question. Oil exports consistently provide the bulk of Nigerias revenue, accounting for around 80% to over 90% of total government revenue and foreign exchange earnings. At the same time, roughly 39% of Nigerias population has no access to electricity, which is the highest proportion of people without electricity of any nation. And Nigeria possesses abundant renewable energy resources across the country, which are largely untapped: solar, hydro, geothermal and wind, providing new opportunities. What a road map might look like In Belém, representatives talked about creating a road map that would be science-based and aligned with the Paris climate agreement, and would include various pathways to achieve a just transition for fossil-fuel-dependent regions. Some inspiration for helping fossil-fuel-producing countries transition to cleaner energy could come from Brazil and Norway. In Brazil, Lula asked his ministries to prepare guidelines for developing a road map for gradually reducing Brazils dependency on fossil fuels and find a way to financially support the changes. His decree specifically mentions creating an energy transition fund, which could be supported by government revenues from oil and gas exploration. While Brazil supports moving away from fossil fuels, it is also still a large oil producer and recently approved new exploratory drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ctvhR/1 Norway, a major oil and gas producer, is establishing a formal transition commission to study and plan its economys shift away from fossil fuels, particularly focusing on how the workforce and the natural resources of Norway an be used more effectively to create new and different jobs. Both countries are just getting started, but their work could help point the way for other countries and inform a global road map process. The European Union has implemented a series of policies and laws aimed at reducing fossil fuel demand. It has a target for 42.5% of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2030. And its EU Emissions Trading System, which steadily reduces the emissions that companies can emit, will soon be expanded to cover housing and transportation. The Emissions Trading System already includes power generation, energy-intensive industry, and civil aviation. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PeAlZ/1 Fossil fuel and renewable energy growth ahead In the U.S., the Trump administration has made clear through its policymaking and diplomacy that it is pursuing the opposite approach: to keep fossil fuels as the main energy source for decades to come. The International Energy Agency still expects to see renewable energy grow faster than any other major energy source in all scenarios going forward, as renewable energys lower costs make it an attractive option in many countries. Globally, the agency expects investment in renewable energy in 2025 to be twice that of fossil fuels. At the same time, however, fossil fuel investments are also rising with fast-growing energy demand. The IEAs World Energy Outlook described a surge in new funding for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, projects in 2025. It now expects a 50% increase in global LNG supply by 2030, about half of that from the U.S. However, the World Energy Outlook notes that questions still linger about where all the new LNG will go once its produced. What to watch for The Belém road map dialogue and how it balances countries needs will reflect on the worlds ability to handle climate change. Corra plans to report on its progress at the next annual U.N. climate conference, COP31, in late 2026. The conference will be hosted by Turkey, but Australia, which supported the call for a road map, will be leading the negotiations. With more time to discuss and prepare, COP31 may just bring a transition away from fossil fuels back into the global negotiations. Jennifer Morgan is a senior fellow at the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy and Climate Policy Lab at Tufts University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] next »