President Donald Trump's allies on Capitol Hill are downplaying his threats to take over Greenland by force. Republicans largely fell in line after Trump over the weekend ordered a strike that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro without congressional approval. Now, as Trump refuses to rule out military action to annex Greenland, some members of the GOP say his aggressive posturing is a bluff to secure a deal that gives the U.S. more influence over the Arctic island. "He's from New York, he's one of the best negotiators and how he negotiates sometimes is everything is on the table," Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., who was Trump's Secretary of the Interior in his first term, said in an interview with CNBC. "I think [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio is correct in that he's downplaying that we're gonna land the Marines on Greenland," Zinke said. "I'd be supportive of negotiating a deal with Denmark to make sure that it stays influenced in the West." Trump has long coveted Greenland, a self-governing island territory of NATO ally Denmark. He has argued U.S. influence over the island is critical to national security for deterring Russian and Chinese aggression. "The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNBC on Tuesday of the Greenland plan. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," wrote Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as well as the leaders of Italy, Spain and Poland in a joint statement earlier this week. Moderate Republicans have taken solace in the idea that Trump is only negotiating, as Zinke argued. Maintaining the NATO alliance remains paramount on Capitol Hill. The idea of taking it by force, no … there is strong bipartisan opposition to any use of force with respect to Greenland," Lawler said. Rep. Nick LaLota, another New York Republican, agreed: "To Trump, everything is a deal, everything is a negotiation, a lot of things come down to leverage and I think his administration is comfortable with the term about not taking any options off the table, I hope we don't read too much into that." Democrats have erupted at the prospect that Trump could invade Greenland with the military, warning it would shatter the NATO alliance that has propped up U.S. and European security since World War II. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz, on Tuesday said he plans to introduce a resolution known as a War Powers Resolution to block Trump from ordering military action. And Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said in an interview with CNBC that he's working on a new War Powers Resolution in the House. "The people around him need to stage an intervention," McGovern said. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., called Trump's actions in Greenland "appalling." "It's creating a lot of long-term anger and hurt with our friends in Europe," Bacon said. "I feel like we have a bunch of high school kids playing Risk." And Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., issued a joint statement with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., arguing that "Any suggestion that our nation would subject a fellow NATO ally to coercion or external pressure undermines the very principles of self-determination that our Alliance exists to defend." Even Trump's allies generally agree that any military action would require congressional approval. Trump, in a Truth Social post on Wednesday, said, "RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE ZERO FEAR OF NATO WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, AND I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM." Powerful House Republicans on Capitol Hill, for now, are sticking by Trump as he pursues Greenland -- continuing to insist the threats are all part of his negotiation strategy. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., said the "post World War 2 order is not over in any way whatsoever." "There's not a goal to break up NATO right now, there's looking to say, is there a good deal that can be made for what is a very strategic location, not just for the United States of America, but for others," he said. CNBC's Emily Wilkins and Justin Papp contributed to this report. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox

The U.S. said Wednesday that in its attempt to blockade sanctioned oil exports from Venezuela, it seized two tanker ships, one of which was newly registered under the Russian flag. In a post on X, the U.S. European Command said the tanker — which it called Bella 1, the ship's former name — had been seized in the North Atlantic for violations of U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan oil. The ship, now named Marinera, is just one that Russia has reflagged to join its "dark" fleet. "This has moved beyond a sanctions case into a real-time jurisdictional challenge, where the key question is what legal basis exists for enforcement on the high seas," Dimitris Ampatzidis, senior risk and compliance analyst at energy consulting firm Kpler, told CNBC. "The vessel's identity and history remain constant, but its flag status can significantly raise the diplomatic stakes." Kpler's AIS data — real-time location information transmitted by ships — shows that the tanker recently made a sharp turn in the Atlantic Ocean near Scotland. On Dec. 31, Russia notified the U.S. that the ship had changed its name to Marinera and switched its registration to Russia, according to Lloyd's List. Another newly Russian-flagged tanker linked to moving Venezuelan oil, the Premier, which was reflagged from Gambia to Russia on Dec. 22, remains empty outside the Jose terminal in Venezuela, according to Lloyd's List vessel tracking. In a separate X post Wednesday, U.S. Southcom announced that the Panama-flagged tanker Sophia had been seized and was being escorted to the U.S. by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Sophia is laden with around 2 million barrels of crude oil that was loaded at Jose Oil Terminal in Venezuela around Dec. 26-29, as confirmed by satellite imagery and port reports seen by Kpler, Emmanuel Belostrino, senior manager of crude oil market data at Kpler, told CNBC. The tanker's previous voyage was also from Venezuela, when it similarly loaded around 2 million barrels of crude in early August 2025 before heading to offshore Malaysia, Belostrino said. "The sanctioned cargo was likely transferred to another vessel via dark ship-to-ship transfer, but Kpler has not determined the partner vessel," he said. Maritime experts have told CNBC these seizures may have been conducted under the 2002 Salas-Becker agreement, which allows U.S. authorities to board Panamanian-flagged vessels with just two hours' notice. We want to hear from you. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on Wednesday shared new U.S. nutrition guidelines, advising Americans to eat more "real food" and reduce their intake of highly processed foods and added sugars. The government's new food pyramid replaces the MyPlate diagram released under President Barack Obama, and emphasizes protein, full-fat dairy and vegetables. The most significant changes under the updated guidelines include prioritizing protein over carbohydrates, recommending full-fat dairy instead of low-fat options and calling out processed foods like white bread, chips and candy. "Healthy fats" like full-fat dairy and avocados have also been added to the pyramid, and the guidelines recommend cooking with olive oil, butter or beef tallow. "We are ending the war on saturated fats," Kennedy said at a White House press briefing on Wednesday. Kennedy called the new guidelines the "most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in history." His "Make America Healthy Again" agenda has taken aim at processed foods and sugary beverages, while pushing more controversial dietary changes like cooking with beef tallow and consuming more red meat, which many public health experts say can lead to cardiovascular and other health issues in excess. The backbone of the MAHA platform is that healthier diets will prevent chronic disease, according to Kennedy. Smucker have announced plans to phase out synthetic dyes and other artificial ingredients. Since Kennedy's confirmation, the industry has feared greater regulation, particularly regarding ultra-processed foods, although major policy changes haven't happened yet. The USDA and HHS release updated dietary guidelines every five years. While many Americans may brush off the recommendations, the guidelines are intended as a public health tool to inform health care providers, federal agencies, policymakers and nutrition experts. Changes in the dietary recommendations will trickle down to school lunches and federal nutrition programs. The consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest estimates that one in four Americans will be directly affected by changes in the guidelines. More than a year ago, an advisory committee of health and nutrition experts said that Americans should eat more plant-based food and low-fat dairy and consume less red meat and sugary beverages, based on a review of scientific evidence. We want to hear from you. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox

American Airlines said Wednesday that it will keep the spending requirements to earn elite frequent flyer status in 2027 steady for a third consecutive year as the carrier courts higher-spending travelers and tries to catch up to industry profit leaders Delta Air Lines and United Airlines. Delta and United each said they would also keep elite status thresholds the same for the 2026 earning year. Airlines offer elite loyalty program members perks — ranging from earlier boarding and a free checked bag to free upgrades to roomier cabins and airport lounge memberships — in exchange for lots of flights on the carrier and its partners, as well as co-branding credit card spending. Airlines in recent years have switched their loyalty program models to reward travelers' spending instead of simply how far they fly. American said it is also adding more perks for milestones in between earned status tiers, like two food and beverage coupons at the 15,000-point level or a subscription to The New York Times games or cooking platforms or the Times' sports publication, The Athletic. The first level of elite status, Gold, is awarded at 40,000 loyalty points. The carrier has been investing in new cabins and larger lounges and on Tuesday said it is starting to offer free in-flight Wi-Fi, a plan it announced last April. American didn't outline adjustments to its Citibank credit cards after it said it would drop Barclays as one of its credit card partners, though it expects to announce changes later this year. We want to hear from you. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox

JPMorgan said its asset management division has fully parted ways with controversial proxy advisors for shareholder votes. In an internal memo, the firm said it no longer needs third-party data collection or voting recommendations. Instead, it launched an artificial intelligence tool, Proxy IQ, to aggregate and analyze proxy data from 3,000 annual company meetings. Proxy advisors such as Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis typically provide research and voting recommendations. JPMorgan said it is the first major investment firm to eliminate reliance on such companies. Proxy advisors have been under fire from President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order in December to reassess existing rules. Trump said the proxy advisors "regularly use their substantial power to advance and prioritize radical politically-motivated agendas." Tesla CEO Elon Musk also lashed out at proxy advisors last October, calling them "corporate terrorists," after ISS recommended shareholders reject his nearly $1 trillion pay package. We want to hear from you. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.

After a strong holiday shopping season, many consumers are now hitting the stores again — this time to return their purchases. Consumers spent $257.8 billion online between Nov. 1 and Dec. 31, jumping 6.8% year over year to a fresh record for e-commerce, according to a new report from Adobe Analytics. Returns are expected to increase in the first few weeks of January, as well, Adobe found. "It's a pretty predictable uptick post-Christmas," said Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights. "That's a part of the overall experience." For consumers, returning has become a key component of the shopping experience. In fact, a growing share of shoppers buy products they never intend to keep. Nicole Pearl, 47, says she often orders clothing in multiple sizes for her children — ages 14, 12 and 8 — to hedge her bets on the best fit, particularly when apparel is heavily discounted. "The Black Friday holiday season is definitely where I do more shopping than normal and more returning than normal," said Pearl, who lives in Chicago. According to a 2024 report by Optoro, 56% of consumers purchase goods in multiple sizes or colors, some of which they then send back, a practice known as "bracketing." Other shoppers go a step further: 69% admit to "wardrobing," or buying an item for a specific event and returning it afterward, according to Optoro. Almost half of shoppers said it's acceptable to "bend the rules" when returning items, the NRF also found. Now, 82% of consumers say free returns are an important consideration when shopping online, according to the NRF, up from 76% a year earlier. Roughly 81% of shoppers check the return policies before buying, and 71% said that a bad returns experience will make them less likely to shop at a particular retailer again, the NRF found. Lindsay Goffman, founder of Refundly, a return-tracking app, said consumers want more transparency when it comes to return windows, return fees and refunds. "It doesn't need to be this much of a black box," she said. "For the brand, it's very important that they continue to generate ongoing value for the consumer," said Adobe's Pandya. But behaviors like bracketing and wardrobing also present major challenges for retailers, not only in terms of inventory management but for lost revenue, experts say. To help curb the amount of inventory that is sent back, 72% of all merchants have started charging a return or restocking fee or limiting return options in the last year, according to the NRF. Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox

Every time James publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox! By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Discovery still isn't interested in David Ellison's takeover offer — or his father's money. For the eighth time, WBD has turned down a Paramount Skydance acquisition proposal, even as Paramount's latest offer appeared to address some of WBD's concerns with how the bid was financed. Paramount "has repeatedly failed to submit the best proposal for WBD shareholders despite clear direction from WBD on both the deficiencies and potential solutions," WBD's board of directors wrote in a letter to shareholders posted on Wednesday morning. Every time James publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox! Stay connected to James and get more of their work as it publishes. By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Paramount had revised its $108 billion bid for WBD to put in writing that its $40.4 billion in equity is fully backstopped by Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison — the father of CEO David Ellison — instead of his trust, which WBD had told shareholders was "unknown and opaque" with assets and liabilities that could be subject to change. WBD has told shareholders that regulatory risk is "not a material differentiating factor" between the Netflix and Paramount bids. WBD's board wrote in the letter that it had "negotiated a merger with Netflix that maximizes value while mitigating downside risks, and we unanimously believe the Netflix merger is in your best interest." Ellison could also increase his bid for WBD and put pressure on Netflix to either fork over more money or fold. In an SEC filing last month, Paramount disclosed that Ellison had texted WBD CEO David Zaslav that the company "did not include 'best and final' in our bid," suggesting that the company could be prepared to increase its offer. They include former Disney dealmaker Kevin Mayer, who had a firsthand look into Disney's fight with Comcast for Fox's studio assets in the late 2010s. "I would be very surprised if we don't see a sweetened, and perhaps meaningfully sweetened, offer" from Paramount or Netflix, Mayer said at a UBS media conference in December. If Paramount can't win over WBD shareholders and doesn't want to pay more, there's the option of suing its would-be acquisition target, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty to its shareholders. As you know, at the end of last year, your Board of Directors concluded its process to maximize shareholder value by entering into our merger agreement with Netflix. Since then, Paramount Skydance ("PSKY"), a bidder in that process, has commenced a hostile tender offer to acquire WBD which it recently amended on December 22, 2025. PSKY's offer is inferior given significant costs, risks and uncertainties as compared to the Netflix merger. Under the Netflix merger agreement, WBD shareholders will receive significant value with $23.25 in cash and shares of Netflix common stock representing a target value of $4.50 based on a collar range in the Netflix stock price at the time of closing, which may have substantial upside. WBD would be obligated to pay Netflix a $2.8 billion termination fee for abandoning our merger agreement; incur a $1.5 billion fee for failing to complete our debt exchange, which we could not execute under the PSKY offer; and incur incremental interest expense of approximately $350 million. The total cost to WBD would be approximately $4.7 billion, or $1.79 per share. These costs would in effect lower the net amount of the regulatory termination fee that PSKY would pay to WBD from $5.8 billion to $1.1 billion in the event of a failed transaction with PSKY due to regulatory reasons. In comparison, the Netflix transaction imposes none of these costs on WBD. PSKY is a company with a $14 billion market capitalization attempting an acquisition requiring $94.65 billion of [debt and equity] financing, nearly seven times its total market capitalization. In fact, it would be the largest LBO in history with $87 billion of total pro forma gross debt and an estimated gross leverage of approximately 7x 2026E EBITDA before synergies. Many prior large LBOs illustrate that acquirors or their equity and/or debt financing sources can, and do, seek to assert failures of closing conditions in order to terminate a transaction or renegotiate transaction terms. PSKY already has a "junk" credit rating and it has negative free cash flows with a high degree of dependency on its legacy linear business. Certain fixed obligations that PSKY has incurred or may incur prior to closing, such as the multi-year programming and sports licensing deals, could further strain its financial condition. The onerous covenants include, among others, restricting WBD's ability to modify, renew or terminate affiliation agreements. These restrictions may hamper WBD's ability to perform and could lead PSKY to assert that WBD has suffered a "material adverse effect," enabling PSKY and its financing partners to terminate the transaction or renegotiate the terms of the transaction. In contrast, Netflix is a company with a market capitalization of approximately $400 billion, an investment grade balance sheet, an A/A3 credit rating and estimated free cash flow of more than $12 billion for 2026. If PSKY fails to close its offer, WBD shareholders would incur significant costs and potentially considerable value destruction. In addition to potentially enabling PSKY to abandon or amend its offer, the operating restrictions that PSKY would impose on WBD between signing and closing could impair WBD's financial condition and ability to maintain its competitive position in the markets in which it operates, and hinder its ability to retain key talent. This includes prohibiting WBD from pursuing the planned separation of Discovery Global and Warner Bros., which was designed to derisk our businesses by allowing each to focus on its own strategic plan. The PSKY offer would also prevent WBD from completing the contemplated debt exchange and refinancing our $15 billion bridge loan, which would limit our financial flexibility. If the PSKY offer fails to close, WBD shareholders would be left with shares in a business that has been restricted from pursuing its key initiatives for up to 18 months. PSKY has repeatedly failed to submit the best proposal for WBD shareholders despite clear direction from WBD on both the deficiencies and potential solutions. The WBD Board, management team and our advisors have extensively engaged with PSKY representatives and provided it with explicit instructions on how to improve each of its offers. Yet PSKY has continued to submit offers that still include many of the deficiencies we previously repeatedly identified to PSKY, none of which are present in the Netflix merger agreement, all while asserting that its offers do not represent its "best and final" proposal. PSKY's transaction team, including many of their employees, several law firms, investment and lending banks and consultants, had several months to engage extensively with WBD. Instead PSKY has, for whatever reason, chosen not to do so. Your Board negotiated a merger with Netflix that maximizes value while mitigating downside risks, and we unanimously believe the Netflix merger is in your best interest.

Every time Shubhangi publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox! By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Berkshire Hathaway is paying its new CEO, Greg Abel, $25 million each year, a big bump from Warren Buffett's pay. Buffett, who retired last year, famously took an annual salary of $100,000 with no bonus or stock awards for over 40 years. At Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting last year, Buffett, who is 95, announced that he would be stepping down after 55 years as the conglomerate's CEO. Hours later, the board unanimously voted for Abel to replace him. Abel, 62, has been Berkshire Hathaway's vice chair of non-insurance operations since 2018. He's also chair of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which Buffett hailed as one of the conglomerate's four "jewels" in his annual shareholder letter in 2021, the same year Buffett first tapped Abel as his successor. Investors expect Abel to maintain the company's current investment philosophy. He is known for having a more hands-on leadership style than Buffett.

The companies behind some of tech's least glamorous products — hard drives and storage — are powering a sharp rally on Wall Street. The surge comes after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said at CES 2026 on Monday that the AI boom isn't just about chips, but about where vast amounts of data live. Its shares surged about 28% on Tuesday, marking their strongest intraday performance since February. Western Digital and Seagate Technology, two of the world's largest makers of hard-disk drives, are also seeing a boost. "The amount of context memory, the amount of token memory that we process, KB cache we process, is now just way too high," he added, referring to AI storage needs. Korea Economic Daily reported on Monday that Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix are pushing for server DRAM price increases of 60% to 70% in the first quarter compared with the previous quarter. Market analysis firm Counterpoint said last week that memory prices could rise by 40% through the second quarter of 2026, as AI-driven demand continues to strain supply. The AI race has largely been about chips, data centers, and power. But data storage is coming into focus as a key bottleneck. Driven largely by AI workloads, the volume of stored global data was expected to top 200 zettabytes in 2025 — the equivalent of 200 billion terabytes. Analysts have predicted that demand for data storage could run ahead of supply. "The memory market is at an unprecedented inflexion point, with demand materially outpacing supply," an analyst from global market intelligence firm International Data Corporation wrote in a December note. "For an industry that has long been characterized by boom-and-bust cycles, this time is different," the analyst said, citing the rapid build-out of AI infrastructure and workloads as a shift that is straining the memory ecosystem. "For consumers and enterprises alike, this signals the end of an era of cheap, abundant memory and storage, at least in the medium term," the analyst added.