Catégorie oBox : BuzzNews

President Donald Trump will not attend Super Bowl LX on Sunday, February 8, at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, where the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks will meet for the NFL championship. The game, scheduled for a 6:30 p.m. Eastern kickoff, is expected to attract one of the largest television audiences of the year and is already shaping up as a cultural flashpoint as much as a sporting event. This year’s entertainment lineup includes Puerto Rican superstar Bad Bunny headlining the halftime show and Green Day performing at the opening ceremony, both of which have become political lightning rods in the weeks leading up to the game. The decision not to attend has drawn national attention because Trump has made high-profile sports events a visible element of his public appearances throughout his presidency and second term, using them as platforms to project influence and engage with broad audiences.

Trump has offered public explanations for skipping the Super Bowl that mix logistical concerns with criticism of the entertainment choices. When speaking to the New York Post about his decision, he framed the absence in part as a matter of distance, telling the outlet that the trip to Santa Clara was simply too long. Trump said:

«It’s just too far away. I would. I’ve gotten great hands for the Super Bowl. They like me.»

He added: «I would go if, you know, it was a little bit shorter.» In the same interview, he sharply criticized the choice of Bad Bunny and Green Day, saying: «I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.»

His comments placed blame on the entertainment lineup even as he insisted the performers were not the sole reason for his absence from the game.

«President Trump is working hard on behalf of the American people. If he did attend the Super Bowl, he would receive a warm welcome because America knows he has done more to help this country than any other president in history.»

-White House spokesperson, Davis Ingle

Reporting from The Independent and other outlets has underscored that internal White House aides may have had deeper concerns about how Trump would be received by the crowd at Levi’s Stadium. Sources briefed on the matter said advisers were worried the president could be met with loud boos during the event, something that could be widely circulated on social media and dominate mainstream news coverage. According to The Independent, aides believed the crowd would «likely aggressively boo him,» and they «quietly determined» there was a high likelihood he could be booed «big league.» That fear of negative reaction comes as the administration faces protests and criticism over its hard-line immigration policies and recent controversial enforcement actions in cities across the United States.

The White House has publicly pushed back on characterizations that Trump’s decision was driven by fear of a hostile crowd, issuing statements to emphasize that he retains broad support and would be welcomed at such events. White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: «President Trump is working hard on behalf of the American people. If he did attend the Super Bowl, he would receive a warm welcome because America knows he has done more to help this country than any other president in history.» The administration’s message sought to counter narratives about unpopular public reaction and frame Trump’s absence as unrelated to crowd sentiment, even as critics pointed to the timing of the reporting and political divisions tied to the event’s entertainment lineup.

«It’s just too far away. I would. I’ve gotten great hands for the Super Bowl. They like me.»

-President, Donald Trump

The surrounding political climate has amplified the controversy over Trump’s absence, particularly with regard to immigration issues and public criticism from performers themselves. Bad Bunny, born Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, who will headline the halftime show, has been vocal about immigration enforcement and used his platform to call out perceived injustices. At the 2026 Grammy Awards, Bad Bunny declared: «The only thing that’s more powerful than hate is love. So please we need to be different. If we fight, we have to do it with love,» in the context of addressing his opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement practices. His performance at the Super Bowl is seen as a cultural milestone as the first primarily Spanish-language artist to headline the halftime show, but it has also drawn backlash from some conservative commentators and groups who view his advocacy and music as politically charged.

Security discussions have also become part of the narrative leading up to Super Bowl LX. Earlier comments from Homeland Security officials suggested potential immigration enforcement activity at the event, but the NFL has sought to quell those concerns. NFL chief security officer Cathy Lanier assured reporters that «there are no known, no planned ICE or immigration enforcement operations that are scheduled at the Super Bowl or any of the Super Bowl-related events,» stressing that while multiple federal, state, and local agencies would assist with safety, «it does not include ICE.» Trump’s absence marks a sharp contrast with his own history of attending major sporting events for visibility, including his appearance at Super Bowl LIX in 2025 in New Orleans, where he became the first sitting U.S. president to attend the NFL championship game, and his frequent presence at other marquee events such as NASCAR races and college football championships.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, expired on February 5, leaving the United States and Russia without a binding nuclear arms control agreement for the first time in decades. The treaty had been the last remaining framework limiting the two countries’ strategic nuclear arsenals.

New START set caps on deployed warheads and delivery systems and created a system of inspections and data exchanges designed to reduce uncertainty between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. Its expiration has raised concerns among diplomats and arms control experts about what happens when both sides are no longer constrained by legally enforceable limits. The end of the treaty also removes a structured channel for transparency, at a time when tensions between Washington and Moscow remain high and global security risks are intensifying.

New START was signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, during the presidency of Barack Obama, and at a time when Dmitry Medvedev was serving as Russia’s president. It entered into force on February 5, 2011, after ratification by both countries. The agreement limited each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers. The treaty also established verification measures, including inspections and regular exchanges of data, which arms control officials considered central to maintaining stability. For years, it served as a key symbol of post–Cold War diplomacy and remained one of the few areas where Washington and Moscow maintained formal cooperation despite broader geopolitical disputes.

In the years before its expiration, the treaty’s functioning was already weakened. On-site inspections were suspended in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and were never fully restored. Russia later announced in 2023 that it would suspend participation in certain treaty obligations, though it indicated it would continue respecting some of the numerical limits. Even with these setbacks, New START remained in force and was widely seen as the final barrier preventing an open-ended nuclear competition. Its collapse follows years of deteriorating relations, including the war in Ukraine and the breakdown of other arms control agreements. Analysts say that without a replacement treaty, both countries lose an important stabilizing mechanism that helped reduce miscalculations and provided predictable rules for nuclear deployments.

Trump’s decision to let the treaty expire has become a major focus of international concern. Trump had repeatedly argued that the agreement should not simply be extended and insisted that any new arrangement should include China. In comments reported in recent coverage, Trump said:

«If it expires, it expires. We’ll just do a better agreement,» framing the end of New START as an opportunity to negotiate a broader deal. Arms control advocates warned that this approach risked leaving a dangerous gap if no alternative agreement was secured. China has rejected joining a trilateral treaty, saying its nuclear forces are far smaller than those of the United States and Russia. Critics of Trump’s position argue that demanding a broader agreement without securing an interim extension created a situation where the treaty expired without a replacement, increasing uncertainty at a critical moment.

The fears surrounding the treaty’s expiration center on both capability and trust. Without New START’s binding limits, the United States and Russia are now free to expand the number of deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems beyond the treaty’s caps.

Experts warn that both sides could respond to uncertainty by “uploading” additional warheads onto existing missiles, a move that could rapidly increase deployed arsenals without requiring entirely new weapons. The absence of inspections and detailed data exchanges also reduces transparency, making it harder for each side to verify the other’s nuclear posture. This can encourage worst-case assumptions, raising the risk of miscalculation during crises. Arms control groups have warned that the world is entering a period where nuclear stability could be based more on suspicion than structured verification.

«If it expires, it expires. We’ll just do a better agreement.»

-President, Donald Trump

International leaders have described the expiration as a major setback for global security. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the treaty’s end represents a “grave moment for international peace and security” and that the risk of nuclear escalation is increasing. The treaty’s collapse also raises broader concerns about the future of the global nonproliferation system, since New START was often cited as evidence that nuclear powers were still committed to restraint.

Without a successor agreement, experts say the likelihood of a renewed arms race grows, and future negotiations may become even more difficult as trust continues to erode. With no treaty in place, Washington and Moscow now face the challenge of managing their nuclear rivalry without the guardrails that have shaped strategic stability for more than half a century.

Bitcoin’s price has dropped sharply from its record highs in October 2025, losing approximately 44 % of its value from the peak near $126,000. The decline has brought the world’s most widely held cryptocurrency to its lowest levels in roughly 15 months, dipping below $70,000 in early February and briefly below $67,000 in some trading sessions—the lowest since before Donald Trump’s re-election. This steep slide erased nearly all of the gains built up under the pro-crypto anticipation that followed the 2024 election. Bitcoin’s plunge coincides with a broader sell-off in risk assets and renewed investor preference for safe havens like gold, which has rallied sharply over the same period. Analysts note that the sheer scale of the drop reflects both systematic risk aversion and deep structural volatility inherent to digital assets, where sentiment can pivot quickly on macroeconomic data, regulatory news, and global financial stress.

Many market participants have interpreted Bitcoin’s recent slide as a reminder of the asset’s persistent volatility, a trait long discussed by analysts and investors alike. While crypto proponents sometimes held out the narrative of Bitcoin as “digital gold,” the recent divergence between Bitcoin’s performance and traditional safe havens has challenged that thesis. Where gold has surged and retained relative investor trust in turbulent markets, Bitcoin instead has suffered sustained selling pressure, partly fueled by liquidation events and shrinking speculative interest.

Long-time market watcher Michael Burry, known for his role in predicting the 2008 financial crisis, wrote on his Substack that he believes there is «no organic use case reason for Bitcoin to slow or stop its descent,» underscoring deep skepticism among some high-profile investors about the cryptocurrency’s resilience as a store of value in moments of systemic fear.

«Together we will make America the undisputed Bitcoin superpower and the crypto capital of the world.»

-Donald Trump

Economists and strategists warn that the structure of Bitcoin markets itself amplifies volatility, especially when macroeconomic signals push investors toward or away from risk assets. Bitcoin’s decline has occurred alongside broader pressure on technology stocks, concerns about Federal Reserve policy, and geopolitical uncertainty, all of which can increase risk-off behavior among institutional and individual investors. A strategist at a major investment firm recently noted that capital flows tend to rotate toward traditional safe havens when fear gauges climb, leaving Bitcoin vulnerable to sell-offs that are deeper than those in equities or conventional commodities. In addition, thin liquidity and heavy leverage in crypto trading can exacerbate price moves, meaning that once sentiment turns negative, Bitcoin can decline rapidly with little resistance until new support levels are found.

Bitcoin’s downturn has erased much of what had been dubbed the “Trump rally,” a period when optimism around cryptocurrency adoption under Donald Trump’s presidency helped push prices to historic highs. Early in his term, Trump actively shifted his stance toward digital assets, a marked departure from his previous skepticism. As part of a broader executive push in early 2025, Trump signed an order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile, designed to treat Bitcoin and other seized crypto holdings as long-term reserve assets held by the federal government. That move was seen as elevating cryptocurrency’s status, with the White House fact sheet noting that the policy aimed to position the United States as a leader in digital asset strategy.

«No organic use case reason for Bitcoin to slow or stop its descent.»

-Michael Burry, the Big Short investor

Trump also publicly set an ambitious goal for the U.S. cryptocurrency landscape, telling attendees at a digital asset summit that his administration would make America the “Bitcoin superpower” and “the crypto capital of the world,” framing digital assets as central to technological innovation and financial competitiveness:

«Together we will make America the undisputed Bitcoin superpower and the crypto capital of the world.»

Critics, however, have pointed out that markets did not sustain a rally following the announcement, illustrating the limits of policy endorsement in countering volatility. Other aspects of Trump’s crypto agenda included calls for clearer regulatory frameworks and the disbanding of enforcement units, which removed some pressure on major exchanges and encouraged institutional involvement. Nonetheless, the stark downturn underscores the persistent question of whether policy enthusiasm can offset fundamental market forces when investors reassess risk exposure.

As Bitcoin sits near its lowest price in over a year and volatility indicators remain elevated, many investors and analysts are weighing both long-term potential and short-term caution. Some strategists argue that current lows could attract new buyers who view Bitcoin as undervalued relative to long-term adoption trends, but they emphasize that regulatory clarity and macroeconomic stability will be critical to any sustained rebound. Others caution that without clear catalysts to restore confidence, Bitcoin may continue to languish or test new support levels, especially if broader markets remain jittery. The juxtaposition of Trump’s pro-crypto policies with a dramatic price slide illustrates the complexity of digital assets as both a political narrative and a financial instrument, and highlights why volatility remains at the core of the Bitcoin story.