Zero Hedge

Pound Sand: Trump Admin Invokes 'State Secrets Privilege' To Block Release Of Deportation Information To Judge

Pound Sand: Trump Admin Invokes 'State Secrets Privilege' To Block Release Of Deportation Information To Judge

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration on March 24 invoked the “state secrets privilege,” a move that could lead to the dismissal of the case against the government regarding the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador.

Salvadoran police escort alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, in San Luis Talpa, El Salvador. Secretaria de Prensa de la Presidencia/Handout via Reuters

The “state secrets privilege” is a legal doctrine developed by the Supreme Court to protect sensitive national security information from disclosure in civil litigation. Key cases, such as Totten v. United States (1876) and Reynolds v. United States (1953), established its application, allowing the government to withhold information in litigation if its disclosure would pose a national security risk.

By using this privilege, the Trump administration won’t have to provide information about deportees. Hence, the case against the government might be dismissed.

The government’s court filing stated, “The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided in response to the Court’s March 18, 2025, Minute Order based on the state secrets privilege and the concurrently filed declarations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

While courts must review claims of privilege, they avoid excessive scrutiny to prevent revealing classified information. Recent cases such as United States v. Zubaydah (2021) and Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga (2021) have further defined the scope of this privilege.

The government has used the privilege in a variety of cases, including those involving surveillance, government contracts, and national security threats.

The move comes after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg began weighing whether the government violated his order to turn around planes deporting illegal immigrants alleged to be gang members.

Boasberg asked for details about when the planes landed and who was on board. However, the Trump administration has said that giving that information would harm “diplomatic and national security concerns.”

On March 24, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on whether to stop Boasberg’s order blocking the Trump administration from deporting alleged members of a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett seemed skeptical of the administration’s position. U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, meanwhile, asked multiple questions of both sides and seemed sympathetic to the administration’s arguments.

At one point, Millett told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign that “Nazis got better treatment” under the Alien Enemies Act than the way the administration treated suspected members of Tren de Aragua. The U.S. Department of State designated the Venezuelan gang and several other foreign gangs and cartels as foreign terrorist organizations in February.

The administration transferred hundreds of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador—invoking the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II—shortly before Boasberg issued the written order that blocked such deportations.

Sam Dorman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 21:45

Russia Not Releasing Details Of Talks With The US On Ukraine

Russia Not Releasing Details Of Talks With The US On Ukraine

By Charles Kennedy of OiPrice.com

Russia on Tuesday said that it would not make public details of the 12 hours of talks with the U.S. on Ukraine which ended on Monday amid expectations that a joint U.S.-Russia statement would be issued shortly.

“After all, this is about technical talks,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

“Technical - meaning the talks with getting into details so, certainly, the content of these talks will not be made public for sure. This is something that should not be expected,” Russian news agency TASS quoted Vladimir Putin’s spokesman as saying.

Peskov’s words raised doubts over whether any progress was made in Monday’s round of talks which took place in Saudi Arabia.

“Currently, the reports made [by the delegations] to their capitals are being analyzed, and only later it will be possible to speak of any understanding,” the Russian official said.

Peskov also declined to name which other countries could be involved in the talks.

The reports shared by the U.S. technical team with the Trump Administration seemed optimistic, sources with knowledge of the matter told CBS News on Tuesday.

The U.S.-Russia talks were held a day after separate U.S.-Ukraine talks on Sunday, which were described as “productive” by Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov.

“We have concluded our meeting with the American team.

The discussion was productive and focused — we addressed key points including energy,” Umerov posted on X on Sunday.

“President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s goal is to secure a just and lasting peace for our country and our people — and, by extension, for all of Europe. We are working to make that goal a reality.”

Last week, Putin agreed to impose a 30-day suspension on attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in exchange for an identical halt of attacks on Russian infrastructure from the Ukrainian side. However, hours after the Putin-Trump call last Tuesday, Russia and Ukraine traded accusations of hits on the energy infrastructure of the other.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 21:44

An Alleged Comey 'Honeypot' Sex Sting Against Trump Smells Fishy

An Alleged Comey 'Honeypot' Sex Sting Against Trump Smells Fishy

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations,

Just eight days before the 2024 election, a lawyer claiming to represent an anonymous FBI whistleblower sent a politically explosive letter to Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee alleging former FBI Director James Comey first began investigating Donald Trump shortly after he announced his run for president in June 2015, and did so without foundation.

More shocking, the letter claimed Comey “inserted” female undercover agents into Trump’s campaign to travel with him and his staff and fish for possible evidence of criminal activity as part of a so-called “honeypot” sting operation. The letter further claims the probe was never entered in the bureau’s case management system as required by Justice Department rules. 

At first blush, these bombshell allegations of abuses of power at the highest level of the FBI sound plausible given the FISA surveillance violations and other serious misconduct that DOJ’s inspector general found the FBI committed during Comey's so-called Russiagate probe of Trump in 2016.  

But they are based on a two-page letter — published here for the first time  — that contains substantial errors. RealClearInvestigations has found that the letter was written by a Connecticut attorney with a reputation for sensationalizing complaints against the FBI. The lawyer, Kurt Siuzdak, is himself a disgruntled former FBI agent who sued the agency when Comey was running it.

Siuzdak’s Oct. 28, 2024, letter is not so much a “whistleblower disclosure,” as described, but his own summation of allegations leveled by an “FBI employee” whom he does not name in the letter. Nevertheless, the letter has received broad attention during the last few weeks, including news stories and social media posts alleging FBI abuse and a cryptic tweet from FBI Director Kash Patel that seemed to throw cold water on its claims.

There are several puzzling aspects to the allegations. For starters, the letter claims that after two undercover honeypot agents “infiltrated" the Trump campaign in 2015, “one of the individuals [they] targeted was George Papadopoulus[sic].” Only Papadopoulos didn’t join the Trump campaign until March 2016. 

In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Papadopoulos noted the timeline problem: “I was a senior foreign policy adviser on the Ben Carson campaign in 2015.” 

There is at least a kernel of truth to the new rumors. Papadopoulos said he was approached by a flirtatious woman with “dirty blonde" hair and a “very heavy accent” who said she was an assistant to an academic who had hired him for a project in London. The woman, who said her name was “Azra Turk,” was sent to gather intel – though it’s still unclear whether she worked for the British government or the U.S. government, or was ever an FBI agent. The academic she claimed to work for, Stefan Halper, was a longtime bureau asset. But this approach took place in September 2016 and was part of an official counterintelligence inquiry, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, looking into suspected Trump campaign links to Russia.

Siuzdak’s letter claims that former FBI official Calvin Shivers was “involved in executing the plan” with Comey in mid-2015. This seems unlikely. At the time, Shivers headed the bureau’s child pornography and sex trafficking investigations. Siuzdak further states: "The investigation was closed because the New York Times obtained a photograph of one of the undercovers and was about to publish it. The FBI Press Office told the New York Times that the photograph was a picture of an FBI informant who would be killed if the photograph was revealed. In fact, it was a photograph of the FBI UCE [undercover employee].” 

A New York Times spokeswoman denied this accusation. “That quote from the whistleblower complaint is inaccurate,” said Danielle Rhoades-Ha, senior vice president for external communications for the Times. “We never had a photo.”

While the letter appears to confirm suspicions held by President Trump and his team that Comey targeted him long before the FBI formally opened its Crossfire investigation in July 2016, even his new FBI director pushed back on the revelations, which went viral after the Washington Times first reported them (without mentioning the letter or its author). 

In a Feb. 28 statement, Patel disputed the story and defended a female New York agent rumored by Siuzdak to be involved: “[S]he was NOT a honeypot.” He added that Special Counsel John Durham had already reviewed the matter as part of his probe of the FBI’s Russiagate investigation and “found no evidence of any wrongdoing.” 

Contacted by RCI, Siuzdak appeared to back off the allegations. 

Asked for the identity of the “FBI employee” he repeatedly referenced in his letter as the main source of the allegations, Siuzdak demurred, claiming, “The information was actually from multiple FBI employees.

Asked if any of his witnesses have testified in closed-door sessions to corroborate the claims in his letter, Siuzdak said they have not been asked by committee investigators to be interviewed. But he said they've been too discouraged by recent events to give any statements. “When the disclosure occurred, the whistleblowers were willing to talk to Congress,” he said. “I don’t know if Patel’s blanket denial or the recent arrest of an FBI whistleblower changed their opinion,” referring to the arrest Monday of Johnathan Buma, a former FBI agent who for years had criticized FBI leadership in internal complaints. Buma was charged with leaking confidential information to The New Yorker and Business Insider, among other illegal disclosures. 

RCI has reported that whistleblowers complained about retaliation during the Biden administration

In a statement to RCI, the House Judiciary Committee said it is still looking into the complaint, but would not say if staff lawyers have sought to speak to any of Siuzdak’s whistleblower agents or even if they have learned their names. “It is our policy to protect whistleblowers at all costs, therefore we would never name a whistleblower or disclose our interactions with a whistleblower without their express consent,” said Russell Dye, spokesman for House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan. "The committee is continuing to review these allegations and seriously examines all whistleblower disclosures.” 

Beyond the letter, the House panel has received no other disclosures or supporting materials. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is also aware of the matter, but a spokeswoman for GOP chairman Charles Grassley said, “We have nothing to share publicly at this time.” 

Neither the House nor Senate judiciary panels have released statements or press releases regarding the allegations in the letter. Papadopoulos said no one from either committee has contacted him about them. 

This is not the first time Siuzdak, who claims to represent more than 20 FBI whistleblowers, has offered such “disclosures" to Congress. In fact, he has contributed to a flood of serious complaints about the bureau, fielded mostly by the House Judiciary Committee. In a 2022 complaint, for example, he claimed that the FBI was fabricating terrorism cases and forcing agents to sign false affidavits, among other things. In a September 2022 letter, Siuzdak even claimed FBI leadership threatened to “kill” FBI agents if they blew the whistle on such misconduct. 

It turns out that the bulk of his “disclosures” were merely things he had heard from agents around the country, and were not corroborated by sworn affidavits or other supporting documents. FBI headquarters denied the allegations he brought. 

Whistleblowers as well as their attorneys are under obligation to tell the truth before Congress. Witnesses who knowingly make false statements to congressional investigators could face a fine and/or five years in prison. Colleagues of Siuzdak say he is prone to exaggerate and has an ax to grind against his former employer. 

He’s doing this because he hates the FBI,” said a Washington attorney who specializes in whistleblower cases and who has worked with Siuzdak in the past. “You have to take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt." 

“He would call with wild claims and conclusions, but when we asked him for the receipts, we would just get crickets. He would never send them on,” added the attorney, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We had to unwind and untangle the real truths from what he was spinning.” 

More alarming, the D.C. attorney said that in one case Siuzdak "claimed to represent an FBI whistleblower when in fact he didn’t." “The same agent later told us they had no formal agreement,” he said. 

Another prominent Washington whistleblower lawyer also questioned his credibility. 

State records show Siuzdak is an active member of the Connecticut bar, admitted in 1992, but was suspended briefly in 2021 for a minor administrative infraction. 

On the letterhead he sent Congress, Siuzdak's email address includes a website for his law firm that is now defunct. The physical address he lists is his home residence. The website used to say he was one of the few lawyers in the country with “experience in the Department of Justice’s whistleblower court.” However, no such court exists. 

He has listed a diverse range of practice areas, from “Family Matters & Divorce Law” to “Cybersecurity and Data Privacy” to “FBI Whistleblower litigation.” 

In addition to his law practice, Siuzdak works for a temp agency for lawyers called Axiom Legal. State incorporation records show Siuzdak started a “general management counseling” business last month, also from his home. Moreover, he has taught a course at Quinnipiac University titled “Introduction to Ethical Hacking.” 

Siuzdak, 59, has made hyperbolic statements about his professional background. In a promotion for a whistleblower’s handbook he's selling on Amazon, Siuzdak claims he’s been called “the most formidable attorney to ever work for the FBI.” In a 2023 podcast, he said, “I don’t mean to brag ... but Comey came to the New Haven office to apologize to [me].” He also claims he ranks among "the top 20” FBI veterans who have "effected change" at the bureau in its 117-year history. 

Siuzdak spent 24 years at the bureau during which he suffered health issues while working primarily out of the New York and New Haven, Conn., field offices, where he had a checkered record of performance as a field agent, according to court documents. A military vet, he was hampered by enduring injuries to his knee and back that made it difficult to walk. He'd also been hospitalized for heart problems, and claimed to suffer from lung damage after visiting Ground Zero in New York after 9/11.  

Around the time President Obama tapped Comey to take over the FBI in 2013, Siuzdak began filing a series of workplace discrimination complaints that the FBI and DOJ called “frivolous." In 2015, the same year Siuzdak maintains Comey went gunning for Trump, court records reveal Siuzdak filed his own whistleblower case against the FBI in which he claimed bureau leadership under Comey had mistreated him. 

According to the court filings, Siuzdak became disgruntled after he was passed over for dozens of requested assignments and promotions. The bureau cited “marginal” grades for core competency and other issues that impeded his ability to become a high-level supervisor, including that "he was often difficult to get in touch with, his voicemail was frequently full, and he had a reputation with other law enforcement agencies as being non-responsive,” according to the case files

Siuzdak disputed the sub-standard performance reviews. After filing an EEOC complaint, he alleged that bureau management under Director Comey “retaliated" against him by denying him a position for which he had been recommended. He complained he was also improperly investigated for misuse of government credit cards and vehicles. At one point, he was even locked out of his office. He then sued the Justice Department in late 2014. 

The next year, he was cited for additional “deficiencies." In Sentinel, the FBI's computer case management system, "there was no substantive activity in a full investigation assigned to SA [Special Agent] Siuzdak for over five months,” Siuzdak’s supervisor in the New Haven office noted. In 2015, in turn, Siuzdak filed a whistleblower complaint with the DOJ's inspector general alleging that his superiors were committing “time and attendance fraud.” 

In 2018, Siuzdak settled his lawsuit with the FBI and DOJ for undisclosed terms. The agencies did not admit wrongdoing. DOJ attorneys argued in court that Siuzdak had a history of filing “frivolous” EEOC complaints alleging age, gender and physical disability discrimination dating back to 2012. But in court documents, Siuzdak maintained that Comey had paid a visit to the New Haven office in 2013 to specifically apologize for “the failure of the FBI’s executive management to correct the leadership failures" in Connecticut. 

One of the senior FBI executives singled out repeatedly for rebuke by Siuzdak in his “whistleblower disclosures” is Paul Abbate, who retired in January as deputy director. Records show that Siuzdak and Abbate came up together in the bureau as rookies and were both assigned to the New York office. But their career paths quickly diverged. Abbate was fast-tracked, earning promotion after promotion, while Siuzdak was shuffled around, which embittered Siuzdak, bureau sources say. 

Paul Abbate has been a personal pin cushion for me,” Siuzdak revealed in a 2023 podcast.  

In early 2021, Siuzdak quit the bureau. He told the New York Post later that year he left because of bureau mismanagement; however, he told an FBI whistleblower podcaster last year he left because he fell ill from COVID and almost died. 

Messages seeking comment about Siuzdak and his “whistleblower" letter were left with the FBI. RCI also reached out to Comey's lawyer, who did not immediately return emails requesting a response to the allegations against him.  

In spite of the questions, Siuzdak’s October letter may be receiving attention because of evidence that Comey did bend the rules regarding Trump. He signed FISA warrants targeting Trump aide Carter Page based on false opposition research from Hillary Clinton, known as the Steele Dossier.

One day after meeting with President Obama and other top Democrats in the White House on Jan. 5, 2017, Comey briefed incoming President Trump about the dossier on Jan. 6. That meeting was used by CNN and other media outlets as the news hook to air the false and salacious claims. Comey later secretly took notes of his conversations with Trump from the White House, and then gave them to a law professor friend who shared them with the New York Times. The DOJ’s inspector general later took Comey to task for failing to safeguard sensitive information

And of course, Comey signed off on the pre-election undercover operation against Papadopoulos involving a blonde female investigator. The whole thing appeared to be a political op to sabotage Trump’s candidacy and then his presidency. Comey’s long-held hatred of Trump made the latest allegations believable. 

If true, Siuzdak's claims of an “off-the-books” investigation "personally ordered" by Comey a year earlier would certainly deepen the Russiagate scandal. Patel is reportedly looking into them as part of his promised reforms of an agency he said was “politicized" and “corrupted" by Comey and his successor Christopher Wray. But if the new director is in fact investigating these allegations, he’ll no doubt be looking at Siuzdak's “whistleblower” letter, along with his reputation, with a jaundiced eye. 

Paul Sperry is an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations. He is also a longtime media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Sperry was previously the Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other major publications.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 19:15

Biden's Perjury

Biden's Perjury

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

Part of the problem with the Freedom of Information Act is the timeliness of production. If you file a simple request it might take over 7 years for a response. (It happened to us.) Even where you file suit, like we do, you’re probably looking at over a year to get responsive documents. And that’s not even counting the exceptions the Government asserts, whether it be “privacy” or the need to redact embarrassing information or, in the case of COVID-19, to further the cover-up.

And while timeliness and unnecessary redactions aren’t exactly related, they help to serve the same purpose. In the case of late production, many times the story has lost steam or the subject of the documents is no longer in office.

That’s the necessary lead-in to what we have today: President Joe Biden’s written answers to questions from Special Counsel Robert Hur, available here.

I believe this is the first time these have been published. We just got them today; the Government was in no rush to hand them over, though we appreciate the fact that they aren’t redacted. Small victories, I guess.

These answers were prepared - undoubtedly with the assistance of counsel - in April 2023, and they address Biden’s handling of classified documents at his homes and the sharing of classified information to his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

If you recall, Special Counsel Hur was appointed after the disclosure that classified documents were found at President Biden’s homes and his office in Washington. Compared to the investigations of Trump, the Biden inquiry was, for lack of a better word, soft: searches were conducted without FBI monitors, Biden’s lawyers negotiated the terms of searches with a US Attorney appointed by Biden. (Our recap into the Biden classified documents saga goes into greater detail.)

The issue with Biden’s handling of classified materials wasn’t necessarily the possession of those materials, though that is a criminal offense. It’s that he lied about it to Special Counsel Hur. These written answers - first published in this article - are important in that they are made with thought and care, as compared to Biden’s rambling interview with Special Counsel Hur, where he was a bit slow and forgetful.

And these answers are provable deceit, though it would have been a near-impossible task to convince a DC jury to convict one of their own. Here are some examples of the lies.

Here, you see Biden explaining he used the term “classified” with his ghostwriter (Zwonitzer) in a generic sense. However, in a recorded February 2017 interview, Biden told his ghostwriter that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs.” Biden was also found to have read “verbatim” from a number of classified notebooks and remarked to his ghostwriter that some of the documents “may be classified.”

Again, we see the same pattern. Biden “did not know” his garage contained classified documents. He further states: “I do not recall ever sharing any marked classified documents with Mr. Zwonitzer, and I never would have done so intentionally.” As to that first quote, Hur was skeptical, concluding that Biden actually “maintained these [garage] files himself.”

And finally, Biden explains that his possession of classified materials (notecards) should be deemed appropriate because he understood them to be his “property.”

To close - while this matter has concluded, and while Biden fades into obscurity (the Democrats don’t miss him), we thought his written responses deserved publication. It would have been nice to not have to deal with over a year of government delays - even with ongoing litigation - but this is the hand we’re dealt.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 19:00

"Something Exceptional Happening": Copper Bull Forecasts New Record Highs On Most-Profitable Trade Ever

"Something Exceptional Happening": Copper Bull Forecasts New Record Highs On Most-Profitable Trade Ever

In an exclusive interview, Kostas Bintas, Trafigura Group's former co-head of metals and now with Mercuria Energy Group Ltd., told Bloomberg that President Trump's tariff threat on copper could push prices to record highs and unleash unprecedented opportunities for trading profits. 

Bintas explained that massive copper inflows into the US are sending supplies lower elsewhere—most notably in top consumer China. As a result, the global market is showing signs of tightening, pushing Shanghai copper futures into their widest backwardation in over a year. Adding to the pressure, Mercuria forecasts that global demand will outstrip supply by 320,000 tons this year, and inventories ex-US will be significantly depleted. 

"We think there is something exceptional happening in the copper market," Bintas said, adding, "Is it unreasonable to expect a copper price of $12,000 or $13,000? I'm struggling to put a number on it because this has never happened before."

The shift of inventory to the US means the Chinese copper market will be left with low stocks... 

"China has been successful historically in rejecting high prices," the trader said, warning, "This is the first time in recent history that another market is taking tons away from the Chinese market. That's why it's uncharted territory."

Bintas runs a 40-person metals team at Mercuria and has been one of the most bullish voices in the space and called for a multiyear bull market after Covid on rising demand from all things electrification - i.e., 'Powering Up America' theme and Next AI Trade

Former Goldman metals strategist Nick Snowdon, also at Mercuria and head of metals research at the commodity trading firm, forecasted about a year ago that average copper prices would average $15,000 a ton for 2025. 

Last week, Goldman's Eoin Dinsmore, Lavinia Forcellese, and others provided clients with several key factors as to why they are "tactically cautious, structurally constructive" on copper:

We believe two key factors are driving the recent LME copper price strength:

  1. Section 232 has lifted both the COMEX and the LME price. As the COMEX US price has increased to incorporate greater certainty on US copper tariffs, it has resulted in tighter London LME spreads and additional speculative length on the LME. While we hold to our 2025 market deficit forecast of 180kt, we think stockpiling in the US will make the world ex-US appear tighter, which may pull forward the rally we forecast for H2.

  2. China sentiment has turned notably more positive. This is due to the government's commitment to boost consumption, AI optimism, and lower than feared US tariffs on China. Positive China sentiment has been further bolstered by reports that China's State Reserve Bureau (SRB) plans to add to its copper stockpiles in 2025. We see SRB copper purchases as defensive to address potential shortages rather than opportunistic (i.e. very price sensitive), and SRB buying would help offset any price-related demand pull-back in China. While our China economists see upside risk to their 2025 4.5% growth forecast, they argue that policymakers may ease off the gas after a decent Q1 real GDP print.

  3. However, trade policy uncertainty leaves us tactically cautious. We see two-sided risks from the upcoming US trade policy update on April 2nd. While the delay to European retaliation is slightly positive, our economists expect additional product specific tariffs to be announced. Any focus on China or a hawkish line on reciprocal tariffs will be negative for copper prices. We are not anticipating a S232 copper update, as the deadline for public comments only ends on April 1st[1]. We think the front month COMEX-LME premium should drop if the trade update fails to signal a speedier than typical S232 tariff implementation.

  4. We remain structurally bullish. Should the April 2nd policy announcements spare the market of negative sentiment surprises, we think the net LME tightening impact from the ongoing S232 copper investigation poses a net upside risk to our Q2-Q3 2025 $9,550/t-$9,883/t price forecast. For now, we also maintain our bullish $10,200/t Q4 2025 forecast, on the back of strong electrification demand, China stimulus offsetting the drag from tariffs, and slower mine supply growth.

US inflows of copper only suggest that Chinese buyers will face aggressive competition for the metal in global markets. 

The net bullish positions in LME copper have been elevated on the AI electrification trend since last May, while the latest tariff-driven fears push prices higher

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 18:50

Former Congresswoman Explains CCP's Hidden Influence In California

Former Congresswoman Explains CCP's Hidden Influence In California

Authored by Kevin Shelley via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As awareness grows of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) influence in the United States, a former congresswoman from California is shedding light on the regime’s reach in the state, across the country, and around the world.

Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) speaks during a hearing about the Chinese Communist Party's forced organ harvesting before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China in Washington on March 20, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Michelle Steel, who served in Congress from 2021 to 2025 and sat on several committees dealing with China-related issues, raised concerns about the CCP’s influence on the U.S. higher education system in a recent interview with EpochTV’s “California Insider.”

“Universities were the worst one. We have a prominent university in California called UC Berkeley ... and they received $220 million from China,” Steel said.

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, universities must report to the Department of Education every six months any foreign gifts or contracts—either individually or combined—valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year.

Steel alleged the university never reported the money.

The allegations surfaced in 2023 when Education and Workforce Committee chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and then Select Committee on China chairman Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) stated in a letter to University of California–Berkeley officials that the university failed to report investments from the Chinese municipal government—$220 million of which was intended to fund a campus in Shenzhen, China—for the Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, a joint research initiative.

Tsinghua University, one of China’s top institutions, is governed by the country’s Ministry of Education.

In exchange for the money it received, the university allegedly provided exclusive tours of advanced semiconductor research facilities to Chinese delegations, including senior Chinese regime officials, according to another letter to the National Science Foundation from House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and Research and Technology Subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.).

Allowing adversarial nations to access research facilities at the leading edge of semiconductor design is unacceptable, especially when that access is given by a U.S. research institution that receives over $700 million annually in funds from the Federal government,” the pair said in the letter.

The Epoch Times reached out to UC Berkeley for comment.

After the allegation drew public attention in 2023, the university responded by stating that while the funds were initially proposed for a Tsinghua Berkeley Shenzhen Institute campus, the campus was never built and the investment did not take place, campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof told student-run newspaper The Daily Californian in an email that year.

Mogulof said the funds were used to construct a new campus for the Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, which he clarified is owned by Tsinghua University.

However, in a report by the Daily Beast, the university acknowledged it failed to disclose a $19 million contract in 2016 with Tsinghua University.

In 2022, the CHIPS and Science Act lowered the reporting threshold to $50,000, requiring any foreign financial support at or above that amount to be reported to the director of the National Science Foundation.

Stricter rules also apply when sensitive countries are involved, Steel said.

“[Even] when you have coffee with those countries of concern. We’re talking about China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any of these countries, then you have to report,” she said.

In addition to the risk of intellectual property theft, Steel said large foreign grants can also lead to university administrations being influenced or controlled by foreign governments.

“We saw so many universities, instead of the monies going down to the classrooms ... administrations [were] getting bigger and bigger,” she said. “Universities are not corporations that have to make profits. They have to reinvest that to the students.”

Steel also expressed concern that university students could be receiving propaganda from foreign regimes instead of a proper education.

Students pass through the Sather Gate of the college campus at the University of California–Berkeley, in an undated file photo. David A. Litman/Shutterstock

“Instead of teaching our kids how to think and how to be independent, some of the universities are brainwashing our kids, and they are getting [so much] money.”

Port Security

Steel said she is also concerned about CCP infiltration at major U.S. ports.

In California, we have [the] two biggest ports in the U.S., [Los Angeles] and Long Beach, and 80 percent of those cranes we bought from China,” she said.

The popularity of Chinese-made cargo cranes is largely due to their lower cost, typically about three-fourths the price of those made in other countries, Steel said. Each crane can cost up to $15 million, while other models also cost millions.

Currently, the Port of Los Angeles uses 84 container cranes, and the Port of Long Beach uses 73 cranes.

In March 2024, the House Homeland Security Committee reported that cellular modems were found on cranes purchased from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries, a China-based manufacturer that produces nearly all Chinese-made cranes used at U.S. ports.

The modems, which are not included in equipment contracts, do not appear to support normal operations and could potentially be accessed remotely, the committee said.

Such cellular modems were also discovered in another port’s server room that houses those cranes’ firewalls and networking equipment.

Steel, who co-authored the report, said the modems installed in the cranes can track ship traffic and the types of goods being transported, potentially enabling espionage that could undercut trade competitors and disrupt supply chains.

“We heard that they always ask that those cranes to be in remote areas or inside because they put chips on it and ... they’re collecting all these data,” she said. “It’s a national security issue.”

Two giant Malaccamax gantry cranes delivered by the Chinese company Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZMPC) at the Fos-Sur-Mer harbour, on the outskirts of Marseille, France, on July 23, 2020. Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images

Steel said China has also provided South Korea and Japan access to its state-backed LOGINK software, a digital logistics platform that enables real-time cargo tracking, giving it visibility into global supply chains and potential leverage in economic or geopolitical conflicts.

“We are not using their maritime tracking system, but our allies are using it. So, you really have to watch it very closely,” she said. “You really have to advise other countries to stop using Chinese maritime tracking systems.”

Steel said the cranes could also be used to spy on U.S. Navy activities.

It’s not just like a private shipping company is coming in. We’re talking about our naval ships going in and out, too,” she said. “That’s very, very dangerous.

Before leaving Congress, Steel sponsored the Secure Our Ports Act, which would prohibit foreign adversaries from owning or operating critical infrastructure in the United States.

The legislation was reintroduced in January by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). It would ban state-owned enterprises of foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran—or any foreign entity partially owned by those governments—from owning, leasing, or operating port facilities in the United States.

Steel said the CCP’s influence also extends beyond the United States, describing China’s strategy as offering infrastructure development—such as dams, airports, ports, and railways—to poorer countries, eventually gaining control over key systems, especially when those nations are unable to repay their debts.

Fentanyl Crisis

Steel pointed to fentanyl as another major issue she believes China is fueling.

Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl began rising sharply in California around 2013, driven by the spread of illicitly manufactured fentanyl, which soon surpassed prescription opioids and heroin as the leading cause of overdose deaths.

In 2023, fentanyl was involved in more than 90 percent of the state’s 7,847 drug overdose deaths, according to the California Department of Public Health.

A lot of fentanyl precursors [are] coming in,” Steel said. “When they use it inside of China, you have a death sentence. But [when it’s] taken outside of China, making money, they’re very loose.”

Steel said that while Congress was aware of China’s role in the fentanyl crisis, it wasn’t until the COVID-19 pandemic that the full scale of the problem became clear.

When the Chinese communist regime drastically reduced pharmaceutical exports during the pandemic, the sharp drop in fentanyl entering the United States revealed how much of it had originated from China, she said.

Agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration have also reported on the global flow of fentanyl and its precursors from China. The Department of Justice has issued indictments against Chinese networks accused of selling precursor chemicals to Mexican cartels, which then processed them into fentanyl for distribution in the United States.

Cartels, at the same time, have found some creative ways to smuggle fentanyl across the border, Steel said.

“They use the remote surfboards, and then they can just control it from Mexico’s side,“ she said. ”Then somebody [picks] it up from our side, so they don’t even have to go through the border.”

Although the flow of fentanyl has become more varied since it first entered the country, Steel said that at its core, China remains behind the supply chain.

Human Rights

Steel also criticized human rights abuses in China, saying innocent people—such as Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs—are being jailed and persecuted for their beliefs.

“Before they put them [in jail], they scan your body. And then one day, you wake up, if you’re lucky. If you are not, then who knows? You [might] get killed [or you might find] one of your organs is missing,” she said.

She recalled attending hearings on the CCP where some witnesses testified while covering their faces, fearing their families in China could be targeted or imprisoned.

It’s just awful, stories that you hear [from] these people [who] came to the hearings. And they are crying, and some people wearing masks,” she said.

In some cases, she said, even the witnesses—legal American citizens—could be targeted by Chinese secret police operating inside the United States.

Shen Yun Performing Arts, whose artists practice Falun Gong, has been targeted by the CCP in similar ways. Since March 2024, the company has received dozens of emailed threats of violence during its global tour. Over the years, Chinese officials have repeatedly tried to cancel Shen Yun’s performances in various cities through blackmail and economic pressure.

Recently, Steel encountered one such incident herself.

“I just got a letter from South Korea, and they are supposed to have performances in Daegu. Daegu just canceled it because the Chinese Embassy was actually pressuring them,” she said.

Speaking on the CCP’s aggressive tactics against the performing arts company, Steel said it’s because its performances reveal a side of China that the regime does not want the world to see.

“You are trying to hide something. [That] means that you are not doing the right thing. That’s the bottom line for me,” she said.

Why Get Involved?

Steel’s efforts to uncover the CCP’s influence did not come without risk.

She recalled a conversation she had with then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy when he appointed her to the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

“Michelle, I want you to be careful. Somebody is looking at your cellphone. When you open your cellphone ... you have to have those screens, that nobody from the sideways can read,” she said McCarthy told her. “And then you have to have double firewalls for your cellphone to make sure that nobody can hack them, because you know CCP is going to come after you.”

However, the risks did not deter her.

“I knew what I was getting into because both my parents fled from North Korea, from communism. I always stand up for the democracy of the country.”

She said becoming a politician was not how she originally envisioned standing up for democracy.

“I never thought that I’m going to be a politician, because I had a very shy personality, and I couldn’t speak in front of two people.”

Her mindset shifted after her mother’s shop was penalized for underpaying sales tax during a transitional period. The state tax agency accused them of tax fraud and imposed a penalty.

That experience prompted her to run for the California State Board of Equalization in 2006, and she served for eight years before being elected to the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 2015.

I had compassion for small business taxpayers,” she said, saying that some such businesses are harassed and abused.

Running as a political “nobody,” Steel said her key to success was hard work, something she learned at a young age after moving to Japan, and later to the United States, where she constantly had to overcome language barriers and keep up with her peers.

“I slept about two to three hours. I was all over [during the election],” she said.

That work ethic carried Steel through her years in Congress, where Southern California’s coastal erosion was one of the first issues she tackled.

“My first term I was elected, we really need some more [sand] for my district, because I represented Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach,” she said.

Steel said she had meetings with every Congress member who had the power to approve sand restoration projects for her district.

“So, one time on the floor, one of the congressmen [said], ‘Oh, my Sand Lady is passing,’” she recalled.

Steel’s work has also earned praise from her colleagues. In a recent letter, Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Rules Committee chairwoman Foxx recommended her to President Donald Trump for the role of U.S. ambassador to South Korea.

In the letter obtained by The Epoch Times, the lawmakers cited Steel’s shared vision with Trump, her experience in tax and trade policy, and her fluency in Korean, Japanese, and English.

Living in America is like being in a dream factory, Steel said, where anything is possible if you work for it. It’s the freedom people have here that she values most.

“I’m just so grateful that I am an American, that ... somebody who has an accent can come this far and then served at the state, served at the county, and served in Congress,” she said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 18:25

Robert Lighthizer: "We're In A Cold War, A Second Cold War Now"

Robert Lighthizer: "We're In A Cold War, A Second Cold War Now"

"A lot of us who were sort of united in this Cold War, particularly in the early years, it kind of brought the country together. We realized we were in a Cold War. Indeed, I think we're in a Cold War, a second Cold War now," former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told Tucker Carlson on a podcast last week while discussing topics ranging from the current failing trade system to trade deficits and more.

Continuing the second Cold War theme, we told readers in 2022 that "The New Cold War Has Begun."

Over the last decade, the US spent $8.4 trillion on defense, while the rest of NATO spent a fraction of that, around $3.8 trillion.

The 'Trump Effect' has created an urgent need for EU countries to boost defense spending in a world where rising geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia drive global superpowers to modernize their armed forces.

In the Americas, Trump has been bolstering efforts to increase hemispheric defense, whether stronger economic integration between the US and Canada or a hardened defense perimeter stretching from the Arctic to the Panama Canal.

Let's visualize Trump's hemispheric defense that ultimately will deter China ... 

Lighthizer's view of a second Cold War taking shape is correct

Proxy conflicts between global superpowers, an accelerating arms and AI race, economic sanctions, trade wars, and cyber warfare are some of the classic hallmarks of a new Cold War unfolding for the last decade. 

Regarding global military expenditures, Goldman analyst Germaine Khong told clients that the figure topped $2.6 trillion in 2024, accounting for 2.4% of GDP - up from 2.2% in 2021-22, with much of the increase coming from European and Asian countries

Khong cited the Geopolitical Risk (GPR) index, a measure of adverse geopolitical events and associated risks based on a count of newspaper headlines covering geopolitical tensions, which finds heightened perceived risk and tension amid conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as a worsening Sino-U.S. trade war. 

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Aerospace & Defense-focused funds have been ripping higher and have received inflows totaling $12 billion, with AUM quadrupling to $24 billion, according to Khong, citing fund flow data from EPFR. 

In a separate note, Goldman analyst Sven Jari Stehn and others expect EU defense spending to jump from 1.9% of GDP in 2024 to 2.8% in 2027.

We expect defence spending to increase significantly across the currency union, from 1.9% of GDP in 2024 to 2.8% by 2027 (Exhibit 1, left). We then look for defence spending to eventually reach 3% according to our analysis of Europe's military needs. In Germany, defence spending already increased from 1.5% before 2022 to 2.1% in 2024 and will from now on be largely exempted from the constitutional debt brake (Exhibit 1, right). In France, a multi-annual budget law already enshrines defence spending of 2% until 2030, and political leaders broadly concur on further increases. In Italy and Spain, the increase in defence will start from a lower level—at 1.4% and 1.2%, respectively—and will likely proceed somewhat slower than we had previously anticipated, given recent communication by leading party leaders and the Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers.

Surging global defense spending is one of the hallmarks of the second Cold War. The ongoing arms race, strategic deterrence and posturing by superpowers, proxy wars, and shifting industrial and trade policies are all signs of a world fracturing into what appears to be a bipolar era. To combat this in the Americas, Trump will bolster hemispheric defense.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 18:00

Big Law Gets Back To Business

Big Law Gets Back To Business

Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearPolitics,

The top law firms in New York City gave Donald Trump the high hat for years, despite his wealth, fame, and standing. But Big Law is finally putting politics aside and getting back to business.

Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell agreed to handle President Trump’s appeal in the egregious criminal case brought by posing partisan prosecutor Alvin Bragg. Last week, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million of legal work on “mutually agreeable matters” in support of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, and agreed to boot DEI too, in exchange for Trump’s agreement to terminate his Executive Order “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.”

Some decry Paul Weiss’ agreement as craven – and one young associate at another firm threatened to quit unless her law firm fights with Trump to her satisfaction. She’s missing the point, as have most of Trump’s other critics in the legal profession.

Until relatively recently, Big Law is all about business – and avoiding political risks. Leading partners at the mega-firms are practical people who behave rationally, not ideologically. And that’s how it’s supposed to work.

So, when Democratic Party lawyers tried to overwhelm Trump with egregious and extra-legal lawfare, Americans rallied around him and helped him retake the presidency. Even then, Big Law refused to represent him because the risk-adjusted return of helping Donald Trump was less than shunning him. Nothing personal, just business – or so they thought.

It’s true that most lawyers, including those who pursue careers in the elite law firms, are Democrats. Two of the three law firms singled out by President Trump are among the most unbalanced of the largest 100 firms. And while Paul Weiss was closer to average, its partners donated more money to Democratic Party campaign committees in a recent cycle than any other large law firm – and one of its partners prepped Kamala Harris for her debate with Trump.

It’s also true that big law firms perceive left-wing activist groups as an outsize risk to their ability to recruit top talent, mostly from elite institutions that are also left. To mitigate that risk, firms have for many years catered to the groups’ requests for financial, policy, and legal support.

That’s why Big Law tilted further and further to the left over the last 15 years. With groups agitating from the left and with big clients who previously leaned right, such as BlackRock and members of the Business Roundtable, riding shotgun for activists, Big Law went with the flow.

These law firms contributed money to Democrats while also synchronizing their pro bono and corporate advisory work with the left’s economic activism – leveraging public sector pension investments, boycott threats, and “naming and shaming” publicity campaigns – along with legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic activism in support of “Environmental, Social and Governance” and “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives. 

Together, the groups and the law firms harnessed much of private finance and industry to the Democrats’ agenda, putting political commissars in C-suites of American businesses under the rubric of DEI and ESG, in a stunningly successful end run around democratic legislative processes. 

As Big Law attorneys midwifed this revolution, conservative activists and attorneys took note. Some opposed the status quo in private practice; others were shunned by big law after serving in the first Trump administration. Compounding the affront, some firms actually embraced those who participated in the anti-Trump lawfare, betting that Trump was finished and his lawyers would fade away. 

They lost that bet and, with a volley of Executive Orders, Trump sent shock waves through the legal ecosystem, increasing the cost of participating in progressive activism and taking a big step toward purging the politicization of American business.

With that background, it’s clear that Paul Weiss’ agreement is a savvy business move that’s “sleeves off a vest.” According to the New York Times, Paul Weiss’ chairman pointed out in his firmwide email that the agreement “reaffirmed” long standing principles of the firm – and rebalances their firm politically going forward.

Paul Weiss agreed: The justice system should be fair and nonpartisan; not to hire lawyers or choose clients based on their partisan affiliation; to take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints; to affirm their commitment to merit-based hiring promotion and retention; to terminate its DEI programs; and to take on “mutually agreed” pro bono projects in support of the administration’s initiatives.

This is a win-win resolution for Paul Weiss and President Trump.   

Perhaps the hardest pill for some lawyers to swallow is the termination of DEI, but the problem with DEI is not diversity or inclusion – the problem is the equity in between. 

A firm culture premised on equity is inherently more fractious and unstable than one built around equality of opportunity and equal treatment. As currently conceived, “equity” is a transactional concept rooted in anger that’s conceptually unbounded. There is no limiting principle inherent to the concept of “equity.” When do you know you have achieved it? What’s the standard if it isn’t equality? This makes equity arbitrary and unbounded – it’s why when San Francisco had a commission on equity for descendants of slaves they came up with $5 million per person – a number plucked from thin air – which even if paid would lead to demands for even more.

On the other hand, equality is relational, not transactional, bounded by reciprocity and rooted in respect for, not anger at, other people, including those who have different viewpoints or backgrounds. 

Diversity is a fact, inclusivity remains a virtue, and equality is a better organizational ethic than equity.

So, while there are still issues to be resolved regarding the executive orders directed at other law firms, the Paul Weiss agreement is a smart roadmap for Big Law generally, but also in dealings with the Trump administration more specifically: Focus on business and keep the politics in balance.

Richard Porter is the former National Committeeman to the RNC from Illinois. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 17:40

Trump Admin Ends Taxpayer-Funded Housing For Illegal Immigrants

Trump Admin Ends Taxpayer-Funded Housing For Illegal Immigrants

The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would be ending taxpayer-funded housing for illegal immigrants.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed a joint partnership to curtail what they describe as an “exploitation” of the country’s housing programs.

As Rachel Acenas reports for The Epoch Times, Turner and Noem together signed the “American Housing Programs for American Citizens” memorandum of understanding (MOU).

“We’re here signing a partnership to ensure that the wasteful misappropriations that have been going to assist the illegal aliens in our country will no longer go to assist them but instead to assist the American people,” Turner said in a video statement on X.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner walks towards the West Wing following a TV interview at the White House on Feb. 19, 2025. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

American citizens have taken a back seat to illegal immigrants for too long, according to Turner, who said that American tax dollars should be used to benefit only U.S. citizens, especially when it comes to an issue as pressing as the nation’s housing crisis.

As part of the new memorandum, HUD will provide a full-time staff member to assist in operations at the Incident Command Center (ICC) to facilitate data-sharing and ensure taxpayer-funded housing programs are not used to benefit or harbor illegal immigrants.

Noem accused the Biden administration of failing to prioritize Americans.

“This memorandum is going to be a partnership that we will form to make sure that these housing programs are going to only people who deserve it, people who are in this country who need assistance, who want a better life for their family,” Noem said in the video.

The HUD and DHS partnership comes after Trump signed an executive order in February to direct federal agencies and departments to identify all federally-funded programs that provide financial benefits to illegal immigrants and to take corrective action.

The order seeks to “ensure taxpayer resources are not used to incentivize or support illegal immigration,” according to a fact sheet on the order.

HUD cited data from the Center for Immigration Studies that showed about 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use one or more welfare programs, creating roughly $42 billion in costs. The increase has a direct impact on housing, according to the agency. By increasing demand for housing, immigration drives up costs in areas where immigrants settle, according to the data.

The department pointed to various other issues surrounding taxpayer-funded housing programs for illegal immigrants.

“Across the country there are about 9 million residents of public and subsidized housing without proper information sharing to determine eligibility status,” the department said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 17:20

US Official Alleges 23andMe Sold Americans' DNA Data To Pharma Companies Owned By Foreign Adversaries

US Official Alleges 23andMe Sold Americans' DNA Data To Pharma Companies Owned By Foreign Adversaries

On Monday, 23andMe shares crashed after the genetic testing startup filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. While the fate of millions of Americans' DNA data is now subject to a court-supervised sale, a new report suggests much of it may have already been sold—potentially to pharmaceutical firms, including some tied to foreign adversaries.

James O'Keefe of O'Keefe Media Group published a video on Monday featuring an undercover journalist speaking with Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, who warned her, "Do not give your information to those people [23andMe]... they sell it to other people."

The journalist asked Johnson: "Do they sell it [DNA data of customers] to Russia?" 

He responded, "They sell it to everybody." 

Johnson explained: "There's a clause in their contract, that basically says, like, we can give your information to our shareholders. So that they can do stuff. And all of their shareholders are, like pharmaceutical companies. But some of those pharmaceutical companies are based in other countries, and those pharmaceutical companies in other countries are like the property of, like the Ministry of Defense of Russia. Or, like, owned, by China."

While Johnson did not provide specifics about the shareholders or foreign entities that potentially purchased 23andMe's vast trove of its American DNA database, a basic public forensics analysis dive into 23andMe reveals some familiar names among the top shareholders of the now-defunct unicorn startup: BlackRock, Vanguard, and Sequoia Capital.

What's concerning is that BlackRock and Vanguard, some of the world's largest investment companies, are large shareholders of 23andMe and have, according to public records data, high exposure to state-owned enterprises overseas. 

Customers of 23andMe must only now be realizing... 

If what Johnson said is even remotely true, then the genetic pool of millions of 23andMe customers potentially being sold to private companies—domestically or abroad—should be considered a national security threat

That's because as explained several years ago by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: "That's what this is, where you can actually take someone's DNA, you know, their medical profile, and you can target a biological weapon that will kill that person or take them off the battlefield or make them inoperable." 

* * *

Click link & start tracking your health with simple at-home test kits... Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 16:40

Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To 'Strengthen Legal Framework': Report

Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To 'Strengthen Legal Framework': Report

As April 2nd approaches - the day President Donald Trump is set to roll out a global tariff regime, the Financial Times reports that Trump is now considering 'a two-step approach,' which would split tariffs into two stages; targeted emergency tariffs now to raise money for planned tax cuts, and more after his administration has completed probes into trading partners to provide a more robust legal framework to deploy "reciprocal" tariffs (we charge them the same percentage they're charging us).

Basically while Trump and Lutnick want to go full bore now, US trade representative Jamieson Greer (a lawyer who worked for Trump's first trade chief Robert Lighthizer), insisted they pump the brakes in order to legally justify sweeping tariffs.

President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the Oval Office on Feb. 25.Yuri Gripas / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

The dual-track strategy is poised for a high-profile unveiling on April 2, a date Trump has branded “Liberation Day,” spurring a flurry of diplomatic activity as allies seek exemptions.

Among proposals his team has been discussing is a plan to launch so-called Section 301 investigations into trading partners, while simultaneously using rarely invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim. -FT

Speaking Monday, Trump vowed "substantial" tariffs on U.S. trading partners, though he also suggested the possibility of selective leniency. “They’ve charged us so much that I’m embarrassed to charge them what they’ve charged us,” Trump said - hours after announcing new tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil, including China. “But it’ll be substantial.

According to the Financial Times, officials close to the matter say the administration is eyeing an immediate deployment of tariffs using emergency authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 - a provision that permits duties of up to 50% on foreign goods on trading partners.

One more obscure route, now considered a long shot, involves Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days - a stopgap measure that may not deliver the revenue or optics the former president is seeking.

Lawyers and people familiar with the plans also told FT that Trump could immediately slap tariffs on vehicle imports on April 2, reviving a national security study into the global auto industry from his first term.

On Monday, Trump said tariffs on cars could be announced "over the next few days."

The debate within the Trump team has at times split along functional lines

The two main points of contact have also differed in their approaches, say people familiar with the discussions. While commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has served as the administration’s chief negotiator, he has lambasted trading partners over their trade surpluses and tax policies, before demanding “a deal”.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer, a lawyer who previously worked for Trump’s first-term trade chief Bob Lighthizer, has increasingly asserted himself as the legal planner, seeking to create a durable blueprint for the president’s drive to reorder global trade. -FT

Greer has notably advocated for launching investigations into trading partners before applying tariffs, according to people familiar with his thinking. This would rely on tested trade law, but could delay tariffs by up to six months.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the final details of the reciprocal tariff plan remain under wraps, but emphasized internal alignment on the broader goal: "Although the final reciprocal tariff plan for April 2 has yet to be unveiled by President Trump, every member of the Trump administration is aligned on finally leveling the playing field for American industries and workers."

Foreign governments are responding with urgency. The U.K. is weighing revisions to its digital services tax targeting U.S. tech firms, while the European Union has dispatched Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič for emergency talks with Lutnick and Greer.

Any plan unveiled on April 2 is expected to be a refinement of Trump’s original campaign promise to apply universal tariffs to all U.S. imports - a proposal that has morphed over time but remains rooted in economic nationalism.

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

Click pic... add to cart... (buy 2 for free shipping)... enjoy Multitool! Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 15:26

The 'Real' Epstein Files Are Coming - Here's What To Know...

The 'Real' Epstein Files Are Coming - Here's What To Know...

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

The Trump administration is proving once again that promises made are promises kept. After successfully releasing over 80,000 pages of files connected to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on March 18, the focus has now shifted to perhaps what should be an even more explosive collection of documents—the Jeffrey Epstein files.

As you know, there was a huge document dump of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case last month that was, to say the least, underwhelming. Part of the problem, it turns out, was that rogue officials out of the Southern District of New York office had withheld documents from the Department of Justice.

So, where’s the good stuff? Well, according to a report from Vanity Fair, it should be coming soon.

It’s the FBI’s flagship field office, with more than a thousand agents and another thousand or so civilian employees. And right now, multiple sources with knowledge of the matter say that one priority at the bureau’s New York field office is taking precedence over all others: the review and redaction of sensitive information in the Jeffrey Epstein case files, to prepare for possible publication.

“It’s literally all hands on deck,” one source familiar with the matter tells me, adding that dozens and dozens of agents are working around the clock on the case, instead of on their regular duties. “I even saw an agent walking in with a pillow,” the source added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, appearing on Maria Bartiromo's "Sunday Morning Futures," spoke about this massive undertaking. Bartiromo pressed Bondi about the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Acknowledging the complexity of handling such sensitive material, Bartiromo noted, “I recognize that when you’re dealing with children, it takes much more time. You’ve got to ensure that what you’re sending out publicly is not revealing any personal information.” She then asked Bondi whether more details would be forthcoming.

Bondi confirmed that updates were on the horizon, stating, “You're absolutely right, Maria. You know, tens of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds and hundreds of victims, um, of Jeffrey Epstein.” 

Bartiromo reacted with a stunned “Wow.”

Bondi assured viewers that federal authorities were making progress. “The FBI, they have been working round the clock at my directive, at [FBI Director] Kash Patel’s directive,” she said, adding that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is also involved. “Dan Bongino’s there, who is a great asset for all of us at the FBI as well.”

Bondi reiterated the need to safeguard victims while ensuring transparency. “We have to protect their identity, their personal information, to make sure they’re safe,” she said. “But other than that, we are releasing all of these documents as soon as we can get them redacted to protect the victims of… of, of all of these horrific crimes he has committed.”

Bartiromo responded, “Understood.”

Rest assured, transparency is coming, everyone. 

*  *  *

The deep state doesn't want you to know the truth about Epstein's powerful connections. Want exclusive analysis of the upcoming document dump and insights mainstream media won't share? Join PJ Media VIP today using code FIGHT for 60% off. Get ad-free access to uncensored reporting, exclusive content, and live chats with our fearless writers. Don't miss out on the real story—support independent journalism that dares to expose the truth.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 15:20

Vance Cautioned Against Bombing Yemen, Calling It A 'Mistake'

Vance Cautioned Against Bombing Yemen, Calling It A 'Mistake'

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Vice President JD Vance cautioned against bombing Yemen before the US restarted its airstrikes on the country, calling it a "mistake," and suggested delaying the attack by one month, according to a leaked Signal conversation between administration officials.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter for The Atlantic, was included in the Signal thread, apparently by accident, which is how he obtained the conversation. An account believed to be Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared details of the March 15 airstrikes on Yemen two hours before they happened, and the White House confirmed that the Signal conversation appeared to be authentic.

A day before the airstrikes, an account labeled "JD Vance" expressed misgivings about the idea of targeting the Houthis. "Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake," the Vance account said.

Via Reuters

Vance framed his opposition to the airstrikes based on President Trump’s policies toward Europe, which have involved pressuring the Europeans to pay more for their own militaries to be less reliant on the US. Vance pointed out that only a small percentage of US shipping goes through the Suez Canal compared to European trade.

The message said: "3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message."

Vance continued, "I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."

An account believed to be Joe Kent, President Trump’s nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, replied to Vance, saying, "There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month."

Hegseth responded to Vance by saying the messaging to the American people about the war would focus on President Biden failing to deter Yemeni attacks and the Houthis being "Iran funded." Iran is aligned with the Houthis, but it’s unclear how much support they give to the group, and US officials have acknowledged the Houthis wouldn’t take orders from Tehran and have their own weapons supply.

"VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded," Hegseth said.

Hegseth also disputed the idea that the strikes could wait, saying he wanted it to happen before the Gaza ceasefire fell apart and before Israel attacked Yemen. The US launched the March 15 airstrikes just a few days after the Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, announced they would reimpose their blockade on Israeli shipping in response to Israel’s ceasefire violations, which included imposing a full blockage on all goods entering Gaza.

"Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should," Hegseth said.

Hegseth also claimed bombing Yemen wasn’t really "about the Houthis" and suggested the messaging would focus on protecting shipping. "This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC [operations security]. I welcome other thoughts," he said.

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who added Goldberg to the chat, made his argument for bombing Yemen, saying it would "have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes" and that the administration would figure out a way to get Europe to pay. "Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans," he said.

Vance said that he would agree with whatever Hegseth’s decision was. "If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again," he said.

The first round of US airstrikes on Yemen killed at least 53 people, including five children and two women, according to Yemen’s Health Ministry. Administration officials celebrated the strikes in the chat, including Waltz, who sent a fist emoji, a flame emoji, and an American flag emoji.

Since those initial airstrikes, the Houthis have carried multiple attacks targeting the US aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman, which US officials have said were intercepted. The Houthis also began firing missiles at Israel in response to Israel restarting its massive bombing campaign on Gaza.

The Houthis ceased their attacks on Israel and Israel-linked shipping when the Gaza ceasefire went into effect on January 19. The group has maintained that the only way to stop its attacks now is for another truce in Gaza and the end to the Israeli blockade on aid entering the Strip.

While the Trump administration officials’ conversation was focused on the impact on shipping, the US bombing campaign in Yemen is more about backing Israel. The Israeli news site Ynet reported that the US has told Israel not to worry about retaliating against the Houthis for their recent missile attacks, saying US forces will handle it.

President Trump is threatening the Houthis with "annihilation," but a year-long US bombing campaign launched by President Biden from January 204 to January 2025 did not stop the Houthis, and a brutal US-backed Saudi-led war on Yemen from 2015 to 2022 also failed to remove the group from power.

Additional context added by ZeroHedge:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 14:20

Commercial Real Estate Delinquency Rates Increase In 4th Quarter

Commercial Real Estate Delinquency Rates Increase In 4th Quarter

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Mortgage delinquency rates for U.S. commercial properties rose in the fourth quarter of 2024 from the previous quarter.

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) published the latest figures as commercial loans worth almost $1 trillion are set to mature this year.

The state of commercial real estate is a key economic indicator. If the sector is under stress, it can trigger a chain of loan defaults, creating challenges for the financial system and posing a risk of broader economic decline.

The MBA looked at delinquency rates for the top five capital sources for commercial mortgages—life insurance companies, commercial and thrift banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. Combined, they account for over 80 percent of outstanding commercial mortgage debt. Excluding life insurance, delinquency rates rose for all the four remaining groups in Q4, 2024, the MBA said in a March 20 statement.

The largest jump was seen among commercial mortgage-backed securities—mortgages on commercial real estate properties packaged as investment products—with the delinquency rate rising 0.63 percentage points from the third quarter.

Commercial and thrift banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac registered marginal increases in delinquency rates in the fourth quarter.

Mike Fratantoni, MBA’s chief economist, warned that some trouble could lie ahead for the sector given that a significant amount, nearly a trillion dollars, worth of loans are maturing in 2025.

“These maturities, coupled with more challenging economic conditions and rangebound interest rates, may result in some further increases in delinquencies if borrowers cannot successfully refinance these loans.”

While the delinquency rates rose in Q4, they remain “relatively low from a historical perspective,” he said.

This is despite the fact that the commercial real estate market has been facing challenges such as “low occupancy rates and the uncertain impact of return-to-office mandates in the office market, and oversupply in the multifamily property market,” he said.

A December 2024 report from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a department that falls under the U.S. Department of the Treasury, flagged commercial real estate as a key area of concern for America’s financial stability.

The oversight council cited the sector’s slowing rent growth, rising vacancies, and higher borrowing costs as ongoing challenges. Office property vacancy rates in urban regions hit decade-high levels, the report said, adding that the trend worsened due to the shift to remote work.

“Office properties in large urban metro areas are experiencing the most stress, suggesting the larger financial institutions likely to hold these loans may face particularly elevated risks,” the report said.

Outlook for 2025

Financial services company JP Morgan carries a positive outlook for commercial real estate this year, according to a Jan. 2 report.

“The industrial sector remains the industry’s darling. Multifamily and retail continue to perform well, although they do have vulnerabilities. In some markets, even office vacancy rates are beginning to moderate,” it said.

JP Morgan said said the high frequency of natural disasters, which are “growing more intense” and becoming costlier, is a key challenge facing the market.

Another risk is the uncertainty regarding the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rates.

While the Federal Reserve is expected to cut rates this year, there is “no guarantee” that these projections will come to fruition.

Victor Calanog, global head of research and strategy, real estate private markets at Manulife Investment Management, expects commercial real estate to be in a “better place compared to the last few years.”

“It appears that the landing will be relatively soft, so that should mean continued positive momentum for economic activity, benefiting leasing and income drivers, including rents and occupancies,” Calanog said.

Meanwhile, many empty office spaces are now being repurposed into residential spaces, Doug Ressler, business intelligence manager at real estate data acquisition company Yardi Matrix, previously told The Epoch Times.

“There’s been a growing change from the 1980s and 1990s, when office buildings were the primary staple of commercial real estate,” he said.

“For the past few years, there’s been a glut of office buildings, and we’ve reached a saturation point. Because demolition is often too costly, building owners are converting the property to residential, as the need for more housing continues.”

Ressler said that hotels are not seeing the traffic they once used to, whether from business or leisure travelers, with some hotels reeling under the impact of lost revenues.

As such, “building owners have opted to modify their properties to apartments. These tend to be the most cost-effective conversions with little modifications,” he said.

As for how banks may fare in a commercial real estate crash scenario, the Fed’s stress test from last year suggests institutions have enough capital, and should be able to weather the crisis.

The stress tests looked at the banks’ performance when faced with a severe global recession, a 40 percent dip in commercial real estate values, a 36 percent drop in house prices, among other factors.

The Federal Reserve announced the 2025 stress test scenarios last month, with results due to be released in June.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:40

Stellar 2Y Auction Stops Through Amid Solid Foreign Demand

Stellar 2Y Auction Stops Through Amid Solid Foreign Demand

The week's first coupon auction just took place, and in response to the Treasury offering $69BN in 2 year paper, the demand was nothing short of superb.

The high yield in today's auction was 3.984% (resulting in a coupon of 3.875%), which was the first sub-4% auction since Sept 2024 (when it was 3.520% and followed the Fed's 50bps jumbo rate cut). The auction stopped through the When Issued 3.987% by 0.3bps, the 4th through auction in the past 5.

The bid to cover was 2.656, up from 2.559 in February and the highest since December.

The internals were solid, as Indirects took down 75.8%, down from 85.5%, but above the recent average of 71.7%. And with Directs awarded 13.6%, Dealers were left holding 10.7%, above last month's near record low 6.9% below the recent average of 12.0%.

Overall, this was a very strong auction and one which obviously did not need a concession (10Y yields slid 6bps from session highs of 4.36% earlier to 4.30% at the time of the sale) to price on highly beneficial terms.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:27

Ignore The Collapsing Soft Data: Bank Of America Says "Watch What They Do, Not What They Say"

Ignore The Collapsing Soft Data: Bank Of America Says "Watch What They Do, Not What They Say"

The data - as in actual, hard data, not vibes, or sentiment, or feelings, or expectations, also known as soft data - on the US economy in the last two weeks have pushed back on growing recession concerns sparked by weaker sentiment. 

Last Monday retail sales were better than we expected as the control group rose by 1.0% m/m. This was followed by the latest industrial production (IP) which soared past expectations due to a surge in manufacturing—particularly autos and durables ex autos. Yesterday we were struck by far stronger than expected US PMI data. Yet all of this hard data has been in stark contrast to increasingly weak soft data, with today's collapse in the Conference Board's consumer confidence, where expectations plunged to a 12 year low, being the latest example.

Echoing what we say all the time about the Bank of America Fund Manager Survey, namely to ignore the schizophrenic responses offered by the respondents and just focusing on what they actually do, Bank of America economist Stephen Juneau has the same advice when it comes to this seemingly irrational divergence: Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

According to Juneau, the strength of these hard data reinforce his view that actions speaker louder than words when it comes to activity. There is little doubt that uncertainty has risen, and it has affected both business and particularly consumer sentiment. The preliminary March University of Michigan consumer survey suggests consumers are increasingly worried about a stagflation outcome. However, there is little sign that these worries are translating into slower activity yet.

The three Cs: claims, capex and card spending:  On one hand, consumers and businesses are right to be more concerned about the outlook than a couple of months ago as inflation has proven stickier than expected (incidentally a byproducts of the previous administration). But according to Bank of America, "the signal between survey-measures and real activity has deteriorated too much in recent years to be seen as reliable."

Therefore, the chief BofA economist says it is far more meaningful to avoid the "vibes" and instead watch actual hard data, such as claims, capex and card spending data for signs that activity is weakening. 

Until then, BofA remains constructive on the US economy.

 

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:20

New Dirt On Judge Boasberg Raises More Questions

New Dirt On Judge Boasberg Raises More Questions

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

The district court judge who recently blocked President Donald Trump's efforts to deport illegal alien gang members attended a suspiciously partisan legal conference just months before his ruling, according to a judicial ethics report.

Judge James Boasberg, who serves on the D.C. District Court, participated in what appears to be nothing more than a Democrat strategy session masquerading as a legal conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. 

The conference’s agenda items, “Judges in a Democracy” and “State of Democracy,” sound eerily similar to the Democrats’ tiresome 2024 campaign rhetoric about “saving democracy” — which, of course, has become the justification for their using the courts to obstruct Trump’s agenda.

“Called a ‘Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report," the document discloses that Boasberg was in attendance but offers no details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel, or what the remuneration was,’ reports Just the News. 

The outlet was “alerted to the conference and to Boasberg's attendance by a retired Democrat-appointed judge, who was concerned the July 2024 conference's focus on judges' role in a democracy was too close to a political party's theme for comfort.”

Overseen by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the ethical rules governing federal judges require that a private entity who "issues an invitation to a federal judge to attend an educational program as a speaker, panelist, or attendee and offers to pay for or reimburse that judge, in excess of $480, must disclose financial and programmatic information." The rules do not require a specific accounting for each judge, or even how much was paid to judges at all.

[…]

It is possible that his "payment" was merely reimbursement for expenses, but Boasberg did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

The entire arrangement reeks of the same swamp politics that President Trump has been fighting since day one.

Is it any surprise that after rubbing elbows with fellow liberals at this partisan powwow, Judge Boasberg decided to obstruct Trump's efforts to remove dangerous gang members from our streets? This is exactly why Americans have lost faith in our judicial system — unelected judges attending partisan conferences, then making decisions based on partisan biases, not constitutionality.

The conference was part of the Rodel Institute’s Judicial Fellowship, and each attending judge, including Boasberg, was a first-year fellow, according to the institute’s website. Notably, Rodel receives funding from the same foundations that frequently bankroll anti-Trump organizations, programs, and publications. Additionally, the institute’s faculty advisors — twenty in total — are overwhelmingly outspoken Trump critics or those who have opposed his policies. 

The Rodel Institute’s Board of Directors is stacked with Trump critics, including Ian Solomon. Co-founders Bill and Don Budinger have deep ties to Democratic organizations and candidates, with Don opposing Arizona’s immigration enforcement efforts and backing Democratic Senate candidates. Former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock was under consideration for Kamala Harris’s Cabinet, while former Arizona legislator Heather Carter abandoned the GOP and endorsed Democrats like Katie Hobbs. Jamie Woodson co-chaired a report lamenting “political disinformation” in 2016, and former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna has openly attacked Trump, calling him a “demagogue” and dismissing his legal arguments as “flimsy.”

Maybe next time, Judge Boasberg can hold his strategy sessions somewhere less obvious than a millionaire's playground. But then again, the left has never been particularly good at hiding its contempt for Trump or the rule of law. 

*  *  *

Want unrestricted access to our explosive investigative reporting on activist judges and their partisan connections? Join PJ Media VIP today and get the real story the mainstream media won't tell you. VIP members enjoy exclusive content, ad-free browsing, and uncensored coverage of the forces working against America's interests. Use code FIGHT for 60% off and help us expose judicial activism. Don't let them silence the truth—become a VIP member now!

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:00

Trump Stands By Waltz, Hegseth As Dems Gun For Their Jobs After Signal Leak

Trump Stands By Waltz, Hegseth As Dems Gun For Their Jobs After Signal Leak

Congressional Democrats are trying to turn the Jeffrey Goldberg Signal chat revelations in The Atlantic into a major national scandal, and are gunning for the jobs of Trump's national security adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that," Hegseth told reporters within hours after the controversy was unleashed Monday. This was as the National Security Council issued an initial statement saying the message thread "appears to be authentic." Meanwhile...

DEMOCRAT WARNER ASKS INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HEADS TO RELEASE ENTIRE SIGNAL CHAT IF IT IS NOT CLASSIFIED, AS THEY ASSERT

Via Reuters

Goldberg, who says he was inadvertently added to the group, apparently by Waltz, described that he was shocked to see 'war plans' discussed in real time, regarding Yemen operations.

But Hegseth has rejected the claims that highly sensitive and classified war plans were being discussed. "You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again," Hegseth said further.

Goldberg later in a MSNBC interview pushed back, saying that "precise details" of the attack on the Houthis were shared in the chat, and viewed by him.

"He can say that it wasn't a war plan, but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen, organized by CENTCOM... and [shared] with a bunch of civilian leaders," Goldberg said.

President Trump is meanwhile standing by his national security team, even as Goldberg has claimed to CNN of Hegseth, "He was texting attack plans."

On Waltz, Trump told NBC's Garrett Haake, "Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he's a good man." Trump described that it was one of Waltz's aides who added Goldberg's number to the chat.

"It was the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one," he said.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts is one among many who disagree. "There is no world in which this information should have been shared in non-secure channels," he said in a written statement. "Hegseth is in so far over his head that he is a danger to this country and our men and women in uniform."

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday also pushed back, saying these weren't war plans. She said the White House is "looking into how Goldberg's number was inadvertently added to the thread."

She further described that the White House Counsel's Office has "provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump's top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible."

She called Goldberg "well-known for his sensationalist spin" and said, "Thanks to the strong and decisive leadership of President Trump, and everyone in the group, the Houthi strikes were successful and effective." She then said, "Terrorists were killed and that’s what matters most to President Trump."

* * * 

Sean Davis of The Federalist highlights another significant issue: 'they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking'...

“Hegseth should’ve known.” What nonsense. If you can’t trust the president’s top national security adviser to initiate a conversation without secretly including dishonest and corrupt hoax-peddling journos, that is a problem that begins and ends with the national security adviser.

Signal only shows names now, not numbers. And each user determines how his own name shows up, which means if you are invited into a chat after others have been added—and one of those people is not accurately showing their name—you would have no way of knowing a previously added person was a mole.

Similarly, if a trusted friend or colleague called you to speak with you but secretly had another person on the line, or met with you in person while his phone or other device was recording or relaying the conversation to another party, you wouldn’t blame the person who was being spied on. That would be insane. You would obviously place the entirety of the blame on the individual whose incompetence or corruption or malice was the sole cause of the breach of trust and security.

Trump may still trust Waltz, but I guarantee you very few others who have to work with Waltz trust him right now, and for good reason. Even in direct personal conversations in SCIFs or the White House, I guarantee top officials will be far less open with their views given that they now know who Waltz talks to when nobody is looking. And that is a huge liability for Trump, and the country.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 11:20

Investing In Extremes: Lessons From Market Cycles

Investing In Extremes: Lessons From Market Cycles

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

As each year passes, we have come to appreciate Bob Farrell’s 10 Investment Rules. 

Perhaps this is because we have been through “a few” cycles and have seen his “rules” play out:

  1. Markets tend to return to the mean over time.

  2. Excesses in one direction will lead to an opposite excess in the other direction.

  3. There are no new eras; excesses are never permanent.

  4. Exponential rapidly rising or falling markets usually go further than you think, but they do not correct by going sideways.

  5. The public buys the most at the top and the least at the bottom.

  6. Fear and greed are stronger than long-term resolve.

  7. Markets are strongest when they are broad, and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue-chip names.

  8. Bear markets have three stages — sharp down, reflexive rebound, and a drawn-out fundamental downtrend.

  9. When all the experts and forecasts agree, something else is going to happen.

  10. Bull markets are more fun than bear markets.

Granted, these are all rather subjective general “rules”. In hindsight one can see them working, however, when you are in the “here and now” it is always somewhat more challenging.

When you identify a condition of “excess,” there is nothing to say that these excesses will end shortly thereafter. Excesses (new highs or lows) or a topping/bottoming process can go on for a lot longer than you could ever rationally comprehend… as you will see in the charts below. But eventually, these excesses do come to an end for reasons you probably didn’t think of at the time. The returns generated as they mean revert provide such beautiful asymmetry.

Take a look at the “excesses” occurring in macro investment themes listed below (no prizes for guessing that we are positioned for a reversal of these trends).

Value vs Growth

First, let’s recap on the essence of value vs growth:

One could say that the difference comes down to growth expectations. In other words, growth of future earnings.

In the US, “value” as an investment theme relative to “growth” is more or less at a 40-year low.

US value vs US growth

From a global perspective, value is as out of favour as it has ever been since the early 1970s and far eclipsing the records set during the dot-com lunacy 25 years ago. It would be interesting if the chart below went back another 50 years.

World value vs world growth

It is not just a large cap thing. The same also extends to small caps.

US small cap value vs small cap growth

What few have thought about is the ability of “growth” stocks to grow. Many of these companies are now bigger than entire national stock markets.

The Magnificent 7 now account for an eye watering 25% of the market cap of the world stock market (MSCI World).

Surely, the growth rate of these stocks must revert to that of the world stock market? Well, we think so. We believe growth expectations of the Mag 7 will go down as one of the grandest of delusions of all times. Imagine companies becoming larger than countries (when measured by market cap), and furthermore, consider how probable it is for these companies to grow faster than GDP growth rates of countries.

Let’s put it in a slightly different way, for Microsoft to double in value, it needs to attract the same value as the entire French stock market (thereabouts).

Small Caps vs Large Caps

Small caps are about as unloved as they were during the height of the TMT bubble in the late 1990s.

Russell 2000 Index vs S&P 500, both indexed to 100

World vs US Equity Markets

An extreme? Hard to argue that it isn’t. The only debate is the magnitude of the extreme.

MSCI World Ex-US vs MSCI World, both indexed to 100

Emerging Markets vs World Equity Markets

Emerging markets are as out of favour as they were in the late 1990s, after the Asian tiger and LTCM crisis.

MSCI Emerging Markets vs MSCI World, both indexed to 100

Energy vs S&P 500

From a sector perspective, energy has never had such a low weighting in the S&P 500. The chart below (the longest time frame we could find) only goes to mid-2020.

However, if we look at the relative performance of the S&P 500 Energy sector and the S&P 500, you will see that the performance is comparable to 2021 (i.e. the weighting of energy stocks in the S&P 500 hasn’t changed much since late 2020).

Gold Miners vs S&P 500

Almost a replication of the chart above, but notice the long term bottoming formation.

And mining stocks (the S&P 500 Metals and Mining Index which the XME ETF tracks) relative to the S&P 500.

Energy vs Mining

The foregoing discussion begs the question, is energy more out of favour than mining?

If you want a yes/no answer, then yes. Value is easier to find in energy oriented sectors rather than mining.

However, if you give a time frame then things are not black and white. Over the last 10 years, the answer is still yes. But over 20 years and more, there isn’t a clear winner/loser.

S&P 500 Energy Index (XLE) vs S&P Metals and Mining (XME), both indexed to 100

Commodities vs S&P 500

To round it all off, taking the S&P GSCI (the Goldman Commodity Index) as a proxy for the commodity sector (only because it has the longest history)…

Taking the last 35 years, commodities relative to equities are as toxic as they were in the late 1990s. We remember that time. No one wanted to touch them with a 40-foot barge pole, least of all commodity sensitive stocks.

Of course, there is this famous ultra-long term chart produced by Goering and Rozencwajg:

And this one:

Granted, it is some five years old but levels have not changed any since then (using charts above as a proxy).

So in light of the charts above, what is the market implying?

In essence, the market is as perfectly positioned for benign inflation and relatively low interest rates over the next decade as it has ever been over the last couple of generations (at least).

One could also say that the market believes that the inflation we have observed since COVID is transitory and interest rates will be lower a couple of years from now.

Under conditions of low/benign inflation or deflation, commodities and commodity related equities underperform the general equity market (take the S&P 500 as a proxy for the general market).

So if you believe that inflation will surprise to the upside, then you should have a heavy bias towards commodities or commodity sensitive equities in your portfolio.

You get a fair appreciation why our portfolios have almost entirely weighted towards emerging markets, value, and commodity sensitive stocks.

We didn’t so much as look from the top down and decide we want to be these sectors/markets/themes, rather they came up as offering fantastic value from a bottom up perspective. However, from a top down perspective (as in looking at the charts above), we gain an appreciation of the huge asymmetry offered in these sectors/markets/themes.

Of course, it is all easy from an armchair. But when you are at the coal face and patiently waiting, that armchair does start to resemble a rocking chair.

A good moment to remind ourselves that good things take time.

Gold vs S&P 500: The Canary in the Coal Mine

Remember the quiz about the two securities at the start of this publication? It was gold and the S&P 500, specifically gold vs. the S&P 500 indexed to 100 at the start of the time period. So when it is rising (however you define “rising”), gold is outperforming the S&P 500 and vice versa.

Notice the duration of the trends, and don’t be too clinical in terms of how one defines a trend — just eyeball the chart. Trends tend to last for 10 years at least.

Yes, gold really did go up some 7x relative to the S&P 500 from 2000 to 2012.

Is that a bottom being hammered out ever since 2018? Over the last three years, it does look like that trading range is compressing.

Putting on our “technical analysis” hats…

Given…

  • the length of time for which gold has underperformed the S&P 500 (15 years),

  • the magnitude to which gold has underperformed the S&P 500 (50%),

  • the tightening of the trading range over the last 3yrs,

  • And how close gold relative to the S&P 500 is to breaking to a four-year high…

We believe that a bull market is on the verge of starting for which the duration and magnitude will surprise everyone (probably including ourselves).

At a minimum, we would expect to see gold up by 100% (relative to the S&P 500) come 2030.

At this point you may be wondering, where does the canary come into it? Gold typically leads the behavior of other commodities.

Gold spot and Goldman Sachs Commodity Index

Notice the gap that has opened up between gold and commodity prices? We believe it will close by commodity prices rising to play catchup with gold.

Anyway, higher commodity prices mean higher inflation, which also means higher interest rates. In that environment, you don’t want to be in growth stocks, least of all the Magnificent 7.

*  *  *

The Western system is undergoing substantial changes, and the signs of moral decay, corruption, and increasing debt are impossible to ignore. With the Great Reset in motion, the United Nations, World Economic Forum, IMF, WHO, World Bank, and Davos man are all promoting a unified agenda that will affect us all. To get ahead of the chaos, download our free PDF report “Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time” by clicking here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 11:00

Conference Board Consumer Expectations Plunge To 12 Year Lows; Inflation Expectations Rise

Conference Board Consumer Expectations Plunge To 12 Year Lows; Inflation Expectations Rise

Another day, another sentiment measure disappoints...

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence headline print fell from 100.1 (upwardly revised) to 92.9 (below 94.0 exp). Under the hood, it was not pretty with the measure of expectations for the next six months dropped nearly 10 points to 65.2, the lowest in 12 years, while a gauge of present conditions declined more modestly.

Source: Bloomberg

“Consumer confidence declined for a fourth consecutive month in March, falling below the relatively narrow range that had prevailed since 2022,” said Stephanie Guichard, Senior Economist, Global Indicators at The Conference Board. 

“Of the Index’s five components, only consumers’ assessment of present labor market conditions improved, albeit slightly. Views of current business conditions weakened to close to neutral. Consumers’ expectations were especially gloomy, with pessimism about future business conditions deepening and confidence about future employment prospects falling to a 12-year low. 

Meanwhile, consumers’ optimism about future income—which had held up quite strongly in the past few months—largely vanished, suggesting worries about the economy and labor market have started to spread into consumers’ assessments of their personal situations.”

Labor market conditions stabilized very modestly from their very recent downtrend...

Source: Bloomberg

Likely in response to recent market volatility, consumers turned negative about the stock market for the first time since the end of 2023. 

In March, only 37.4% expected stock prices to rise over the year ahead - down nearly 10 percentage points from February and 20 percentage points from the high reached in November 2024. On the flip side, 44.5% expected stock prices to decline (up 11 ppts from February and over 22 ppts more than November 2024). 

Meanwhile, average 12-month inflation expectations rose again - from 5.8% in February to 6.2% in March - as consumers remained concerned about high prices for key household staples like eggs and the impact of tariffs... still jumping less than the chaos monkeys at UMich...

Finally, we noted that March’s fall in confidence was driven by consumers over 55 years old and, to a lesser extent, those between 35 and 55 years old. By contrast, confidence rose slightly among consumers under 35, as an uptick in their assessments of the present situation more than offset gloomier expectations. The decline was also broad-based across income groups, with the only exception being households earning more than $125,000 a year.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:12

Pages