Massie For Governor? GOP's Libertarian Firebrand Talks Political Future

On Friday the Ron Paul Institute (RPI) has highlighted an important and fresh interview touching on the Republican Rep's political future: Governor Thomas Massie? - RPI's Adam Dick asks.

"A run for governor may be in the future for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), but only if he first wins his May 19 Republican primary contest — the next step in his race for reelection to the United States House of Representatives," the RPI report says.

But, "If Massie loses next month, the seven-term representative says he expects he will call it quits on working in government, stating he would consider the loss as “a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm."

Getty Images

President Trump has on more than once occasion personally called out the Libertarian firebrand for vocally opposing the White House on various key issues, and especially most recently on the Iran war.

Massie has been one of the very view GOP members to join Dems in trying to force a Congressional vote to impose limits on Trump's military actions in Iran. As a reminder:

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) brought a war powers resolution on Iran to the House floor less than a week after Trump joined Israeli leaders in launching massive strikes against Iran in late February. It failed by a vote of 212-219, with four Democrats bucking their party to oppose it: Reps. Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Golden (Maine), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Juan Vargas (Calif.). 

He remains one of the few outspoken 'non-interventionist' Republican members of the House. On the Senate side, Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, is Libertarian-leaning and condemns foreign adventurism and 'wars of choice'.

As for a potential future run for Governor of Kentucky, Massie hinted at it here.

If U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie loses his upcoming primary against a Republican opponent backed by President Donald Trump, you'll see a whole lot less of him.

"If I lose on May 19, I am not doing any more government ever," he told University of Louisville students April 6 at an event on campus. "... It's a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm."

But if he wins, Frankfort could be on the mind of the longtime congressman from Northern Kentucky, who's emerged during Trump's second term as one of Congress' most consequential members.

During a question-and-answer portion of his forum, hosted by the school's College Republicans group, an attendee asked Massie if he would ever consider running for governor. Gov. Andy Beshear is ineligible to run for a third time as he eyes a presidential campaign, leaving the seat open at the end of 2027.

And then came this:

Massie wouldn't run for a U.S. Senate seat — "it's the same circus with different clowns, and also they don't have a discharge petition, which is kind of a neat thing to do" — but he sees the appeal of the governor's mansion.

"If I do win (the upcoming primary), I would consider it," responded Massie, who would be up for reelection in 2028 if he wins the 2026 race. He pointed to an old friend he'd served with in Congress for three terms as an example.

"His name was Ron DeSantis," Massie said. "What I've seen him achieve in Florida is inspiring and a lot of people want to move to that state, so I do believe that you could make a difference."

Grant County GOP put on a great Lincoln Day Dinner last night.

It was great to be among so many friends, including State Representative @SavannahLMaddox, in such a beautiful venue. pic.twitter.com/cb9gmSO4JR

— Thomas Massie for Congress (@MassieforKY) April 11, 2026

Massie would have a real shot, given he remains quite popular in Kentucky - but he has an uphill battle in terms of reelection to Congress given Trump's political machine has turned against him.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 21:00

Treasury, IRS Propose Rules For 1 Percent Remittance Tax On Some Money Sent To Foreign Countries

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury proposed regulations on Friday regarding the new excise tax, established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on certain remittances made abroad.

The Internal Revenue Service in Washington on March 10, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, a 1 percent remittance transfer tax applies to remittances sent from the United States to recipients in foreign countries when the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or other similar physical instrument to the remittance transfer provider,” the IRS said in an April 10 statement.

“The sender is liable for the tax, and remittance transfer providers are required to collect the remittance transfer tax from certain senders, make semimonthly deposits, and file quarterly returns with the IRS. If the remittance transfer provider does not collect the tax from the sender, the tax becomes a liability of the remittance transfer provider.”

The proposed regulations clarify how the remittance transfer tax would be applied.

According to the notice of the proposed rule, the remittance tax is applicable to all eligible transfers irrespective of whether the amount is actually disbursed to the designated recipient.

In case a remittance transfer expires or is canceled and the remittance transfer provider refunds the amount to the sender, the sender can recoup the tax by filing a claim for refund with the IRS.

The tax does not apply to any remittance transfer in which the funds come from a credit or debit card issued in the United States. It is also inapplicable if the funds being sent are withdrawn from an account held in a financial institution.

Any amount that is ultimately transferred to a designated recipient will be taxed, the notice clarified.

The rules affect remittance transfer providers, such as credit unions, banks, and money services businesses, as well as their agents.

There are roughly 600 money services businesses licensed as money transmitters in the United States, out of which more than 200 operate through around 500,000 authorized agents, the IRS said, citing data from the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System.

Between 2019 and 2024, money transfers to domestic and foreign destinations via money services businesses increased from $1.3 to $4 trillion.

“Money transmitted to foreign destinations (remittance transfers) accounted for 9 to 25 percent of the total money transmissions, equaling $236 billion in 2019, growing to almost $1 trillion in 2021 and 2022, but decreasing to $365 billion in 2024,” the notice said.

“Over 2019–2024, annual remittance transfers to foreign destinations through [money service businesses] averaged $520 billion. The average individual money transfer size ranged from $290 to $740 over the same time period.”

The IRS said in its statement that remittance transfer providers must report the new remittance transfer tax via Form 720.

In an Oct. 7 statement, the IRS said that limited penalty relief will be available for remittance transfer providers who fail to deposit the collected remittance taxes in the first three quarters of this year.

“Treasury and the IRS understand there might be challenges implementing the new law and have determined it is in the interest of sound tax administration to provide limited penalty relief related to remittance transfer tax deposits,” the agency said.

Tax Impacts

In a July 1 report, the Center for Global Development said that even at 1 percent, the remittance tax would hit poor countries “hard.” The new tax not only raises costs by 1 percent but can also lead to a dip in remittances.

Mexico stands to lose the most due to the tax imposition, with the loss being more than $1.5 billion per year, the report said. Other nations majorly affected by the tax include India, China, Vietnam, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador.

“Central American countries are projected to suffer the greatest loss relative to their gross national income (GNI), with El Salvador—a close ally of the Trump administration—projected to lose the equivalent of 0.6 percent of GNI,” the report said.

“Where the effects of the tax are significant relative to GNI, countries could experience lower household incomes, weaker consumer demand, and increased exchange rate pressures.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform blamed remittances for causing the United States’ economy to lose at least $200 billion per year, according to a July 22 report.

This amount is more than enough to run the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department combined. It is also four times the amount spent on the Department of Justice.

“Remittances represent a substantial loss to the U.S. economy. The money that is sent out of the United States is money that is not spent on goods and services in the United States,” the report said.

“The loss of money remitted also means no benefits from the sales, excise, and restaurant taxes, etc. attached to those goods and services. Indeed, remittances carry a significant opportunity cost.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 19:50

All High Earners Need To Know About The Mega Backdoor Roth

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If done the right way, a mega backdoor Roth can allow investors to save in a workplace retirement plan such as a 401(k) beyond the typical contribution limits.

High earners can use a mega backdoor Roth to save beyond normal retirement contribution limits. Vyaseleva Elena/Shutterstock

It also can allow investors to save in a Roth account when they otherwise would not have been able to do so because of certain restrictions.

So let’s take a closer look at this complex, but potentially beneficial strategy for high earners.

What Is a Mega Backdoor Roth?

The mega backdoor Roth is a strategy that involves making after-tax contributions to a 401(k) and then making a conversion of those contributions into either a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k).

Many people take the mega backdoor Roth approach because they can’t contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits, or they’ve already maxed out their traditional 401(k) via salary deferrals and want to make additional contributions.

In 2026, you can’t contribute to a Roth IRA at all if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is $168,000 as a single filer or $252,000 if married and filing jointly.

How Does a Mega Backdoor Roth Work?

If your plan administrator allows it, you can make after-tax contributions to your traditional 401(k) and then convert those contributions to a Roth IRA via an in-service distribution. Or, if the plan allows it, you can convert those after-tax contributions into a Roth 401(k) portion of the plan.

The key here is after-tax contributions.

After-tax 401(k) contributions are different from Roth 401(k) contributions and pretax contributions, which are associated with traditional 401(k)s.

But after-tax contributions may allow you to contribute to a workplace retirement plan like a 401(k) beyond the annual contribution limits for pretax and Roth contributions.

So let’s take a close look at these contribution limits for 2026.

You can contribute up to $24,500 in pretax and/or Roth contributions to your 401(k) if you’re under the age of 50.

Because of catch-up contributions, those aged 50 or older can contribute up to $32,500.

If your plan allows for super catch-up contributions, those between the ages of 60 and 63 can contribute up to $35,750.

But by factoring in after-tax contributions, those below age 50 may be able to save up to $72,000. Those between the ages of 50 to 59 or 64-plus can save up to $80,000. And those between the ages of 60 to 63 can save up to $83,250 if the plan allows super catch-up contributions.

But any employer contributions would count toward these limits.

Drawbacks to the Mega Backdoor Roth

Taking the mega backdoor Roth route can leave you with a hefty tax bill. This is because when you make qualified withdrawals in retirement, any investment earnings would be taxed as ordinary income.

And the earnings portion of the conversion into a Roth IRA would be subject to taxation at the time of the conversion.

In addition, your capacity to make after-tax contributions could be restricted by IRS nondiscrimination rules that affect highly compensated employees. These rules may limit how much highly compensated employees can contribute compared to non-highly compensated employees.

For 2026, you’re a highly-compensated employee if you made $160,000 or more in 2025 compensation, or if you owned more than 5 percent of the company at any time during the current or previous year.

And some plans don’t allow after-tax contributions to be eligible for employer matches.

And that brings us to one of the biggest downsides. Your plan administrator simply may not allow you to engage in the mega backdoor Roth strategy. Some employers won’t let you move money from the 401(k) and into a Roth IRA while you’re still employed by them. Or they may not allow you to transfer money from the after-tax portion of your plan into a Roth 401(k) part of the plan.

So you need to contact your plan administrator or human resources department to learn what their rules are.

The Bottom Line

Many high earners face some barriers when it comes to contributing to a Roth account. But this is when the mega backdoor Roth can come into play. This is a strategy involving making after-tax contributions to a traditional 401(k) and converting those contributions into a Roth IRA or a Roth 401(k) within the plan. But there are a few obstacles; not all companies let you take these steps within their 401(k) or other type of workplace retirement plan. There also may be some important tax implications, and the overall process could be highly complex. That’s why you need to be interested enough to brush up on your plan’s rules and take the backdoor route approach the right way. So it’s highly recommended you engage in this strategy with the guidance of a qualified tax professional.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2026. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 18:40

Oil Jumps, Stocks Dump As Peace Talks Fail, Hormuz Blockade Looms

Before the 'official' futures markets opened, the risk-off tone (due to the failed peace talks and Trump's threat to blockade Iranian vessels) was very evident in FX and crypto markets.

Even given the usual caveats about thin liquidity, AUD/USD is down around 1%, a classic growth-sensitive barometer flashing warning signs, while EUR/USD is weaker by roughly 0.5%.

The moves point to a softer tone for risk assets and sure enough bitcoin is down notably, but still up from pre-ceasefire levels...

All eyes are of course on the oil markets where hyperliquid perps were signaling a major jump higher as traders react to peace talks falling apart over the weekend, and the US moving to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response.

WTI opened up over 8% surging back above $100 (topping $105)...

European gas futures also surged more than 10% as the trading day for the product expanded to 21 hours, from 10 hours, on Monday.

The timeline for the start of efforts to unwind the extreme supply shocks created by the war looks to be getting longer and longer. 

And of course, as goes oil, so goes stocks etc...

Since the war started, markets have increasingly taken their cues from crude prices given their far-reaching consequences. Surging energy costs have driven both the pullback in risk appetite as an immediate reaction to the conflict, as well as investors’ longer-term anticipation for a pickup in inflation and slowdown in consumption. 

The extent of the divergence (between oil and stocks) has now surpassed levels seen in 2022. 

But, even as the bond-stock-oil correlations started to creak on Friday...

...they are back in sync on this thin Sunday evening with S&P futures down over 1% for now...

Treasury futures prices are down notably (implying around a 5bps jump in 10Y Yields)...

The stronger dollar has pushed gold back down below $4700...

Obviously, investors will continue to monitor Middle East tensions in the coming week, while monthly reports from OPEC and the IEA will add some insight into how the Iran war is affecting the oil market.

Several major US banks are due to report earnings, where any commentary on the impact from the conflict will also be closely watched.

US data releases include producer prices, industrial production and existing home sales, while the Fed’s Beige Book will offer additional color on the health of the economy.

China is also due to report first-quarter GDP plus retail sales and industrial production data for March.

As Morgan Stanley' Michael Wilson warned: The final phase of a correction is rarely easy and could require another re-test for markets, particularly if rates or bond volatility push higher again.

It may be about to get more difficult again.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 18:00

"Create A Crisis": American Association Of University Professors Sponsors Anti-ICE Campaign

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Create a crisis.”

That call is made in a new campaign sponsored by the American Association of University Professors to force “colleges to drop their contracts with ICE’s key corporate enablers.”

Despite years of criticism over the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives and libertarians, university professors continue to double down on far-left ideology that is now an orthodoxy in higher education.

I previously wrote about the AAUP’s ideological shift in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. After that book, the AAUP then selected Todd Wolfson, a far-left activist, as its new president.

Wolfson ran on the pledge to make AAUP a “fighting organization” for social change.

After his selection, Wolfson has called Trump supporters “fascists” and demanded boycotts of Israel.

Given that history, it was little surprise to see the AAUP’s sponsorship of this campaign, as reported by the College Fix.

The campaign is also funded by  Coefficient Giving, associated with liberal billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. They have been criticized for reportedly funding groups pushing defund police and other radical agendas.

AAUP joined this campaign with Young Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University. It includes a toolkit instructing students to “create a crisis for university admin through an escalating campaign.”

The campaign seeks to organize to combat the “Trump regime” and its “terrorism”: “When students and workers join together in action, we can force our schools to stop funding and normalizing ICE collaborators and take down the whole regime.”

They are targeting companies such as Enterprise, Flock, ICE Air Carriers, Hilton, and Target.

The campaign states further that “ICE, and the Trump regime generally, cannot function without the consent and collaboration of the business world. Breaking companies from ICE is the central axis for generating enough leverage to stop the regime’s terrorization campaign.”

So university professors are funding a campaign that actively seeks to create a crisis on campuses. It takes a position as an organization that immigration enforcement is a form of terrorism. The silence among faculty is deafening. Rather than objecting that the AAUP should focus on issues related to academic freedom and protections for its members, there have been virtually no objections to the organization’s ideological agenda.

It is evidence of the new orthodoxy in higher education and the refusal of administrators and faculty to make any meaningful change in their intolerance for opposing views.

Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echo chamber.

A Georgetown study found that only 9% of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters in the new poll.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks.

According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

The hostility to opposing views is impacting our students. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views.

In the meantime, the small number of dissenting faculty have no real voice, particularly among legal academics. I have previously written about the similar liberal agenda of the American Bar Association despite plunging membership among lawyers. The ABA now represents just 17 percent of the bar.

The AAUP currently has only 44,000 to 45,00 members. There are an estimated 1.5 million university and college professors in the United States. Both the ABA and AAUP have become captive to the most ideological elements of their membership. That agenda has overwhelmed the original apolitical mission of these groups.

This orthodoxy will continue until donors refuse to support universities that do not take meaningful action to restore diversity in the faculty ranks. The AAUP’s radical agenda is only the latest example of how higher education remains a hardened ideological silo. These faculty members have shown again and again that they are unwilling to change this culture.

Only donors can force reform by cutting off their contributions or directing them to schools with a proven commitment to intellectual diversity.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 17:30